Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

[Daft Ada]

Quick question that may have been already answered.

Does the latest judgement and CRO mean that TC needs a judges permission to bring any further cases even if he attemps to bring a case before a higher court than the one that handec out the latest judgement?

[Alexander]

Thanks Peanut. Hopefully, they're sorting it out appropriately and not the Crawford way

As an aside I was recently looking on trip advisor for a restaurant to go to in Nottingham and The Elwes Arms is actually 12th out of 1000 and something restaurants in Nottingham - So it really is good it seems <I didn't book there we're going to marco Pierre whites. I didn't fancy a night out in Carlton>

Edited to add: agree with Gordon - utter desperation from the Crawfords. It's obvious from Amanda's posts that they are so desperate to cling on to this they will literally post anything. Mostly lies but literally anything to keep their "followers" and to keep this farce going for as long as they can get away with it. They're either too stupid or don't care (probably a combination of both but mostly the former) that their stories don't even add up or make any sense.

[Burnaby49]

Maybe they are still in the pub eating all the pies that Yiam spoke so highly of?

Or just doing a 'Burnaby'?

I've become a short-hand description for an entire lifestyle. My life hasn't been wasted.

[Burnaby49]

Finally by approaching Yiam, or any other member of Quatloos, he would be taking us away from our comfortable ivory tower of internet anonymity (which is quite lovely, for instance I don't think I would say half the things I say about Burnaby if I thought it likely that we would bump into each other on the street - admittedly that would be unlikely as Burnaby only seems to use streets as a means of staggering from one pub to the next). But we don't know if this is true (about Tom, not Burnaby).

Like many internet assholes I'm a lion on the web and a trembling mouse face to face. If I saw Yiam Cross's truck parking in front of me I'd probably scurry down an alley but on Quatloos, four or five thousand miles from you rabble, I can swagger.

However if you don't want another flame war be careful about your personal comments about me. I take offense at your implications about my manner of walking when inebriated. If you happen to see me on the street you are not just scornfully passing judgement on a pathetic stumbling drunk, you are participating in performance art. I learned my techniques from a magazine that understands, truly understands, and welcomes occasional tipplers like me;

http://drunkard.com/issues/02-03/02-03-staggering.htm

[FatGambit]

Quick question that may have been already answered.

Does the latest judgement and CRO mean that TC needs a judges permission to bring any further cases even if he attemps to bring a case before a higher court than the one that handec out the latest judgement?

Kinda, The order says High Court and County Court, it doesn't name the Supreme or European court, but I doubt Tom would be able to afford the car park fees at those, let alone any claim costs. If I've read the order right, it only prevents him bringing claims against B&B or anybody else related to the case (Land Registry etc.), it doesn't prevent him suing Tesco for selling him rotten tomatoes.

[timcurgenven1]

Hey Amanda!

I thought you were going to show up and look round ya old pad, shame was looking foreward to meeting you in that onesie you have

The agent couldnt make as he was ill, so just had a look round the outside

What a utter tip the place is,i wonder how bad it was before tom , sweaty sue, and craig left it?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eorpd8bgdc3r0 ... 3.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/46ftwdutkb3a1 ... 7.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s8a31aftjv3t2 ... 8.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vrx5vr1o0dul0 ... 0.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mjctlm7c74klw ... 0.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h4ixmyux5ntky ... 9.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a99pvrevdxrew ... 5.jpg?dl=0

[vampireLOREN]

Just a side swipe.....just watched Toms version of the 'meeting' video and in the background is the Elwes Arms.
Maybe Tommy should not have been that close to his former abode.

[Hercule Parrot]

Does the latest judgement and CRO mean that TC needs a judges permission to bring any further cases even if he attemps to bring a case before a higher court than the one that handec out the latest judgement?

Kinda, The order says High Court and County Court, it doesn't name the Supreme or European court, but I doubt Tom would be able to afford the car park fees at those, let alone any claim costs. If I've read the order right, it only prevents him bringing claims against B&B or anybody else related to the case (Land Registry etc.), it doesn't prevent him suing Tesco for selling him rotten tomatoes.

561. Mr Crawford : You say I’m restricted to certain courts. What about courts that’s higher than this court, Supreme Court?

562. Mr Justice Phillips : No it doesn’t stop you in the Court of Appeal or the High … or the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.

563. Mr Crawford : So I’m not … I’m not restricted to those areas. Then I should be seeing you there Sir.

"extended civil restraint order restraining him from issuing claims or making applications in the High Court or the County Court, concerning any matter involving or relating to, or touching upon, or leading to the proceedings in which this order is made, without first obtaining permission of the judge to be identified in the order."

[Burnaby49]

You call that a restraining order? This is how it's done in Canada;

I. Vexatious Litigant Order

[104] I have identified eight independent bases on which I have declared or found that Boisjoli is a vexatious litigant. He has also exhibited additional aggravating litigation conduct. To some degree these do overlap, but the net result is obvious. This is an individual who is a clear target for a court order that restricts his future activities.

[105] This order should be strict and broad. Boisjoli’s litigation misconduct is not restricted to a single matter or court. I therefore conclude he should be limited in his access to all three Alberta Courts. I previously observed that Boisjoli’s documents appear to be adapted from a template, and that his failures to replace target names suggests he has at least two more parallel Three/Five Letters actions in the works. Boisjoli admits as much in his email communications to the Clerk/Manager - this is the first of a number of illegal projects Boisjoli has underway.

[106] Another reason for very strict controls on Boisjoli’s court activities is that he does not merely create and transmit spurious and ineffective documents. He acts on them. Boisjoli’s criminal misconduct is far from trivial. It exhibits many aggravating factors, including the targets, and the means and forms of intimidation. I conclude the fact that Boisjoli claims that his OPCA materials and strategies made his criminal conduct legal it is highly relevant and aggravating. He claimed he was not subject to Canadian law and repeatedly acted on that basis. Worse, he was undeterred by incarceration.

[107] Boisjoli lies when he says he will mend his ways. On his first sentencing for criminal intimidation Boisjoli said this:

I -- I do, Your Honour. And if I may just say a word. It’s been a very humbling experience, Sir. The time that I spent in gaol has not been wasted. And I agree that, you know, I’ve -- my emotions took -- took -- got the better of me, and you know, I’ve -- I’ve broken my own cardinal rule to treat everybody with respect, and I realize that. And, you know, the -- this time I spent in gaol, I spent a lot of time reading my Bible, and Jesus taught us to forgive, and that’s what I’m asking for is to be forgiven.

Boisjoli then promptly resumed his criminal activities.

[108] This is a reason why I conclude Boisjoli should have no right to file material in any Alberta court. He may only interact with the courts via a lawyer. While unusual, this restriction is not unprecedented. In Boe v Boe, 2014 BCCA 208 (CanLII) at para 36, 356 BCAC 217, the Court took this step in response to a vexatious litigant who engaged in persistent, meritless filings:

[109] I think here there is an even stronger basis than in Boe v Boe to restrict Boisjoli’s future correspondence and filings with Alberta courts in an analogous manner. His September 25, 2015 materials are not merely a waste of court resources; they are a key and integral step in his criminal scheme. A requirement that Boisjoli use a lawyer to communicate with the court is not an absolute obstruction to Boisjoli accessing Alberta courts. Boisjoli’s litigation history shows he is willing to retain legal counsel to meet his objectives.

[110] I therefore order:

1. Allen Nelson Boisjoli is prohibited from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing any appeal, action, application, or proceeding in the Court of Appeal, the Court of Queen’s Bench, or the Provincial Court of Alberta, on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person or estate without an order of the Chief Justice or Judge of the court in which the proceeding is conducted, or his or her designate.

2. The Chief Justice or Judge, or his or her designate, may at any time direct that notice of an application to commence or continue an appeal, action, application, or proceeding be given to any other person.

3. Allen Nelson Boisjoli must describe himself, in the application or document to which this Order applies, by his exact full name (“Allen Nelson Boisjoli”), and not by using initials, an alternative name structure, or a pseudonym.

4. Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding will only be accepted if Allen Nelson Boisjoli is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta.

5. Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding must be accompanied by an affidavit:
(i) attaching a copy of the order issued herein declaring Allen Nelson Boisjoli to be a vexatious litigant,
(ii) attaching a copy of the appeal, pleading, application, or process that Allen Nelson Boisjoli proposes to issue or file or continue,
(iii) deposing fully and completely to the facts and circumstances surrounding the proposed claim or proceeding, so as to demonstrate that the proceeding is not an abuse of process, and that there are reasonable grounds for it,
(iv) indicating whether Allen Nelson Boisjoli has ever sued some or all of the defendants or respondents previously in any jurisdiction or court, and if so providing full particulars,
(v) undertaking that, if leave is granted, the authorized appeal, pleading, application or process, the order granting leave to proceed, and the affidavit in support of the order will promptly be served on the defendants or respondents, and
(vi) undertaking to diligently prosecute the proceeding.

6. Any application referenced herein shall be made in open court and shall be recorded. Leave to commence or continue proceedings may be given on conditions, including the posting of security for costs. An application that is dismissed may not be made again.

7. An application to vary or set aside this vexatious litigant Order must be made on notice to the Attorney General, and any other person as directed by the Court.

8. This Order, except for paragraph 5, does apply to an appeal of this judgment to the Alberta Court of Appeal.

http://canlii.ca/t/gljkn

Note that even if the court accepts him as a litigant he can neither initiate proceedings or file documents himself nor can he represent himself in court;

[108] This is a reason why I conclude Boisjoli should have no right to file material in any Alberta court. He may only interact with the courts via a lawyer. While unusual, this restriction is not unprecedented. In Boe v Boe, 2014 BCCA 208 (CanLII) at para 36, 356 BCAC 217, the Court took this step in response to a vexatious litigant who engaged in persistent, meritless filings:

4. Any application to commence or continue any appeal, action, application, or proceeding will only be accepted if Allen Nelson Boisjoli is represented by a member in good standing of the Law Society of Alberta

And I think a court order equivalent to this would stop Tom from doing an end-run on the restraining order by representing Sue in a court action.

1. Allen Nelson Boisjoli is prohibited from commencing, or attempting to commence, or continuing any appeal, action, application, or proceeding in the Court of Appeal, the Court of Queen’s Bench, or the Provincial Court of Alberta, on his own behalf or on behalf of any other person or estate without an order of the Chief Justice or Judge of the court in which the proceeding is conducted, or his or her designate.

[Daft Ada]

He'll be preparing for a jaunt to the European court of human rights probably.

My human rights have been breached as I survived cancer, my mother in-law died and everyone keeps picking on me.
The British judical system spanks me on a regular basis and as I whinge and whine like a little child, this means they must be paedophiles.

Thant concludes the case for the persecuted

Tom Crawford does Brussells.

[Hercule Parrot]

[I've told her they should put the house on the market and buy somewhere smaller but she's not interested so it worries me that they could end up with the house being repossessed. The partner (and situation) is not dissimilar to Tom Crawford actually - he's not a freeman but he's an arrogant idiot..

That's unfortunate. The best step for householders in that situation is to approach the lender early, and ask for help. Explain that throughout the mortgage term they've made every due payment promptly, but unfortunately the endowment hasn't achieved the growth they had been led to expect. Not recriminating, but retired now on lower income and it won't be easy to meet the shortfall. Can we discuss options to resolve?

Make sure there's a record of this, and that options are fully explored. No court will grant repossession against borrowers who are reasonably and honestly trying to meet their obligations. The lender will be expected to bend over backwards to be helpful. If lender fails to offer every possible assistance and flexibility, the Ombudsman will sanction them.

None of this is any help to arrogant idiots, regrettably.

[FatGambit]

We have three levels of restrictions in the Courts, Civil Restraining Order, Extended Civil Restraining Order and Vexatious Litigant order, Tom is the middle one, Ebert the full monty.

[Pox]

Hey Amanda!

I thought you were going to show up and look round ya old pad, shame was looking foreward to meeting you in that onesie you have

The agent couldnt make as he was ill, so just had a look round the outside

What a utter tip the place is,i wonder how bad it was before tom , sweaty sue, and craig left it?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/eorpd8bgdc3r0 ... 3.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/46ftwdutkb3a1 ... 7.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/s8a31aftjv3t2 ... 8.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vrx5vr1o0dul0 ... 0.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mjctlm7c74klw ... 0.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h4ixmyux5ntky ... 9.jpg?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a99pvrevdxrew ... 5.jpg?dl=0

Pretty bad form that the agent was ill? How much notice of this did you have?

Anyway, from the photos we have, the rubbish in the garden is easily sorted but looking at photo 2 in the list, it looks like there hasn't been much routine maintenance for some time -

The flat roof to the garage looks like it needs replacing and water ingress may have caused some damage to the adjoining wall of the property but maybe OK after a bit of drying out and a bit of replastering if required.
The soffits and fascia boards look a bit suspect (are they timber or uvpc?).
The garage door frame looks rotten.
So, to sort out the garage alone,I would advise a client to budget £8-£10k.
Frequently though, a lack of routine maintenance in some areas is symptomatic of a lack of such in other areas.

This fits with our thoughts that the Crawfords were short of money and that this is why they didn't meet their financial obligations.

However, TC (in one of his videos) has made much of how he horticulturally decorated the property before he 'got ill', proudly displaying his horticultural expertise as evidenced by a plethora of bedding plants and hanging baskets and all credit to him, it looked a fine display.

Some would put the money spent on a few begonias etc. to better use (paying the endowment policy or fixing the garage roof, for example) but TC chose not to - as sycophant Sally would say, he chose a different path.

In my neck of the woods, we call it 'fur coat and no knickers'.

[YiamCross]

We have three levels of restrictions in the Courts, Civil Restraining Order, Extended Civil Restraining Order and Vexatious Litigant order, Tom is the middle one, Ebert the full monty.

I am reliably informed that the 3rd and most restrictive level, the Vexatious Litigant Order, was specifically created for Ebert and is referred to "in the trade" as an Ebert order. If I was not reliably informed then please do not correct me, I'd prefer to be retain that belief even if it's wrong.

[YiamCross]

Thanks Arthur. To be honest I don't know much more.

Another option would be to look into equity release. However it's worth noting that the main reason the Crawfords were evicted was because of a failure on their part to continue meeting the interest obligation while the capital remained unpaid. I would hope that they have reached an agreement and aren't simply burying their heads in the sand.

Certainly looking for a smaller place might be a sensible option, or even relocating to a more rural area (or some combination of the two). Often people get attached to their home and try to keep it when the liabilities they have on it have turned it into a great weight around their necks.

I wish you and your mother good fortune in getting this sorted and if you need any advice or help certainly ask. There are a lot of posters with a great deal of financial experience around here and they can provide sensible advice on how best to avert doing a Crawford.

One of the greatest tragedies is that the bank were prepared to allow the Crawfords to remain in their property after the mortgage reached term without repaying the principal so long as they kept up the interest payments.

That was when we got the "paid what I borrowed three times over and am not paying any more now the 25 years is up" (I may be slightly paraphrasing there). As soon as he stopped paying the interest, he went into arrears and that was when B&B successfully applied to have the suspension lifted from the repossession order they had obtained in 2012. The rest, as they say, is history.

This is, of course, the basis for his claim that he was not in arrears when they were evicted as he'd paid an extra month on top of the last payment of interest on the mortgage at the end of the 25 year term. He just didn't get the fact that he needed to keep paying interest until such time as the principal was repaid choosing instead to claim that he'd paid enough.

[Philistine]

I get the feeling that Tom is leaving it rather late to reveal the dynamite evidence that Amanda keeps alluding to.

He's saving it for the Crown Court next month. After all, he can't easily raise it in a civil court with that injunction against him. (Note for people in the real world - even if it exists, which it doesn't, it is irrelevant to the case in the Crown Court).

I am sure it will make a dramatic finale when his stunning victory over TPTB is immortalised in a big budget film but he is cutting it a bit fine to be plausible.

Tom Crawford - Tom Cruise.

[FatGambit]

We have three levels of restrictions in the Courts, Civil Restraining Order, Extended Civil Restraining Order and Vexatious Litigant order, Tom is the middle one, Ebert the full monty.

I am reliably informed that the 3rd and most restrictive level, the Vexatious Litigant Order, was specifically created for Ebert and is referred to "in the trade" as an Ebert order. If I was not reliably informed then please do not correct me, I'd prefer to be retain that belief even if it's wrong.

ROFL nice.

[SoLongCeylon]

Hey Amanda!

I thought you were going to show up and look round ya old pad, shame was looking foreward to meeting you in that onesie you have

The agent couldnt make as he was ill, so just had a look round the outside

What a utter tip the place is,i wonder how bad it was before tom , sweaty sue, and craig left it?

It must have seemed surreal being there - the scene of so much selfmade madness.

Are you going to go back to go inside?

Really though, how could Tom let his family home become at risk to all this? Rhetorical question really but there is no way I would let my family down the way Tom has.

Paul McCartney sums it up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNfS9Ywb2Cc read the lyrics.....................

[PeanutGallery]

Kinda, The order says High Court and County Court, it doesn't name the Supreme or European court, but I doubt Tom would be able to afford the car park fees at those, let alone any claim costs. If I've read the order right, it only prevents him bringing claims against B&B or anybody else related to the case (Land Registry etc.), it doesn't prevent him suing Tesco for selling him rotten tomatoes.

In order to get to the European Court, Tom would have had to exhaust all the domestic remedies available to him without success. So Tom would have to get the case heard in the Supreme Court before applying. This could only be an appeal, Tom would need to get the permission of the Judge who ruled that his case had no merit in it, in order to bring an appeal to the Supreme Court. Even if he got that permission, lets say the Judge had a Burnaby of a lunch and was in a happy mood, Tom's case would then need to pass a permission stage to get to the Supreme Court. Note that this only applies to the Civil Restraint Order. Tom can't appeal the decision to refuse permission to appeal from the Godsmark ruling at the Supreme Court, because the court doesn't remake those decisions. Godsmark closed the door on Tom being able to launch an appeal to get his house back. That issue is now, to quote a Crawfordian euphemism "a dead duck". Of course Tom doesn't need to appeal the Godsmark ruling, because as Ceylon and Guy explained 15 times to the lovely Ellie, Tom won that hearing.

The test for the supreme court is very strict, it needs to raise a point of law that has not previously been considered by the Supreme Court or the European Court. Tom's case (the CRO), plainly (in my view as someone without any substantial legal training or experience but who has had lay experience of law), does not raise a new point of law. It does not violate European Law or infringe on Tom's rights, he can still bring suit against B&B it's just that if he does it gets looked over by a Judge to see if it has any merit. FatGambit is perfectly correct that Tom could sue anyone else if he wished, however he would need a good reason to do so and if he brings more and more claims which have no merit, say if he sued Yiam or Tim for visiting his old house, then he would likely find that the CRO would be extended to cover any and all suits.

Details for all of this can be found on the courts website.

[NG3]

Agreed - No addresses.

I think Arthur is enquiring from a legal perspective, comparing facts with what's said in court, rather than for any acts of aggression. I also suspecting he's mainly only enquiring about a couple of them.

It's the same with the occupations and earnings questions, we're not that interested in a specific figure, more how it compares to existing claims and actions, and therefore again their relationship to the truth.

We'd like to know if they are being honest, or lying to the court.