Moderator: ArthurWankspittle
I'm sure there have been some things you wouldn't expect to see that have been going in those skips!Firthy2002 wrote:Looks like the sort of thing you'd expect to see from a house renovation, unless the priceless heirlooms comprise the lower layers.
It's a shame Burnaby didn't hoist a panel of flooring. We could've sawn it into pieces and sold them on GOOFy as Holy Relics.PeanutGallery wrote:I did see some flooring in their, which given Tom's former career he probably laid himself and I don't doubt that seeing it would bring back fond memories of the time when he used to own a house.
I noticed the flooring to. All very sad as you say until you remember his very first post on GOODF when he posted quite clearly he knew he was behind on his mortgage, had tried other methods to avoid paying what he owed and was seeking any advice to avoid paying what he still owed. The rest is history, more lies, more deciept, and a thouroughly nasty person who is left to crave a little limelight to keep himself going.PeanutGallery wrote:I did see some flooring in their, which given Tom's former career he probably laid himself and I don't doubt that seeing it would bring back fond memories of the time when he used to own a house. Of course like a bad breakup sometimes you need to move on by getting rid of things that remind you of the ex.
Which is basically what the bungalow is doing...Tom on the other hand...
tom in court today what happened
Hi all,
Just got back from court and relaxing a bit now, But here is a brief outline what took place today but first I would like to thank all those that sent the good will wishes whether it’s on the Internet or by phone it always is really appreciated.
In court it was a very interesting time these hearings generally take between 15 to 20 minutes, but this one went on for an hour and 10 minutes, I made it extremely difficult in there for the magistrates and the legal adviser, so much so that the magistrates were shuffling in their seats and were a bit in discomfort, the legal adviser bless her was a slightly redder colour when I left them when I arrived, so all in all it went pretty much as I expected, with the exception of them breaking my human rights for they told me that I was not allowed to cross examine the CPS witnesses and that I needed to do it through a solicitor, I was a bit peeved at this and I made my feelings known that I did not need a ventriloquist doll to transmit my words for the witnesses to answer, and I told them it was an absolute absurdity.
They breach my human rights on several occasions, they try to bully me and coarsely into making statements but unfortunately for them I stood my ground with no case to answer.
I asked the magistrate who is known in the court as the chair! Lol to tell me her name. With a bit of shock and horror she said I have never been as this before and I am not obliged to tell you! To the contrary I replied you are obliged to tell me and I informed them of his Lordship Lord Dyson directive that he passed requiring that every judge, magistrate, and court officer must identify themselves when a member of the public request that, there are also other court directives to this effect.
There was more to-ing and fro-ing but about 10 minutes later the magistrate apologised and said yes Mr Crawford you are correct and told me her name, I said thank you very much Carol and the hearing continued.
Sorry can go into every little detail but basically we are where we are, dealing with criminals and word manipulators.
So thank you very much once again for your support and also for all those that came along to the court you’re all great, I believe that I am still in the driving seat and they still are in the dark in regards to what I’m up to
I will keep you up to date when I can.
Cheers Tom.
Of course it was a winexiledscouser wrote:Another resounding victory then. Not.
Hasn't Tom been declared a vexatious litigant? Wouldn't these demands be a blatant violation of that status?they told me that I was not allowed to cross examine the CPS witnesses and that I needed to do it through a solicitor, I was a bit peeved at this and I made my feelings known that I did not need a ventriloquist doll to transmit my words for the witnesses to answer, and I told them it was an absolute absurdity.
I think he is ok defending himself in a case brought against him, but can't start a case against anyone else.TheNewSaint wrote:
Hasn't Tom been declared a vexatious litigant? Wouldn't these demands be a blatant violation of that status?
I wonder if they banned him for being a troll?hanlons razor wrote:Hmmm toms post appears to have disappeared from the Facebook group already....
Please see my earlier post re charges...littleFred wrote:Tom's post is still at ETFOTB.
I guess he is accused of criminal damage or something, and that he wants to be found guilty.
It also creates the impression that he's still fighting for his house. Because if he's not, the freetard crowd will stop paying attention to him. They're pretty quick to abandon their causes celebres once their last hope is dashed. I really think the celebrity has gone to Tom's head, and that his antics are just as much as to stay in the limelight as they are to try and regain Fearn Chase. It's sad, really.littleFred wrote:Tom doesn't even say who is accused of doing what. Nor does he say what outcome he wants.
This is deliberate by Tom, of course. Whatever the outcome, he can claim that's what he wanted all along.
Noting his previous comment "I hope to progress this into the Crown Court", I think TC is being deliberately belligerent in the hope of ensuring he is convicted this time. And then he can appeal to the higher Crown Court.letissier14 wrote:Of course it was a win
win #1 The magistrates were uncomfortable with the questions asked
win #2 The legal advisor was redder in the face at the end, then when they started
win #3 They breached his human rights
win #4 The magistrate apologised to Tom
win #5 He proved they are all criminals
win #6 He has the upper hand
so all in all, it was a big win !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He can't start a case against UK Asset Resolution, B&B or anybody else in relation to Castle Crawford without permission, he didn' quiet elevate himself to full vexatious litigant status, just got himself a CRO, so he can still bring other types of claims, such as suing you or I for slander etc.letissier14 wrote:I think he is ok defending himself in a case brought against him, but can't start a case against anyone else.TheNewSaint wrote:
Hasn't Tom been declared a vexatious litigant? Wouldn't these demands be a blatant violation of that status?
