The Second Battle of Crawford's Castle, a Nottingham Farce...

[Bones]

Patrick James Irwin For the first time in ages ...... My Heart is Happy for your news .
In the famous words of ??? The Only Way is Up smile emoticon smile emoticon smile emoticon
2 hrs · Like · 2

Credit, where credit is due. It looks like some of the Crawford Fan Club are more educated than I had given them credit.

Here we have Patrick, who quotes that well known philosopher and world famous Yazz



https://youtu.be/UtKADQnjQmc

[Philistine]

They are happy that they have now got the warrant in eviction land and consider it another win in the battle to get the house back. As of yet The Crawfords have still yet to disclose the warrant to their faithful followers



Alexander Charles Thomson It was county court rather than High Court from beginning to end, then. County court staff in uniform attending the eviction, and as today's FoI disclosure reveals, planning between police and UKAR happened in MAY, and was held IN the court …
3 hrs · Edited · Like · 4


Amanda Pike Alexander Charles Thomson in court? how do you know that honey? x
2 hrs · Like · 1

Cracks starting to appear.

This mob seem to have hit on the idea that only a High Court Enforcement Agent can enforce a warrant for eviction.

WRONG.

Is that what it is? I can't figure out what they think has happened.

[YiamCross]

A Quatloos troll snuck onto the Bastion Radio Friday night show to discuss the TC case:

https://youtu.be/xZmE_8nMlGE

Well it was a good effort but what can you do? What due process? Doesn't matter what this idiot has seen, he doesn't see "due process" because no process could meet his criteria for what's correct.

Nobody seems to know where this possession order is? Tom said he got the warrant in the post, on video, his own words from his own mouth. What more do they want? The police lied and said they had the paperwork with them when they didn't? I saw and heard no such thing. They seemed to be saying it's not down to them to produce it but they were trying. Tom has posted that he has got a copy today and somehow this is just not good enough.

The warrant should be there, should be available from the court? Well it is but you have to go to the court and use the "due process" to obtain it. It's not nailed to the door for all and sundry to see.

Then we get onto the conspiracy theory, they could have just made one up, how do we know it's the real one issued by the court and not something they've created since to cover up the fact there never was one.

"They just made one up on the spot just to shut him up, let's come up with a warrant now. Or is that the original warrant signed by the original judge who was on the case or have they just, ooh, alright, let's do another warrant. Because they can't just do that, I mean we see bailiffs doing this all the time inthis country. They make up their own paperwork. They print off legal forms using West's law website to get paperwork to print off warrants...." Really? Can you produce some evidence to back that up or is it just something you heard someone say. Because the fact is that without the right paperwork, warrant, order, unicorn, whatever you want to call it, the police won't turn up allow the baliffs to take possession of the house. That's your interpretation of it? No, that's the fact of the matter.

There's no way to win with conspiracy nuts. Anything that you say or do or show is not real.

As has been said any number of times previously, if the warrant is produced then they'll find a reason why it's faulty.

Well done for putting yourself out there.

Love the way he slips the knife in at the end too, thanks for not being abusive and not swearing. WTF? Unlke his normal guests who bang on about shills and trolls and agents with no admonisment.

Then it's all down to tugging at the heartstrings, it's not right to throw people out of their houses in a civilized country? None of it makes any sense to him at all? Of course it doesn't, not when you want your house for free.

Ha ha ha, the best bit of all "If yo ask questions, they try to shut you down. " Well he never said a truer word but sadly that's the case for GOODF and especially the Crawfords. The evidence is there for all to see but not to them because they only see what they want to see. Surprise.

[YiamCross]

PS, I didn't know Danny Bamping was your friend or why you would know anything about him or what Danny Bamping has to do with the price of bread any more than anyone else's opinion makes a blind bit of difference to the facts.

These people are not sane.

[YiamCross]

He really makes a point of trying to use what he claims is abusive behaviour by those who are somehow taking joy at Tom being evicted to dismiss the factual arguments whist deliberately ignoring the fact that the abuse originated and is more prevelant form the Crawford supporters' side.

Trying to claim that "we" are kicking people while they're down and launching personal attacks on the victims when the scales of abuse tip heavily to their side but when "we" respond with facts they call it abuse?

It's true, there's no arguing with idiots. And that's not abuse, that's a statement of fact.

[littleFred]

Credit to Mike West for giving the "opposition" an opportunity to speak. And credit to Doazic for remaining cool and giving clear-headed arguments.

After a long rant by Mike West about how we are all being shafted by the banks and they give bad advice, at 2h 40m Doazic says devastatingly, "If Tom had done what he bank had advised [converted to a repayment mortgage], he would currently own his home."

Poor old Mike can only fumble and bluster at this, "There's a bit of a stitch-up somewhere. I don't think it's as easy as that."

I think it sums up the whole saga: it is as easy as that.

[Skeleton]

He really makes a point of trying to use what he claims is abusive behaviour by those who are somehow taking joy at Tom being evicted to dismiss the factual arguments whist deliberately ignoring the fact that the abuse originated and is more prevelant form the Crawford supporters' side.

Trying to claim that "we" are kicking people while they're down and launching personal attacks on the victims when the scales of abuse tip heavily to their side but when "we" respond with facts they call it abuse?

It's true, there's no arguing with idiots. And that's not abuse, that's a statement of fact.

Personal attacks and abuse....hmmm lets see.

Tom Crawford - documented on video, finger pointing, calling the Police every name under the sun, abusing and threatening them, both collectively and individually.
Sue Crawford - How many times? Screaming abuse and threats, many of them personal, at the top of her voice.
Amanda Pike - I do not think I have seen a post yet from her that has not been abusive or threatening in some way.
Tom's Supporter's - Lots of threats and abuse on various occasions and an alleged incident of a Policeman being spat at in the face.

ThePresenter idiot doing the interview just made himself sound silly with his abuse and personal attacks nonsense.

[wanglepin]

Taylor couldn't attend as he was in court himself today up in Hereford getting his fine and community service

Yet I know he was.. That still left O`Berk, and Eberk and I notice Roger (the complete Berk) Hayes was absent from the bandwagon now the all four wheels have come of it.

[wanglepin]

Craig Crawford It's a warrant you can print off - it's all bullshit. Haha

[/quote]
Well if I remeber correctly Amanda asked specifically for "a copy" of the warrant.

[wanglepin]

There'll also be the farcical FOTL nonsense of not recognising the court, asking to see oaths, etc.

Well as far as I know, Mark HainingCeylon bottled that part of any argument (as his Mrs guessed he would) he may have thought he had. as soon as contempt was mentioned he went along with the court like a good sheep. And there was no mention either of Guy Taylor using the freeman bullshite at his court appearance. That said, the Silly Hat Six may feel confident in numbers if they were to put them in the dock all at the same time.

I can see the Judge ordering Tom Crawford to undergo a mental health evaluation prior to sentencing.

Possibility, but is all they have to do is ask Crawford to remove his hat to see that there is nothing there.

[AndyPandy]

They just don't learn do they, this is what DJ Godsmark said in his Judgment regarding a question over the fee being paid via MCOL

60. I should add also that I consider that the authority and validity of a court order comes from the judge. Where a judge makes an order then that order stands until set-aside by a further order. Its validity is not dependant on whether a fee was or was not paid at some stage during the process.

61. Whilst I acknowledge that an order would not be valid if a judge had no power or jurisdiction to make the order, that is not the position here. These were mortgage possession proceedings. The County Court has jurisdiction to deal with such proceedings and District Judges with Deputy District Judges are empowered to exercise that jurisdiction of the County Court.

[rumpelstilzchen]

What I want to know is, if all these judges are in on it with the banks, bailiffs, journalists, the three helicopters, the hundreds of thousands of shills and agents, the thousands of police, scores of security, 3 missing hens, two calling birds, and a dead dog beneath the pear tree, then why did the court go to the trouble of faking a document when they could just abuse their powers and use the real thing?

& does this mean the printers are in on it?

& if all these people are in on it then how small is everyone's cut of the scam?

I don't know about you but I'm in on it. So is my dog and so is my goldfish. My pet chicken however.......well, aparrently she's suddenly got "principles".

[Bungle]

A Quatloos troll snuck onto the Bastion Radio Friday night show to discuss the TC case:

https://youtu.be/xZmE_8nMlGE

Nobody seems to know where this possession order is?

And nobody seems to know what they are talking about!!

There are two separate issues here:

One: The Possession Order

Two: The Warrant of Eviction


On the matter of the 'Possession Order' you need to read paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment which says this: it says
that:


The initial hearing was before Deputy District Judge Murray-Smith on 19th September 2012. Bradford & Bingley were represented by a solicitor. Mr Crawford attended and was represented by a solicitor (I think the duty solicitor). The Deputy District Judge’s notes show that the court was made aware that Mr Crawford had recently not been able to work because of injury and would be unable to return to work until January 2013.


7. The Deputy District Judge made the following order:-

1. The defendant give the claimant possession of 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton, Gedling, Nottinghamshire, NG4 1DN on or before 17 October 2012.

2. The defendant pay the claimant £45,763.85 being the amount outstanding under the mortgage which is not to be enforced so long as the possession order remains suspended.

3. This order is not to be enforced so long as the defendant pays the current instalments under the mortgage the first instalment being paid on or
before 30th September 2012.

4. This matter shall be listed for review in six months on a date to be fixed by the court.

5. Leave to appeal refused.

Clearly the Deputy District Judge found that there were arrears which entitled the Bradford & Bingley to possession but then went on to make the most generous suspended possession order by requiring only current monthly instalments to be maintained without any additional element towards arrears. It is not clear which side applied for permission to appeal



https://infotomb.com/cmtk3.pdf

[Bungle]

A Quatloos troll snuck onto the Bastion Radio Friday night show to discuss the TC case:

https://youtu.be/xZmE_8nMlGE

Nobody seems to know where this possession order is?

And nobody seems to know what they are talking about!!

There are two separate issues here:

One: The Possession Order

Two: The Warrant of Eviction


On the matter of the 'Possession Order' you need to read paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment which says this:


The initial hearing was before Deputy District Judge Murray-Smith on 19th September 2012. Bradford & Bingley were represented by a solicitor. Mr Crawford attended and was represented by a solicitor (I think the duty solicitor). The Deputy District Judge’s notes show that the court was made aware that Mr Crawford had recently not been able to work because of injury and would be unable to return to work until January 2013.


7. The Deputy District Judge made the following order:-

1. The defendant give the claimant possession of 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton, Gedling, Nottinghamshire, NG4 1DN on or before 17 October 2012.

2. The defendant pay the claimant £45,763.85 being the amount outstanding under the mortgage which is not to be enforced so long as the possession order remains suspended.

3. This order is not to be enforced so long as the defendant pays the current instalments under the mortgage the first instalment being paid on or
before 30th September 2012.

4. This matter shall be listed for review in six months on a date to be fixed by the court.

5. Leave to appeal refused.

Clearly the Deputy District Judge found that there were arrears which entitled the Bradford & Bingley to possession but then went on to make the most generous suspended possession order by requiring only current monthly instalments to be maintained without any additional element towards arrears. It is not clear which side applied for permission to appeal



https://infotomb.com/cmtk3.pdf

[Bungle]

And nobody seems to know what they are talking about!! There are two separate issues here:

One: The Possession Order

Two: The Warrant of Eviction

In the case of the families 'forensic expert' (Guy Taylor) the eviction of his property (Bodeman Manor) was carried out by an HCEO (High Court Enforcement Agent). Accordingly, what happens is that the original warrant (that is always issued in the County Court) needs to be 'transferred up' to the High Court and a separate 'warrant' is issued which provides details of a named HCEO. In Guy Taylor's case, quite correctly the new warrant had a court seal.

In the case of Tom Crawford though....the claimant did NOT wish for the warrant to be enforced by a High Court Enforcement Agent and instead, the eviction was carried out by a County Court bailiff. This is perfectly normal procedure. And this is the reason why the copy warrant provided to Pa Crawford yesterday shows that it was issued in the County Court.

[Normal Wisdom]

Thanks to all for the comments about my video.

Norman where did you get the sound bites from ? It sounds like he is getting interviewed by his bald chubby significant other

It was all from this video. Doazic reposted it with his own comments and Ceylon had it taken down for copyright infringement. I tried to avoid this by only using the audio. It was easy to find pictures of Ceylon on Google but there wasn't anything for "King" and I couldn't be bothered to take screen grabs for him. He suddenly reminded me of "Uncle Fester".

I found it very striking that Ceylon gave a pretty good explanation of how an endowment mortgage works only then to ignore his own explanation when spinning the same old nonsense about Tom's claims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsBVGZiWU0s

[Normal Wisdom]

If Tom Crawford actually walks into a court with the court document sent to him by the court and tries to tell the court that the court document sent to them by the court is fraudulent because their friend the vexatious litigant said so then I officially nominate the Crawford's as most stupid family ever and predict Crawford will very quickly be considered a vexatious litigant himself.

Their joking about this, right?

I really hope they do. It's the best chance of exposing their idiot ideas about warrants and having them shot down.

[Bungle]

Well if I remeber correctly Amanda asked specifically for "a copy" of the warrant.

There would only be ONE original warrant and naturally that would be retained by the court. What the Crawford family have been given is a COPY of the original. Again, correct procedure.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Again, correct procedure.

The problem is, the people we are discussing only accept the procedure they invent themselves.

[Skeleton]

Well if I remeber correctly Amanda asked specifically for "a copy" of the warrant.

There would only be ONE original warrant and naturally that would be retained by the court. What the Crawford family have been given is a COPY of the original. Again, correct procedure.

A second copy, they already have a copy.