The Crawfords post eviction liabilities

[wanglepin]

So aside from the fact they've already had the warrant, and that the repossession was perfectly legal, it's immaterial anyway.

Crawford has always said that "there is no way they would me out of my home. He then said he "would take it back". And then he said, He "would go to prison if that what it takes". He predicted the first two wrong, his third prediction has a very slim chance of also coming true.
IF Crawford actually goes to prison the goofers can shout 'BOOM SUCCESS!!!!1!!!!! Tom Crawford was right all along'.
He lost his home and he won't be getting it back.

[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.

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).

Yep, if it can be done wrongly they'll do it wrongly.

I can even see an outside chance of Tom being hit with a contempt of court, and being hit harder for that than the original charge.

[Pox]

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.

Hypothetically, if I was in a pickle such as facing an Affray or criminal damage charge and thought I had a weak defence, I would want a decent legal team behind me to give me a fighting chance.
Given the contempt for the legal profession shown by some and their belief that they know better, they will only dig themselves into a deeper hole.

[hanlons razor]

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.

Hypothetically, if I was in a pickle such as facing an Affray or criminal damage charge and thought I had a weak defence, I would want a decent legal team behind me to give me a fighting chance.
Given the contempt for the legal profession shown by some and their belief that they know better, they will only dig themselves into a deeper hole.

My instinct would tell me any such defence may be washed out by the mindsets of those involved. But nothing could be ruled out!

[hanlons razor]

Yep, if it can be done wrongly they'll do it wrongly.

I can even see an outside chance of Tom being hit with a contempt of court, and being hit harder for that than the original charge.

That's a coin toss for me. 50/50 depending on how he reacts to proceedings. If he allows himself to get as riled up as he has on past occasions then there's every chance. But if he shows some manner of self control (contrition would be too much to ask for!) Then he'll be fine.

[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?

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....

Seems that this Ough character is trying to make these Freeman believe that the the CPS /Judges are constantly changing their minds. Not true of course. Isn't he a retired police officer?

[hanlons razor]

Seems that this Ough character is trying to make these Freeman believe that the the CPS /Judges are constantly changing their minds. Not true of course. Isn't he a retired police officer?

Not sure on that but I would say any idiot can grasp that if the police find more evidence against you they are more than likely to hit you with that too if they've already got you in court.

Oh I see where I went wrong in that statement....

[NG3]

Not sure on that but I would say any idiot can grasp that if the police find more evidence against you they are more than likely to hit you with that too if they've already got you in court.

I think the clues were in "arrested on suspicion of...", "phones examined for evidence of...", "charged with..."

It really shouldn't be that hard for even them to work out.

[hanlons razor]

Not sure on that but I would say any idiot can grasp that if the police find more evidence against you they are more than likely to hit you with that too if they've already got you in court.

I think the clues were in "arrested on suspicion of...", "phones examined for evidence of...", "charged with..."

It really shouldn't be that hard for even them to work out.

They're deep down the rabbit hole. It's worrying so many people (even though we all know it's not as many as they claim) can effectively be brainwashed in to believing such nonsense and in the case of were bank, paying for the pleasure.

If someone were to start a cult/commune for them somewhere I think they'd have a legitimate claim of protecting them (and society) from themselves. And they would be the hardest group to manage....

[Skeleton]

Given that Goofers are in a court room as often as some lawyers, it is clear to see that they understand that extra charges can and will be added when evidence has been examined. Being Goofers though they are very apt at lying so its very simple to start bandying posts around .that the charges should be dropped because they keep adding and constantly changing the charges (another lie). Throw a couple of "real" laws in that might back up his theory and the other goofers lap it up like its gospel.

[YiamCross]

Crowd sourcing legal advice to defend against serious criminal charges. What could possibly go wrong?

Ginger Chris seems to have been left out in the cold to fend for himself but don't worry. He has it covered

Chris Morgan
5 August at 14:55 ·
I need some legal help can anyone help me out?
15 Comments
Like Comment Share

Galina Rin What type of legal help? I work with legal advisors but their range of knowledge is limited
Like · Reply · 5 August at 15:09

Chris Morgan I got arrested for throwing some food up to people on a roof that was protesting. They have taken my phone and I need it back and fast as I cant do much with out it. Im in court at the end of Aug so need to get me some help
Like · 1 · 5 August at 15:14

Heidi Aldred Have you asked them for it back?? They may have finished with it xx
Like · Reply · 1 · 5 August at 15:19

Theresa Louise Ashton Ask I think Steve spy ? I don't have him on my list
Like · Reply · 1 · 5 August at 15:33

Sarah Hopewell Ring Rothera Dowson, ask to speak to Mr Allen, he will ring you back.
Like · Reply · 1 · 5 August at 15:51

Theresa Louise Ashton Will Powers maybe too?
Like · Reply · 1 · 5 August at 16:10

Zayaer Malik You must firstly make a complaint then get legal advice
Like · Reply · 2 · 5 August at 16:18

Paulo Sanhueza it's lawyers in Stratford helped friend out bigtime at protest they good mention me to Simon natas oops itn is what I meant http://www.itnsolicitors.com/Our-People

ITN Solicitors Leading Criminal & Human Rights | Fraud, Murder, Terrorism, Family...
ITNSOLICITORS.COM
Like · Reply · 1 · 5 August at 17:47 · Edited

Heidi Aldred What number can I call you on darling x
Like · Reply · 1 · 5 August at 17:44

Che Thatcher I'll add you to a group chris
Like · Reply · 1 · 5 August at 18:15

Che Thatcher Added you to common law for dummies
Like · Reply · 2 · 5 August at 18:17

Che Thatcher Put your problem in a post there and they will tell you how to get it thrown out.

Especially love the recommendation to ask Stephen Spy. He'll certainly be able to advise on how to get banged up.

[Forsyth]

Curiosity about what 'affray' actually consisted of drove me to locate my vintage copy of Archbold (2003 edition, so for a yearly publication somewhat out of date). The basic offence is to use or threaten unlawful violence against another person. From my inexpert reading it would appear that affray is distinguished from other similar offences by two points:

Firstly, affray can be committed by one person acting on their own or by more than one acting together. It is the joint effect that is taken into consideration.

Secondly, it is the overall nature of the conduct that needs to be threatening and not specific individual events.

Edit: Thirdly! The offence requires the threatening behaviour to be capable of affecting other people, such as bystanders, not simply the participants (Blackstone's Police Operational Handbook, 2006).

As to what a threat consists of, carrying a concealed weapon or making verbal threats are not considered to be sufficiently threatening, but openly carrying a weapon and using words to order a dog to attack are.

Self defence is a possible defence in court. Turning now to Justifiable Force by Robert Manning (2005, so again a touch elderly), the right to use force extends beyond simply responding to a physical threat against yourself, but may also be used to prevent a crime occurring or from continuing. Given that a barrister has written an entire book (even if it does use rather large print) on the subject, you can imagine that the subject is fraught with subtleties. One is that if the crime has been committed but is no longer continuing then there is no general right to use force - you cannot use it to obtain redress after a crime has been committed. The force must also be necessary and there must be no other reasonable course of action open. A person may make an honest mistake and still rely on self defence, however not if the mistake is an unreasonable one.

I understand that some people believe that everyone here is a judge or attorney so I should stress that I am not now and never have been (and unlikely ever to be), a judge, attorney, solicitor, barrister, or anyone else qualified to practice law. As such, it would be unwise in the extreme to rely on out of date legal information summarised by the unskilled for any purpose other than idle curiosity.

Finally, I hope I have not overstepped the mark on speculating about ongoing legal matters, if the mods have any doubt, then please feel free to remove this post without causing offence!

[NG3]

but openly carrying a weapon

Like a hammer...



Would that cause a person of reasonable firmness to fear for their safety?

The question need only be examined hypothetically in court, it's not necessary for a "real" person to have been afraid, just that a hypothetical one could have been.

[#six]

Chris Morgan I got arrested for throwing some food up to people on a roof that was protesting. They have taken my phone and I need it back and fast as I cant do much with out it. Im in court at the end of Aug so need to get me some help
Like · 1 · 5 August at 15:14

Heidi Aldred Have you asked them for it back?? They may have finished with it xx
Like · Reply · 1 · 5 August at 15:19

They really don't understand how it all works. Digital evidence is kept until either the court case is heard or until the case is dropped. Even then it will take maybe a month or more before you actually get your property back.

[NG3]

They really don't understand how it all works. Digital evidence is kept until either the court case is heard or until the case is dropped. Even then it will take maybe a month or more before you actually get your property back.

I waited about 6 months for return of property once (& I'd done nothing wrong), IIRC they have up to 12 months after the seizure, or end of proceedings (whichever is later) to return seized items (unless the laws been updated since then).

[Forsyth]

Would that cause a person of reasonable firmness to fear for their safety?

A good question, but I'm not sure one to discuss here, just yet?

Though I do approve of the phrase "of reasonable firmness" - I think it should be considered as a title for the next Bond film.

[wanglepin]

And didn't those Silly Hat Six make demands or a demand? I believe this will also count against them.

[NG3]

Would that cause a person of reasonable firmness to fear for their safety?

A good question, but I'm not sure one to discuss here, just yet?

Agreed, which is why I posed it as a question, to demonstrate the legal position, rather than as a statement against the individual.

The "hypothetical witness" in the affray charge is quite an important element.

[letissier14]

[letissier14]

Since been removed from gofundme website