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

[Joinder]

I've had issues with Joinder on this discussion;

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10888

Check from this point on;

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10888&start=20#p215416

Whatever point he was making just came out of the blue not attached to anything. If he did it for any reason apart from being hostile I don't see it.

And, if I recall, I've chastised him as a moderator. I'm still unclear if he is posting as someone actually interested in the topics discussed or as a troll. Although, to be fair, he could be both. He seems to participate mainly to criticize other posters over things that make little sense to me.

I am interested in the subject
Hence my polite enquiry about injunctions.
A withering response from Yiam sort of provoked me a bit, its not my fault no one turned up at court is it ?
As for being on here mainly to criticise other posters, .....really ?
OK, I don't join in your off topic beer musings, but I don't think that's a critism.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I've deleted some posts on here because we are going over old ground and heading for another flame war. If people want to bring something new fine but stop raking up old arguments just for the "fun" of it.

[Joinder]

I've deleted some posts on here because we are going over old ground and heading for another flame war. If people want to bring something new fine but stop raking up old arguments just for the "fun" of it.

Thank you.
That Burnaby fellow is brining up posts from way back, and is adding nothing new at all, but I think you deleted my post in error instead.
Can you have a polite word with him ?
BTW, on "Gregg's" infamous " we ain't got rules" subject, he says we make "fun" of others on here, and its acceptable
Now, I know you've just said you deleted posts because some were using it for "fun", is their another unwritten rule that forbids fun in certain circumstances ?

[Footloose52]

Joinder, you asked a series of reasonable questions but you then launched into a personal attack on Yiam again.

Anyone can take an interest in buying 3 Fearn Close, you could, I could but it so happens Yiam has. That is nothing to do with Tom, Craig or Amanda and, indeed, it is none of our business either other than the interest and amusement generated by the fomtl rubbish that is being spouted.

What is concerning is the concerted effort of the Crawfords to 'out' those who disagree with their view that the house was taken from them under false pretences, it wasn't.

It is the threat of physical harm and, indeed, the stalking of an individual or individuals that is at the heart of what Yiam is trying to stop. How would you feel if someone offered physical harm and mental stress to your family by false accusations? OK, it works both ways but for anyone with any common sense or knowledge of the mortgage system Tom et al are most definitely in the wrong yet they are hounding an innocent party who is buying property.

[getoutofdebtfools]

OK, back on topic.

So as expected the Crawfords and Haining failed to turn up. There's little doubt that they were aware of proceedings.

It's not clear whether they responded to proceedings in writing yet though but I presume not as I'd have thought Yiam would have mentioned that.

Without jeopardising anything, does anybody know what the next steps would be in such circumstances?

Would the defendants be ordered to attend or would Yiam gain the order he requires in the same way as a 'judgment in default'?

[Joinder]

Joinder, you asked a series of reasonable questions but you then launched into a personal attack on Yiam again.

Anyone can take an interest in buying 3 Fearn Close, you could, I could but it so happens Yiam has. That is nothing to do with Tom, Craig or Amanda and, indeed, it is none of our business either other than the interest and amusement generated by the fomtl rubbish that is being spouted.

What is concerning is the concerted effort of the Crawfords to 'out' those who disagree with their view that the house was taken from them under false pretences, it wasn't.

It is the threat of physical harm and, indeed, the stalking of an individual or individuals that is at the heart of what Yiam is trying to stop. How would you feel if someone offered physical harm and mental stress to your family by false accusations? OK, it works both ways but for anyone with any common sense or knowledge of the mortgage system Tom et al are most definitely in the wrong yet they are hounding an innocent party who is buying property.

Yes, I see your point, I responded to a moody post from Yiam , shouldn't have done, apologies.

[Pox]

OK, back on topic.


Without jeopardising anything, does anybody know what the next steps would be in such circumstances?

Would the defendants be ordered to attend or would Yiam gain the order he requires in the same way as a 'judgment in default'?

My understanding is that if the injunction application is deemed to have merit and it is not contested, it would then be granted.
If granted,the claimant can apply for costs.

[Joinder]

Does a judge decide if it has merit ?.....what if someone applies for an injunction but its full of tosh, and the other side, for whatever reason fail to contest it, how is the veracity of the application decided ?

[Llwellyn]

A judge does decide if it has 'merit'... Initially it is looked at if there is 'reasonable' cause for the application, then they usually proceed. If the 'defendants' do not show, do not contest; as long as it has passed the general 'merit' evaluation, then judgement goes forth. After a judgement has been passed, it CAN be challenged still, so even if one with little or no real 'merit' does slip through, there is always the ability to correct it.
This is, in part why we have judges/justices/'learned' people sitting behind the big ol desk! They usually have enough common sense to understand if some twat moron is posting something just to be an asshat, or if it actually, in law, has merit/supportable position.
If it is without merit, the judge would say so right off, and tell them to either A) Refile properly, or B) have a nice day.
This is in part, the humanity of the system, and it' fallibility, some judges are 'stern and strict' others are more 'wishy-washy'.... Here in Canada, if you get Rooke (responsible for the Meads vs Meads decision).. you better be sure your poop is in a scoop!

Llwellyn
Guardian and Keeper of the Tor

[PeanutGallery]

To a certain extent a Judge has decided that it has merit, that is because it hasn't so far been struck out by a Judge. I would surmise that another hearing date will be listed the parties again asked to attend and Yiam will again have to go through the procedure of service.

In terms of deciding the veracity, if nobody disputes a statement of truth made to the court, then the court should not automatically presume the statement to be a lie, rather the court should see if the statement is disputed. Even if a statement is wildly preposterous, such as if I filed a claim that alleged that Her Majesty of a night had nothing better to do but call my telephone every 15 minutes giggling like a regal harpy, then the court should not simply presume that is so unlikely a thing that it could not possibly have ever happened (note I am happy to point out that this has not in fact happened to me, my relationship with the Queen is perfectly cordial and she'd probably have a servant do it anyways).

If the hearing is rescheduled and they again fail to respond or turn up and don't give a reason it wouldn't surprise me if a default judgement is given in Yiam's favour, this is because the Judge won't really have much of a choice in what to do and it would be a perversion of justice if a party, who is harassing another, intentionally avoids court procedures so as to frustrate the harassed party from gaining an injunction to prevent that behaviour.

Yiams case will be considered to have merit until such a time as a Judge decides it doesn't (which a Judge may not do).

[midjit-gems]

Well it seems the spitter in court today decided to change her plea and got fined a total of £800 Inc costs etc. So much for no case to answer to and her hubby collecting mountains of statements to prove it.

As for the main man Mr crawfraud he is still pleading not guilty and his case will be dealt with today though it's appearing to be one of those times where it really could go either way.

More to come on this and other events that have happened in the court today, later on

[Pox]

Well it seems the spitter in court today decided to change her plea and got fined a total of £800 Inc costs etc. So much for no case to answer to and her hubby collecting mountains of statements to prove it.

As for the main man Mr crawfraud he is still pleading not guilty and his case will be dealt with today though it's appearing to be one of those times where it really could go either way.

More to come on this and other events that have happened in the court today, later on

Thanks for the update, the fact that it was today slipped my mind.

[midjit-gems]

There has been a lot going on. There was a few other incidents to mention other than the actual case, not quite sure what it was all about but hopefully become clear a little later.

It would appear someone tried to give mark haining some court papers (that's what they appeared to be) and he was being rather hostile bordering on being violent towards who was trying to give them to him. He really is a very angry individual.

Again more to follow as and when I can

[AndyPandy]

Well it seems the spitter in court today decided to change her plea and got fined a total of £800 Inc costs etc. So much for no case to answer to and her hubby collecting mountains of statements to prove it.

As for the main man Mr crawfraud he is still pleading not guilty and his case will be dealt with today though it's appearing to be one of those times where it really could go either way.

More to come on this and other events that have happened in the court today, later on

Thanks for the update, the fact that it was today slipped my mind.

Ditto on that, well done M-G!!

[midjit-gems]

Oh well get ready for the influx of celebrations and I told you so's from the crawfrauds and their dwindling supporters.

Tom has just been found not guilty of assaulting the police officer the day of the eviction.

[Pox]

Oh well get ready for the influx of celebrations and I told you so's from the crawfrauds and their dwindling supporters.

Tom has just been found not guilty of assaulting the police officer the day of the eviction.

Was he representing himself?

[LordEd]

Can't trust a corrupt legal system to do anything right these days.

[midjit-gems]

Oh well get ready for the influx of celebrations and I told you so's from the crawfrauds and their dwindling supporters.

Tom has just been found not guilty of assaulting the police officer the day of the eviction.

Was he representing himself?

He had John Hurst with him

I bet he won't know what to do with himself now, probably Hurst first win

[letissier14]

Hardly a win

It was obvious looking at the videos on the day of the eviction that they only arrested him to get him out of the way.

[midjit-gems]

Hardly a win

It was obvious looking at the videos on the day of the eviction that they only arrested him to get him out of the way.

They will see it as a win though. Proof of the corruption and criminal activities of the police.