The Crawfords post eviction liabilities

[littleFred]

Yeah, I loved that:

it dose not matter what the charges are. self defence is a legal excuse fro any charge.

Judge: Mr Ronald Biggs, you are charged with robbing a train. How do you plead?

Biggs: Self-defence, m'lud.

Judge: Fair enough. Case dismissed.

[Dr. Caligari]

This is high on the list of stupidest things ever said.

The whole idea of having their defense strategy discussions on an open forum is astonishingly stupid.

[JonnyL]

Andy Pears, hung out to dry in the same corner as Ady Sutcliffe, Wes Ahmed/Mark Gillard. No need to worry though Andy, each and every one of your corner is finally seeing sense, Ady included.

[notorial dissent]

This is high on the list of stupidest things ever said.

The whole idea of having their defense strategy discussions on an open forum is astonishingly stupid.

But par for the course.

[YiamCross]

Andy Pears it dose not matter what the charges are. self defence is a legal excuse fro any charge.

This is high on the list of stupidest things ever said.

He's only practicing, he gets better as it goes along. I've screenshot the whole 200+ comments, it's worth a read but I won't post it all here. I'll stick it on my FB page and post a link. Anyone who wants to see but can't get to FB, well, I'll have to have a rethink.

Honestly, some great stuff in there.

Like this, Andy Pears trying to make stupid a pure art form

Andy Pears fyi. my 110% case was lost niot because of the 2 years of forensic investigation on my part, but the stupidity of me not claiming my right to voice of audience as a litigant man. i trusted a solicitor to re present me. big fail. the judge asked for evidence that i had in spades and my solicitor didnt bring it with him,. the reason being "that we dont want to overload the judge with too much evidence". wtf? lesson learnt but i gained some proof i needed and now im will reopen my case with perfect score of points of law at queens bench and go for the win on my own like i should have done in first place. when i post up the proof i have to win after case, all will see how i did it and will marvel at it im sure. its called a learning curve which im further along than most. i have lost yet.
12 mins · Like · 2

Andy Pears ive got a few cases pending all going to be self litigant now as cant use the devils advocates to get the job done

So much for their first day of ignoring trolls and getting back to the good old days of peace, love and a happy atmoshpere.
Wonder what tomorrow will bring.

[Skeleton]

Lee Mutlee Smith The debateable position is that the court has not yet produced a valid warrant to clarify whose possession they were attending, any of them. The Unicorn warrant is the key piece of defensive legislation, here. Why doesn't someone write a deposition explaining that for the case to proceed, the case must first be validated, as per the court order in the Crawford's posession from HIGH COURT, which has not yet been satisfied, therefore this whole case is devoided, unless they produce that warrant.
20 mins · Like · 2

Have I missed something or have they now invented another warrant they need to see?

[PeanutGallery]

Lee Mutlee Smith The debateable position is that the court has not yet produced a valid warrant to clarify whose possession they were attending, any of them. The Unicorn warrant is the key piece of defensive legislation, here. Why doesn't someone write a deposition explaining that for the case to proceed, the case must first be validated, as per the court order in the Crawford's posession from HIGH COURT, which has not yet been satisfied, therefore this whole case is devoided, unless they produce that warrant.
20 mins · Like · 2

Have I missed something or have they now invented another warrant they need to see?

Yup, not only that but a warrant that has requirements that no warrant actually needs. Mutley (who should really stick to sniggering behind Dick Dastardleys back while trying to Catch The Pigeon), has basically made up a whole new set of totally imaginary conditions. This is an attempt to divert attention away from the warrant the Court has produced, which was shown to be valid (because it was enforced) by claiming it didn't have all the super secret stuff on that only they know about and that the powers that be don't put on a warrant because if they did it would make it lawful and the courts don't want to do things lawfully when they can just steal it by making up their own warrant. Which is of course a proposition that makes absolutely no sense.

The rest of Mutley's post is just meaningless gibberish written by someone who fails at looking intelligent.

[Dr. Caligari]

the case must first be validated, as per the court order in the Crawford's posession from HIGH COURT,

The High Court order said nothing about the case having to be "validated"; it only said the Crawfords should get copies of the papers in the case (which they had already).

which has not yet been satisfied,

It has.

therefore this whole case is devoided, unless they produce that warrant.

"Devoided"? Is that how you speak the Queen's English in the mother country?

OK, grammar-snarking aside, and recognizing that I'm not a British lawyer (I am admitted in 2 of America's 50 states), how could some issue in Tom's case represent a defence [that is how you spell it over there, right?] to a charge of "affray"? Doesn't "affray" mean something like "fighting in the streets with an intent to frighten the horses"?

[littleFred]

Muppets who are trying to dream up defences to affray should consult the definition in Public Order Act 1986 s3. "Affray may be committed in private as well as in public places." It doesn't matter who owned the house. Questions of ownership, or whether they had permission to be there, are not relevant.

[Hercule Parrot]

now im will reopen my case with perfect score of points of law at queens bench and go for the win on my own like i should have done in first place. when i post up the proof i have to win after case, all will see how i did it and will marvel at it im sure.

Magnificent. Does any have further information on this? I suppose it is narrowly possibly that Mr Pears has a case, but far more likely that he's a self-deluded blowhard with a broken shift key.

[hucknallred]

Dear lord. Petty squabbling like a bunch of school kids. That community is starting to remind me very much of the FB group that "supported" Paula Jayne Campbell while she was being evicted.

Is this the same person that posts on Pepipoo?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showuser=48194

[Normal Wisdom]

Dear lord. Petty squabbling like a bunch of school kids. That community is starting to remind me very much of the FB group that "supported" Paula Jayne Campbell while she was being evicted.

Is this the same person that posts on Pepipoo?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showuser=48194

er ... no.

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10230

[Bungle]

Hi Guys


Michael Ough The way the proceedings are going, the CPS could be forced to withdraw or abandon them due to their constant chopping and changing of charges. The prospect of the six getting a fair hearing is rapidly disappearing and this is why the CPS need to get sorted and stop buggering around or drop the case.
34 mins · Like · 4


Michael Ough The CPS are fecking up. The judge needs to get a grip. If they do not stop going along with the CPS's demands or trying to change charges themselves, which I suspect is unlawful under ECHR and HRA, the case will need to be abandoned and withdrawn. Courts are not exempt from compliance with ECHR and HRA. Neither are CPS or judges.
24 mins · Like · 4


Michael Ough Excuse me, Andy, but if the judge and CPS don't stop buggering around, there is a good chance it may not go to trial.
22 mins · Like · 1

Any idea what he is talking about?

[wanglepin]

Andy Pears it dose not matter what the charges are. self defence is a legal excuse fro any charge.

This is high on the list of stupidest things ever said.

I don't know about that. "I do not consent": 'to being arrested by the police, taken to court by the prosecutor, or fined or imprisoned by the judge' - has to be the most loopiest saying these freeman goofers have ever come up with. They spout it at the drop of an hat as if it means , well, something, and will halt all judicial process in it's tracks.

[Skeleton]

I don't know about that. "I do not consent": 'to being arrested by the police, taken to court by the prosecutor, or fined or imprisoned by the judge' - has to be the most loopiest saying these freeman goofers have ever come up with. They spout it at the drop of an hat as if it means , well, something, and will halt all judicial process in it's tracks.

My own pet favourite loopy freeman myth is the wet signature on a warrant one. I love it when they squeal little children in a sweet shop when shown a warrant that does not have one, which often turns to incandescent rage when told it does not need one.

There was a video of one young guy on You Tube arguing strongly that his warrant was invalid because it had no wet signature on it, Bailiff says it does not need one, but goes one step further, and tells him why and which rule of the Magistrates Court Act of 1981 allows the use of an electronic signature. Guy stares intensely at Bailiff and silently snatches the warrant off him, studies it for about a minute and then delivers his verdict :-

"Fair enough but it is still not valid, that signature is not Electronic, its a photocopy!!!!"

[ArthurWankspittle]

OK, grammar-snarking aside, and recognizing that I'm not a British lawyer (I am admitted in 2 of America's 50 states), how could some issue in Tom's case represent a defence [that is how you spell it over there, right?] to a charge of "affray"? Doesn't "affray" mean something like "fighting in the streets with an intent to frighten the horses"?

Tom was charged with assault. It is the rooftop six who are charged with affray. Affray these days included the threat of unlawful violence so you don't actually need to be fighting.

Any idea what he is talking about?

I can't find it at present but the rooftop six have also all been charged with something else I think. Edit: Conspiracy to commit criminal damage. Further edit. This was added after the Police had a look through everyone's phones IIRC. They are not changing the charges, they are additional charges. I'm not going to speculate or go into details on here but I think some of the six might have a (weak) defence against the affray charges.

[Normal Wisdom]

This is an attempt to divert attention away from the warrant the Court has produced, which was shown to be valid (because it was enforced) by claiming it didn't have all the super secret stuff on that only they know about and that the powers that be don't put on a warrant because if they did it would make it lawful and the courts don't want to do things lawfully when they can just steal it by making up their own warrant. Which is of course a proposition that makes absolutely no sense.

It makes perfect sense ... if you start from a position that the conspiracy is being conducted by individuals and not by the institutions themselves. That is, there is a conspiracy between a group of individuals who use their position as judges, magistrates, court officers, bankers, solicitors, bailiffs etc. to manufacture fake Orders of Possession and Warrant to take possession of houses which are then sold for their own, personal benefit. That is, or certainly was Inky Taylor's narrative.

[NG3]

The magistrate in the Crawford case has already explained the land dispute is irrelevant to these matters. So aside from the fact they've already had the warrant, and that the repossession was perfectly legal, it's immaterial anyway.

[hanlons razor]

Hi Guys


Michael Ough The way the proceedings are going, the CPS could be forced to withdraw or abandon them due to their constant chopping and changing of charges. The prospect of the six getting a fair hearing is rapidly disappearing and this is why the CPS need to get sorted and stop buggering around or drop the case.
34 mins · Like · 4


Michael Ough The CPS are fecking up. The judge needs to get a grip. If they do not stop going along with the CPS's demands or trying to change charges themselves, which I suspect is unlawful under ECHR and HRA, the case will need to be abandoned and withdrawn. Courts are not exempt from compliance with ECHR and HRA. Neither are CPS or judges.
24 mins · Like · 4


Michael Ough Excuse me, Andy, but if the judge and CPS don't stop buggering around, there is a good chance it may not go to trial.
22 mins · Like · 1

Any idea what he is talking about?

An additional charge was added recently (hearing on the 10th maybe) unfortunately I can't remember what it was off the top of my head. But I guess it came about through analysis of evidence they'd acquired, namely the mobile phones etc of the defendents. Here's hoping they all had their log in details for all their social media/forums etc saved with the browser remembering them/passwords.

On that note I would actually be all for crowd sourcing ginger chris a new phone capable of streaming. His videos have and will continue to provide a wealth of evidence for all sides....

[hanlons razor]

The magistrate in the Crawford case has already explained the land dispute is irrelevant to these matters. So aside from the fact they've already had the warrant, and that the repossession was perfectly legal, it's immaterial anyway.

And yet, you can guarantee their entire defense will be built on these foundations.

Any normal person would have looked at the magistrates comments and gone "hang on, we need a change of tactic here...." but not this lot (thankfully). Any defence based on those points will have no merits, and get them no where (except maybe more trouble).

Giving very serious consideration to popping along on the day of the hearing. Wonder what size the public gallery will be on this one?