The Rooftop 6 - The Trial of the Century!

[midjit-gems]

At 12 minutes in the full Youtube clip, sweaty Sue says that there is no warrant but then goes on to say a few seconds "They haven't even got a stamp on it or nuffing.... no signatures...." .

So there was a warrant, sweaty Sue was shown it, but she believes it is illegal due to the usual Freeman guff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEbWVkEsw9o

Well spotted

Perhaps if we can tempt you to take part in the very debate you wanted James, we could debate exactly what document that Sue claims the Enforcement Officer didn't have, that she didn't see but at the same time can confirm was not signed and was not stamped.

https://youtu.be/yEbWVkEsw9o?t=12m7s

Do you have any idea how someone can say that a document that they say they have not seen, doesn't have a stamp and is not signed ?

Just what is the "it" that Sue says is not signed and does not have a seal on it - could it be the same warrant that a certified copy of, was produced during your hearing. Also the same warrant that was sent to the Crawfords, which Amanda claimed was a Unicorn and that they would post for all to see but haven't ?

Your comments James, would be welcome and appreciated

I don't claim to be an intellectual but I'm pretty sure that's three times now they've had warrant, at least

Tom told us he had recieved it
Sue the day of the eviction
Amanda claiming to have the unicorn that was being forensically examined

Now I wonder ............ when will people finally realise they've been completely hoodwinked?

[getoutofdebtfools]

And as clearly seen in that video, the County Court Bailiff (with HMCTS on his back) walks up to show Tom the warrant but Tom is too busy ranting that "he has to identify himself" and that "he must be certified" (it's Certificated) and that "the bailiffs name must be on the warrant". The County Court Bailiff clearly can't be arsed with Tom's bullshit and walks back off down the hill.

The fact is that the Queen herself could have given Tom the warrant but he and his dim friends, family and followers still would have said there wasn't one.

Because of their blatant stupidity this argument will never be won.

[KickahaOta]

The fact is that the Queen herself could have given Tom the warrant but he and his dim friends, family and followers still would have said there wasn't one.

But it would have been awesome.

Since the Queen undoubtedly has other obligations, perhaps they could have sent one of the remaining royal corgis instead.

[FatGambit]

Or Andrew.

[SoLongCeylon]

Could it be that Sue has a habit of telling a little lie that then becomes an out of control monster? For example, in the eviction video she does say initially there wasn't a warrant - and that has become major part of TC and his crew's belief that the eviction was unlawful. It soon became too late for her to correct the mis speaking. Her later comments about there being no signature or stamp on the warrant shows there was a warrant.

Now, lets go back to the root cause of their downfall - the endowment policy. The Court records reveal the EP was cancelled by Sue many years ago. I cannot recall seeing anything anywhere about Sue accepting she did this - for if she did it would prove the inability to repay the capital was her fault. Instead the line they peddled was one of The B&B " changing the mortgage" If Tom had mentioned this in his first video NONE of the subsequent publicity would ever of happened. From then on, the lies and half thruths kept flowing until the Godsmark judgement was made public.

I think Sue has a lot to answer for and apart from her sweaty day in July, has been the quietest of them all.

[Bones]

I personally would like to thanks James Bradley, whilst he claimed to want to debate things with us and then appears to have had a change of heart (please no one say bottle job) - his posts have resulted in some new facts being discovered in terms of the warrant to further prove that the Crawfords and supporters are spreading misinformation and taking the kind people that helped them for idiots.

Thanks James Bradley

[Greengrass]

I personally would like to thanks James Bradley, whilst he claimed to want to debate things with us and then appears to have had a change of heart (please no one say bottle job) - his posts have resulted in some new facts being discovered in terms of the warrant to further prove that the Crawfords and supporters are spreading misinformation and taking the kind people that helped them for idiots.

Thanks James Bradley

Shame he has disappeared as wanted to ask if he was going to resurrect Mary the Clamp Fairy?

[wanglepin]

Colon is having some kind of a fit over in goofsville. He's arguing about the warrant not being produced for the judge

ceylon » Fri Jan 15, 2016 10:40 pm

it was not dropped

we were found NOT GUILTY

the rest is garnish to hide the fact no judge would sign and take liability that any warrant was legit

ffs

i wonder if anyone actually watches what is said by me and others that were

actually there

it was covered up as they would have had to show the original warrant and it does not exist

6 months and a 7 day trial and not once was the original shown....WHY

because it does not and has never existed

on the roof "show us the warrant and we will come down"

no warrant shown

from the start of the case we asked to see the original warrant

7 days into a crown court trial and as soon as the judge said

"I WANT THE ORIGINAL HERE IN THE MORNING"

PERSECUTOR OFFERS NO EVIDENCE

if you can not see whats going on.........

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 62#p438262

[FatGambit]

Would there ever be a transcript available for this? I know there's more chance of me being hit by a tram while sat on my toilet than that actually hapenning, but it would make entertaining reading.

[midjit-gems]

Going back to sue ...............

Apologies I can't find the YouTube video, I'm sure someone will though. The day of the judgment big reveal there is a video (the one with the prince of bellend saying he'll take down any bailiff personally) sue again let's something slip. She says something along the lines of, yes it's a win but still have a lot to do to get the house safe.

Let's face it with tom being the control freak he is, she was probably terrified to tell him what she'd done in canceling the ep payments hence why she was sole signiture on the documents trying to rectify it

[PeanutGallery]

I think it possible that Sue may not actually remember cancelling the endowment policy. I think when she did this, she had forgotten what it was and was not aware of it's importance. Then when she was called into the bank to discuss the matter she may genuinely have been unable to remember making that decision. I certainly don't think she has told Tom or that she told him at the time.

However all of this is in the long and distant past. Sue won't admit it, she may not even be capable of recalling that she did it. Tom won't accept that it wasn't any fraud of the banks, and the family will continue to believe that their property was stolen. We'll never really know why the Crawfords stopped paying the endowment, but that is not strictly relevant. The fact of the matter is they did stop paying it, then the dug their heads into the sand and hoped that a mob could force them to keep their house.

[Joinder]

Would there ever be a transcript available for this? I know there's more chance of me being hit by a tram while sat on my toilet than that actually hapenning, but it would make entertaining reading.

Just ask me, I was there

[ArthurWankspittle]

Would there ever be a transcript available for this? I know there's more chance of me being hit by a tram while sat on my toilet than that actually hapenning, but it would make entertaining reading.

Just ask me, I was there

So what was said about the warrant in the Crown Court hearing?

[rumpelstilzchen]

Ceylon wrote:

from the start of the case we asked to see the original warrant

7 days into a crown court trial and as soon as the judge said

"I WANT THE ORIGINAL HERE IN THE MORNING"

PERSECUTOR OFFERS NO EVIDENCE

I call bullshit on this. No one on the roof had any right to see the warrant. The warrant was none of their business. Someone who isn't named on a warrant cannot demand to see it. We know the warrant exists so I do not believe for one minute that the judge asked to see it.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I think it possible that Sue may not actually remember cancelling the endowment policy. I think when she did this, she had forgotten what it was and was not aware of it's importance. Then when she was called into the bank to discuss the matter she may genuinely have been unable to remember making that decision. I certainly don't think she has told Tom or that she told him at the time.

However all of this is in the long and distant past. Sue won't admit it, she may not even be capable of recalling that she did it. Tom won't accept that it wasn't any fraud of the banks, and the family will continue to believe that their property was stolen. We'll never really know why the Crawfords stopped paying the endowment, but that is not strictly relevant. The fact of the matter is they did stop paying it, then the dug their heads into the sand and hoped that a mob could force them to keep their house.

Probably a lot of truth in this. What has always struck me is that no one on the Crawford side offered any evidence that Godsmark's description of the saga was wrong or objected to the history in the court hearing. Tom has made various claims about the endowment ending but has always accused B&B of "losing" it (an odd concept anyway), but he's never flat out denied that Sue cancelled it.

[daveBeeston]

Its quite possible that Sue forgot she cancelled the EP policy and know that it has come to light she simply cannot admit it as doing so would prove they where in the wrong and all the supporters have been duped.
Regarding Jay or who ever signed up portraying to be him,does any think that the lack of debate on his behalf is because he never really wanted to debate? i think he signed up just to gloat and hoped that he would be shot down with insults,that way he could go back to GOODF and say he tired(obviously he failed with that as he found we do actually want to debate with him).

[Bones]

i aint scared of anything

Well according to Colon's video as you are not Colon, Henry or Betty, you was one of the ones that were "very frightened"

https://youtu.be/RNa56OPi8cM?t=1m48s

So one of you is not being honest, is it you James Bradley or is it Colon.

Hey QuatLoosers

Yes this is me Jay Brad, well you have speculated about me enough so now lets have the debate i sit here awaiting your response

And we now await your response, please post again. You joined this site, claimed you wanted to debate with us - you was welcomed and we actively and positively responded to your own request for a debate but now you are not to be seen.

[Bones]

I don't claim to be an intellectual but I'm pretty sure that's three times now they've had warrant, at least

Tom told us he had recieved it
Sue the day of the eviction
Amanda claiming to have the unicorn that was being forensically examined

Now I wonder ............ when will people finally realise they've been completely hoodwinked?

As we know from the text of the Godsmark Judgement, the crawfords did receive the warrant in 2014. They are unable to deny this (but they do), as Tom made an application to stay execution of that warrant which came before Godsmark as a matter of urgency on 2nd February 2015.

Indeed, Tom (bearing in mind claims to have never received this warrant) wanted the warrant suspended on a number of grounds. He wanted to challenge the validity of the original possession order, the validity of the mortgage and the basis for enforcement of its terms (which were themselves disputed).

So come on Crawfords, lets stop pretending that a warrant was not issued in 2014. If it was not issued how could Tom apply for to stay execution of that warrant. At which point it is beneficial to recall the Guy Taylor video, in which he showed the Case Management file from the Court confirming that the warrant was issued - Yet whilst Tom applied to stay execution of it and Guy provided evidence that it was issued, the Crawfords still claim it was never issued.

Moving on

The day of the eviction

Sue confirms that whilst she denies there was a warrant, she knows it was not signed or stamped lets call this the "crawford paradox" - the ability to claim you have not seen something whilst also being able to say what was or was not on it

As shown in the video recorded and posted online, when Tom arrived back at the house an attempt was made at that time to give him the warrant.

Amanda has since posted that the Crawfords have been sent a copy of this warrant but claims it is a unicorn. However, she also said that they would post it online for all to see the defects.

Why have the Crawfords not posted the warrant after so many months ? What are they hiding ?

So far, we know that Sue saw the warrant on the day of the eviction, an attempt was also made on the day of the eviction to give a copy to Tom and that subsequently a copy was sent and received by the Crawfords.

Despite this, they still maintain there is no warrant

Fast forward to the hearing

https://youtu.be/RNa56OPi8cM?t=8m

Colon confirms that a certified copy of the warrant was produced.

So now Sue has seen it on the day of the eviction, Tom refused to accept on the day of the eviction, the crawfrauds were subsequently sent a copy of it and a certified copy was also produced in the hearing.

Despite all of these they still there is no warrant. The reason they do this is because of the twisted Guy Taylor and Ebert's view of what is a valid warrant. They overlook that it doesn't matter what the Crawfrauds or any of their little helpers (didn't know Colon was that short) think, the only opinion that matters is the Court and as we know everytime they have challenged the mortgage and warrant in Court, they have lost each and every time

Something that has been overlooked is that the Idiot 6 and the dumber one were not found 'not guilty' because of any of the freeman / sovcit arguments such as drop the name etc.

So the only reason these fools went on the roof and that this trial took place was because Tom didn't look at the paperwork on the day of the eviction, when an attempt was made to show him - as per the video posted by his own son.

[Forsyth]

I call bullshit on this. No one on the roof had any right to see the warrant. The warrant was none of their business. Someone who isn't named on a warrant cannot demand to see it. We know the warrant exists so I do not believe for one minute that the judge asked to see it.

One question is whether the protestors honestly believed that they had the permission of the owner to do what they did. Note that this belief could be true if they honestly thought the owner of the house was Tom Crawford and that he had, or would have, given permission. The important thing to understand was the actual ownership would not be at question, but the protestors belief in the ownership. This makes the difference between a civil claim for damages and a criminal prosecution.

As such, the warrant could be an issue as, if it could be shown that the protestors knew that the warrant existed and was valid, it would show they could not reasonably have held the belief that the property still belonged to Tom. As it was, I suspect the lack of belief in the warrant was the issue, and not the actual warrant itself.

To undermine this, the CPS may have made the claim that the warrant had been shown (then or previously) in order to demonstrate that the protestors belief in Tom's ownership was not honestly held. If so, then there could quite reasonably have been a requirement to produce the documentation that was alleged to have been shown in order to support this claim. It could also have been claimed that the warrant was made available to the protestors but that they refused to inspect it, to similar effect.

With no evidence to back the claim up it becomes a case of the CPS's word against the protestors. With the witness evidence being shown to be dubious (at best), the lack of any evidence that the protestors had seen the warrant or otherwise believed that it existed may have been the last straw for the judge.

Of course, the question of whether the warrant was seen by the protestors or not is irrelevant to proving the ownership of the property; as is whether the police possess either the original or a copy of the warrant. It may, however, be extremely relevant in examining the protestors beliefs, and hence whether their actions were criminal or not.

There's a lot of speculation above. Unfortunately without a transcript of the case or a reliable commentary from someone who attended it's difficult to avoid this. As such, this is a suggestion of how the production of the warrant could have been relevant to the case, and not a statement of fact.

As a piece of final, and extreme, speculation, I can visualise the judge asking the prosecution "... and did the police ever show the warrant to the protestors to show them that they were in the wrong?" and an unprepared barrister, slightly flustered having just watched their own witnesses destroy their testimony, reply "I believe they did". I can then see the judge reply "In that case, they will have a copy of the warrant in their files, I suggest that you should bring that with you tomorrow".

[Bones]

For the benefit of Jimmyw, Colon and some idiot called rgstmajor

No this case does not set a precedent relating to the issue of the warrant. Go and take 1 second to see what is a legal precedent

"In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body adopts when deciding later cases with similar issues or facts based upon earlier trial results."

No principle or rule relating to the warrant was established. The case was not about the eviction or the warrant - indeed the Judge was a little unhappy that the case had even gone to Court as it gave these idiots "a platform". The case was about what they were actually charged with and fell apart when the testimonies of the prosecutions witness's was substantially different from their witness statements.

Personally, I could not be more happy that you guys were found not happy. It means that 2016 should be almost as entertaining as 2015.

If everything claimed by Colon and Amanda about what the judge said about the warrant and it being the reason the hearing was stopped, why has Tom not moved back in ?