UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[PeanutGallery]

I wouldn't want Ebert or Taylor as a barista to serve coffee, never mind asking them for advice on the law.

[exiledscouser]

Legal maxim*

"He who represents himself has a fool for a client".

FACT

*Blacks illuminati Masonic edition 1872

[ArthurWankspittle]

If Tom Crawford is given leave to appeal, won't he need a barrister to represent him at court?

If you mean, is it a legal requirement to have a barrister, I think the answer is no, it isn't. He can run his own appeal, as far as I know, if he wants.

But I think Tom's best chance of winning would be by taking proper legal advice, at the very least. A solicitor experienced in this field could find arguments the court would recognise. A barrister might be better that Tom at presenting the case at court.

My feeling is when you get to this level of law, you have to be spot on with everything or your opponent will pull you up on the slightest fault and get your case rejected. At best you could re-apply, pay some more fees etc. This time or next time the opposition will say you are doing it deliberately to stall the case. Tom will get walked all over by a real barrister and it will just add to the costs.

[Normal Wisdom]

Apparently Tom lost but he won really. But he really, really lost.

https://www.facebook.com/craig.crawford ... =2&theater

http://m.nottinghampost.com/Judge-refus ... story.html

[guilty]

A copy of the judgement would be more useful than the garbled video from Tom.

His appeal has been refused, it seems. Why is everyone saying, "Wow, brill!" and "Congratulations" ?

[Bones]

Judge Nigel Godsmark QC refused him permission to appeal against a possession order on his Carlton home at Nottingham County Court on Thursday.



He said: "The order that I make is that the permission to appeal is refused.

"The suspension of the execution of the warrant for possession (of Mr Crawford's home) is therefore lifted."

But outside court, Mr Crawford said he would not give up the fight - and that the result was a victory for him.

He said: "The original possession order was obtained fraudulently, so I can't appeal anyway.

"The warrant has also run out of time, so that's a dead duck."


Read more at http://www.nottinghampost.com/Judge-ref ... JVXPesV.99


Well done to the two Micheals, Guy, Celyon and of course Tom you really showed them didn't you

[wanglepin]

I'm scratching my head a bit here bones. Did the barrister Nicole Sandells who has been representing B&B turn up or not?

[longdog]

I'm scratching my head a bit here bones. Did the barrister Nicole Sandells who has been representing B&B turn up or not?

Given that today's 'hearing' was simply the judge delivering in person a judgement that had already been communicated to the parties involved perhaps the B&B decided it wasn't worth the cost.

[wanglepin]

Apparently Tom lost but he won really. But he really, really lost.

No doubt this victory will end up on the goofers success list hall of fame where it will have pride and place as a sticky to be viewed by all Ceylon worshiper in awe and wonder and a lesson in "how it is done". That is, get into more debt free.
A spokesperson said ' if were not for all the forensic analysis of the court documents by Mr Taylor and Mr Ebert this case would have collapsed at the first fence. However,it was only because of the hours and hour of scrutiny put in by these two representatives for Mr Crawford,that this has enabled this action to go on and on and on and on and........'

[wanglepin]

Given that today's 'hearing' was simply the judge delivering in person a judgement that had already been communicated to the parties involved perhaps the B&B decided it wasn't worth the cost.

I ask because of the two confusing comments made at the end of the report and what Tom Crawford has said. Tom Crawford states they didn't turn up "because they would have been held in contempt". A post modae at the end of the newspaper report backs this up. But then along comes this guy;

Dave911 | May 14 2015, 11:50AM
@adrianstowe Are you saying that the above article is completely incorrect and that the Judge ruled in his favour? B&B where represented by Nicole Sandells who is a Barrister so your claim that B&B barristers could not attend court is false.Bottom line provide proof to back up your claims or your just spouting nonsense. If he has lost then its now 3 times his case has been dissmissed and he should accept he is wrong and move all that he is doing is increasing his debt by continually fighting a lost cause.

Read more: http://www.nottinghampost.com/Judge-ref ... z3a6xI5Zmj

[vampireLOREN]

Judge Nigel Godsmark QC refused him permission to appeal against a possession order on his Carlton home at Nottingham County Court on Thursday.



He said: "The order that I make is that the permission to appeal is refused.

"The suspension of the execution of the warrant for possession (of Mr Crawford's home) is therefore lifted."

But outside court, Mr Crawford said he would not give up the fight - and that the result was a victory for him.

He said: "The original possession order was obtained fraudulently, so I can't appeal anyway.

"The warrant has also run out of time, so that's a dead duck."


Read more at http://www.nottinghampost.com/Judge-ref ... JVXPesV.99


Well done to the two Micheals, Guy, Celyon and of course Tom you really showed them didn't you

Tom is mastering the techniques of "NEWSPEAK", he still has far to go but is on the road.
I first met the esteemed Ebert in 2006/2007 when he appeared at the Barnet Magistrates court (now sadly closed down ) I also witnessed his performance at Wood Green Crown Court. He has passed much Learned opinions to others and it is heart warming to watch. It is really like these idiots do this for our amusement...

[guilty]

"The suspension of the execution of the warrant for possession (of Mr Crawford's home) is therefore lifted."

So the warrant will be executed and his home is going to be repossessed.

Tom says: "The warrant has also run out of time, so that's a dead duck."

Errr. No. If the original possession date has passed then the Bank will get a new warrant (because the possession order has already been granted). That's purely an administrative action and it doesn't require any further Court hearings.

Wow. Brill. Congratulations.

[PeanutGallery]

My word. I wonder what Tom will have to say when the bailiffs turn up to evict him after this great 'victory'. Of course chances are we won't know because it will be done on the quiet so as to prevent it being stopped by mob rule again. Tom won't get a notice of eviction nor will he get any opportunity to put in place a plan for where to go, he'll simply be turfed out onto the streets.

The man is delusional, the Judge only remarked that the amount of arrears, which now seems to exceed the value of the property at auction, hadn't been proven to that Judge's satisfaction and Tom thought it meant they were wiped out. Tom is going to come out of this penniless, homeless and with only himself to blame.

[Bones]

As the decision was emailed to Tom and he wants to be as transparent as possible (well according to his daughter), he has no reason not to post this "victory" in full online.

Of course he won't... Wonder where Ceylon and the two Mickey's were.. Are the rats running away fast from this sinking ship already.

Respect to Guy for at least standing with Tom after this "victory"

Very quiet on GOODF about the "victory"

[wanglepin]

Tom is going to come out of this penniless, homeless and with only himself to blame.

I don't know about that Peanut. He may now turn to someone more keyed into the real court system like Roger Hayes who knows how the c'est que vie act 1666 really works, don't you know? Roger Hayes doesn't mess around with these judges, he will go right for the throat and tell someone else to "arrest a that man", while he scarpers from the courtroom quicker that you can say 'eviction' and that will be that.

[Bones]

Bertie has now posted this success on GOODF

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... VSOBoFwbqA

[PeanutGallery]

I'm waiting for the thread to appear on GOODF I imagine it will be titled, "Tom Crawford wins court batle!!!!!!!!!!" (edited Bertie just posted basically the same only spelled correctly I thought it might be put up by Ceylon (hence the use of exclamation marks)) and go on to educate how being refused permission to appeal a decision made in court, that you would be evicted, means that now you won't, even though the court has just told you that it's not going to change it's mind, which means the original decision stands.

Tom you didn't get permission to bring your claim that the mortgage was fraudulent, the court has looked at it and said it wasn't. Bradford and Bingley did you a favour by not asking for costs (I mean it's not much of a favour because you already owe more than your property is worth) but at least they didn't heap more debt onto you.

This is what is going to go down. B & B will apply for a new warrant, they will ask for the matter to be expedited to the High Court or for a no notice warrant, they will cite the eviction protests as a compelling reason for you not to be told when you will be evicted.

They will turn up, most likely when you've gone out to go to the shops or take Sue somewhere nice and move in. The first thing they will do is change the locks and then start tinning up the property. You'll come home, probably when this is half way through and try to force your way back in, but you won't get in. You'll call up your Sovrun mates, but they'll do exactly the same as when Lee got his boat lifted, they'll video and talk and spout off about the law but they won't change the reality.

You'll find yourself homeless for the first night, unless someone you know puts you up. Then you'll have to argue with the council about why you deserve a property. Maybe the press will be there and document how you are now living rough. Maybe you'll get a place in a cheap B&B to tide you over. The council may help, although they may not because lets face it you brought this on yourself.

You'll continue to blame the banks and will probably hold a grudge against them till your dying day, but the person you have to blame for your position is yourself Tom. When this started you were ahead, your property was worth a lot more than the mortgage and you could have made out quite well. But now you won't.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Methinks Tom's caper should be posted on GOOFs under the "Success Stories" section.

[Bones]

On the subject of an application for costs.

I thought in possession cases the bank do not apply for an order for costs as the t&c's include a clause that the borrower agrees that costs incurred can be added to the amount owed.

[fat frank]

so let me get this straight

the judge ruled he cant appeal, the possession order still stands, all the judge has done has lifted the suspension of the possession order, so all they have to do is reapply for a warrant of eviction and he is out

and they are classing that as a success