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

[Burnaby49]

Tom's obsession about how B&B not paying a court fee (I have no idea whether they did or didn't) made all decisions invalid reminds me of a case here in Canada regarding an anti-tax fanatic, case name forgotten. The guy went to the Federal Court of Canada with an argument about arcane parliamentary procedure. Canada's parliament has its own internal rules about how business is conducted. Bills get passed after a lot of overhead, three readings, Black Rod, spinning in a circle at a crossroad in Alabama at a full moon, that kind of minutiae. No doubt the British parliament is the same.

Anyhow our fanatic pointed out that some trivial step was missed in the procedures taken when the section of the Income Tax Act he'd been assessed under had been passed by parliament and, therefore, the whole thing was invalid. The court gave a big yawn and said that parliament made its own rules and if parliament chose to skip some of its rules from time to time it was free to do so. The procedural rules weren't law, just internal guidelines. Since parliament passed the legislation in question the process by which it got to a vote was irrelevant as to whether or not it was valid law or not.

I'd assume that Tom's moronic argument is equivalent. Even if B&B had not paid a fee the court was free, if it chose, to proceed without it.

[littleFred]

Oh, dear, Tom is still on about the fee. He's been told that (a) it was paid and (b) judgements would still stand if they hadn't. But he won't listen.

Tom has failed to grasp an essential point about courts. In a court case, we can assume the two sides don't agree. If they did agree, there would be no need to go to court. The purpose of the court isn't to persuade one side that the other is correct. The purpose is merely to decide which is correct. If the losing side still doesn't agree that the winner is correct, well, that's tough. The court's decision is the one that matters (but can be appealed under certain circumstances).

The court has ruled that a fee was paid. There is no obligation on anyone to now prove this to Tom's satisfaction. He is entitled to his opinion that everyone is lying about the fee, but this opinion won't help him at all.

A similar point on the arrears. Tom accepted (in Godsmark's hearing) that he was in arrears. It was thus ruled. He stopped paying the interest on the capital, and didn't repay the capital, so that was that.

[Skeleton]

He forgot to mention the RAF Typhoons circling overhead, trying to keep separation from Dr Who in his Tardis. He has switched off the comments as well, next will be the thumbs buttons no doubt.

Encouraging people to attend the auction may just be buying himself more trouble, he just can't help himself can he.

[wanglepin]

Encouraging people to attend the auction may just be buying himself more trouble, he just can't help himself can he.

That is his clear intention to rally people to disrupt the auction, that is why he mentioned it in the video.If the truth be known, it was probably the whole reason for the video, because the rest we know is total bollocks. He's just to dim to realise that it will cause him trouble too.
No, he cannot help himself, it`s far far too late for that and he is far far too dim to realise he won't be getting any new hearings that will turn all this around for him.... or get his house back..

[fat frank]

once again the crawfords trying to get people to do something they wont do themselves

[vampireLOREN]

You bastards have been giving misinformation to the general public and are trying to blacken Tom's name. No point in denying it I got that intel from the most reliable source currently available. Tom said so right in his new video and who has more credibility than Tom? Well, ok, apart from Amanda . . . . .

But Tom, after all his battles and losses, still retains the most potent symbol of his rebellion against an evil system. The oppressive powers of the state have been unable to get posession of his hat!

I always viewed him as a lying old swine, but can't help notice it appears this summer has taken its toll. The short term memory loss has got worse....(ummmm what was I writing about? oh yeah Tom). The rambling has increased and he has aged a lot, in fact what Ebert has.....Tom has it too now . So should we now view him with some sympathy and give him a break? ......Nah Screw him.

[guilty]

From FOI requests:

Please indicate how many helicopters were used and who gave authority for their use in the operation
No Police helicopters were used.

Please advise the number of officers who attended, their ranks, and the number of hours attended by each;
It is recorded in the Operational Order that there were 129 Officers to be involved during the course of the Operation. The Operational Order shows that the ranks of the Officers listed were 5 Inspectors, 14 Sergeants, 93 PC’s, 12 PCSOs and 5 Police Staff. However not all of these Officers may have deployed. There were between 20 – 50 Officers on the scene at any one time. Two Chief Inspectors managed the process.

[wanglepin]

What!!!!1!!!!! No Gurkha`s!!!!1!!!!!?

[Hercule Parrot]

I think Tom's current editing spree is to try and make it seem that he's not actually a public figure and therefore doesn't deserve the level of scrutiny his affairs are currently getting.

I think his videos will screw that particular pooch, in the argot of our colonial cousins. So many of them, blathering his nonsense and appealing for mob support, and all copied to so many hosts and sites by his supporters. So many third-party videos taken by Crawfraud supporters at various events, demonstrating his irrational and aggressive approach. He won't be able to undo that history so easily.

[guilty]

From FOI requests:

The cost for the policing of this action will be met through the normal policing budget.
There will be some additional costs involved. These are:-
An estimated cost of £6,600 in overtime payments calculated by the number of planned overtime hours that officers were required to work above their normal working hours. This equated to 264 hours at an average of £25/hour.
Approximately £1000 will have been spent on meals and refreshments.

[Skeleton]

What!!!!1!!!!! No Gurkha`s!!!!1!!!!!?

Are you blind man? They were there behind the Scot's Guards.

[Tml69]

In a court case, we can assume the two sides don't agree. If they did agree, there would be no need to go to court. The purpose of the court isn't to persuade one side that the other is correct. The purpose is merely to decide which is correct. If the losing side still doesn't agree that the winner is correct, well, that's tough. The court's decision is the one that matters (but can be appealed under certain circumstances).

This is a very good point. Think I might print this off and laminate and give to clients before and after hearings.

[guilty]

From FOI requests:

How many police vehicles were involved?
It is recorded in the Operational Order that there were five Police vehicles to be involved at the commencement of the Operation.

How many non police vehicles were involved?
It is recorded in the Operational Order that there were six Non-Policing vehicles to be involved at the commencement of the Operation.

[guilty]

From FOI requests:

Who made the decision and on what day that the bailiffs were in possession of correct and legal paperwork?
A copy of the warrant issued by the County Court was seen by Nottinghamshire Police on 20th May at Nottingham Magistrates Court. Chief Superintendent Mark Holland was the senior Officer in charge and saw this.

[fat frank]

From FOI requests:

Who made the decision and on what day that the bailiffs were in possession of correct and legal paperwork?
A copy of the warrant issued by the County Court was seen by Nottinghamshire Police on 20th May at Nottingham Magistrates Court. Chief Superintendent Mark Holland was the senior Officer in charge and saw this.

was this the warrant Sue claims didn't have a stamp or signature and that no one would show her

[wanglepin]

FOI 31st July 2015.

http://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/si ... 7%2015.pdf

[IDIOT]

What!!!!1!!!!! No Gurkha`s!!!!1!!!!!?

For a moment I thought I caught a glimpse of the SAS then realised it was the roof top 6 storming the building.

[guilty]

[PeanutGallery]

Tom really has been succoured by the woo hasn't he. He says the Judge was a substitute Judge and that the Judge they had was removed, I'd think it more likely that the Judge originally scheduled was unable to appear (which could be for any number of reasons, health, another case lasting too long, decided to take a quick holiday) after all if the courts were corrupt wouldn't they need all the judges to be in on it?

Tom still keeps going on about the fee, now he's been told the fee was paid by a Judge who would have looked into this. It was paid by a credit card. He's even been told that if a fee wasn't paid, the court could still choose to hear the case, this would be at the courts discretion. Tom is arguing a point that would be irrelevant and that doesn't concern him. He also doesn't understand that if you keep going on about a point that is pointless you will harm your case because you will fail to advance points that actually matter.

Tom talks about the CRO and how he wasn't able to defend it, but the decision is made based on past conduct. Namely if you file multiple claims that do not have merit, then the court may restrict your ability to file claims. Note that it only restricts Tom from filing a claim, it doesn't stop him from filing a claim. The restriction is that the court puts the claim before a judge who reaches a decision on whether the case has merit or not. If Tom could come up with an argument to reinstall him into Fearn Chase that actually had merit then it is likely that the court would allow this to be heard. He hasn't though and he's reached the end of the line when it comes to appeals and I strongly doubt he could come up with such an argument or that an argument for his restoration even exists.

Tom then talks about the fact that Bradford and Bingley didn't file a defence to the most recent hearing, the thing was because of res judicata they didn't need to file a defence. If they did it would only have added to Tom's final bill. They also no longer owned the property so the injunction Tom wanted wouldn't apply to them anyway.

Tom also confirmed that the reason he didn't take up the offer of crowdfunding was because he didn't want to be blackmailed. He also says that he could have raised the money through other means, which contradicts his first (now deleted) post on GOODF where he said he had no hope of raising the money.

[PeanutGallery]

You bastards have been giving misinformation to the general public and are trying to blacken Tom's name. No point in denying it I got that intel from the most reliable source currently available. Tom said so right in his new video and who has more credibility than Tom? Well, ok, apart from Amanda . . . . .

But Tom, after all his battles and losses, still retains the most potent symbol of his rebellion against an evil system. The oppressive powers of the state have been unable to get posession of his hat!

Methinks someone's watched the Onesie video one time too many.