littleFred wrote:
A bloke with long hair and megaphone, northern accent, says the noise from the crowd is impeding Tom's chances of winning his appeal, so he asks the crowd to be peaceful.
Nottingham Post wrote:Mr Crawford, who has been embroiled in an ongoing battle with Bradford and Bingley bank over his mortgage, appeared at Nottingham County Court to seek permission to appeal against a possession order issued against his Carlton home.
If the report is accurate. a "victory" today would merely give him permission to appeal. To grant this, the judge would have to be convinced that Tom's case wasn't totally hopeless. Tom would then face the harder task of actually winning an appeal.
Nottingham Post wrote:Mr Crawford, who has been embroiled in an ongoing battle with Bradford and Bingley bank over his mortgage, appeared at Nottingham County Court to seek permission to appeal against a possession order issued against his Carlton home.
If the report is accurate. a "victory" today would merely give him permission to appeal. To grant this, the judge would have to be convinced that Tom's case wasn't totally hopeless. Tom would then face the harder task of actually winning an appeal.
Oh right - I missed that.
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Meanwhile back at Retardsville landlubber offers this little gem:
Difficult to see just what was going on at the court after 15.00, but judging from the number of police present, it seems that the judgement was already known prior to the hearing? Unless I haven't comprehended what was happening?
There is also a nice photograph on that page which is titled: Peter of England educating some POs
I do hope Peter remembered to take the Clearance Hotline mobile with him and to make sure it was fully charged otherwise there may be some unhappy customers wanting to speak to him when he gets back home to man the phone.
Last edited by rumpelstilzchen on Fri May 01, 2015 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
Given the mood outside court and the presence of the mob I would be very surprised if the Judge actually gave a verdict and didn't reserve judgement until later. Certainly their is a public order reason to reserve judgement, if it's likely to go against Tom, as it will allow the mob to disperse before the bad news is confirmed.
One thing I have never been able to understand is why the UK freeple believe that a huge mob of supporters attending one of their court appearances will have some effect on the decision. The case will be decided on merit.
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
I think it's quite obvious, they want to bully the Judge into giving them the verdict they want, rather than risk the Judge giving them the one they deserve.
rumpelstilzchen wrote:One thing I have never been able to understand is why the UK freeple believe that a huge mob of supporters attending one of their court appearances will have some effect on the decision. The case will be decided on merit.
I can sort of understand the mob approach at a Council Tax hearing or even a possession hearing in that it may delay the inevitable but at a case which has been instigated by the footler, who presumably wants the court do do something for him, then it seems massively counter-productive.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
PeanutGallery wrote:I think it's quite obvious, they want to bully the Judge into giving them the verdict they want, rather than risk the Judge giving them the one they deserve.
Somebody really needs to explain to them that if the law is x then x will be applied. A room full of supporters will not turn x into y
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
longdog wrote:
I can sort of understand the mob approach at a Council Tax hearing or even a possession hearing in that it may delay the inevitable but at a case which has been instigated by the footler, who presumably wants the court do do something for him, then it seems massively counter-productive.
That second video, imo, shows that they are not really interested in a decision based on what the position of the law is but are more interested in a decision reached by mob rule.
Last edited by rumpelstilzchen on Fri May 01, 2015 4:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
Re: Latest NEWS day of Common Law action 1st May 5.03 pm
Postby bertiebert » Fri May 01, 2015 5:14 pm
Roger Hayes just came out of the "court" said looks like Some doors have been opened looks like Bradford and Bingley dont want to evict him..
Roger suggested it was because of the people supporting have made the difference..
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
rumpelstilzchen wrote:Well, there you go, I've just been proven wrong:
Re: Latest NEWS day of Common Law action 1st May 5.03 pm
Postby bertiebert » Fri May 01, 2015 5:14 pm
Roger Hayes just came out of the "court" said looks like Some doors have been opened looks like Bradford and Bingley dont want to evict him..
Roger suggested it was because of the people supporting have made the difference..
I would assume restart the mortgage?, if he has any sense its a good offer. But .....lets see, it I expect will be adjourned for "discussion".
If people from Poland are called Poles Why are aren't people from Holland called Holes?
Normal Wisdom wrote:Interesting that Tom appears to be basing his appeal, at least in part, on the specific facts of his case, i.e. the endowment policy, change of terms etc and not only (or at all) on the "all mortgages are fraud", "documents are fake" nonsense that GOODF support.
I did mention some days ago that Crawford couldn't introduce the Guy Taylor goofer crap as any kind of evidence or defence as, according to Crawford, the fraudulent court documents and stamps were the topic of an "ongoing special Police investigation" . I simply do not beileve this would have been allowed because as the Police often say; ' We cannot comment, as that is part of an ongoing investigation and we do not want to jeopardize the investigation'
If Tom had tried to submit such claims , it would have proven to me that Tom Crawford had to have been lying about the alleged " police investigation into the forensically scrutinize court documentation and stamps".
Tom has come out of court and has addressed his supporters. According to him it now all depends on whether the judge has listened to the truth or listened to the barrister. http://bambuser.com/v/5477141?v=m
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.