Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[#six]

However the judge told him: "Let's not make the mistake of thinking we are dealing with the Bradford and Bingley. No-one else is in the court but you."

I don't see how that relates to the "positive" reports being posted on ETFOTB. The judge made it clear that the decision on who owns the house has been made and that its only Toms actions that they are interested in.

[Skeleton]

I can only imagine the Judge has done exactly what another Judge did with Tom, and delayed his verdict knowing a immediate judgement would almost certainly incite more trouble. I do not know the ins and outs of what he has been accused of but as others have posted a not guilty verdict will almost certainly lead to another march on the house from Tom and his crackpot mates for photographs and videos, causing yet more hassle for the new owners, because a not guilty verdict will be seen as a victory and a complete vindication of his actions. It will also confirm to Tom that the house does in fact belong to him. The fact the judge has already pointed out the issue is Tom's actions and not who own's the property will as usual be ignored.

[SoLongCeylon]

Why didn't Tom play the usual " No Case To Answer " card?

[rumpelstilzchen]

The article states the developer paid £93500 at auction for the property. I thought a lower figure had been mentioned on here?

[ArthurWankspittle]

Actually, I find that report very interesting. It sounds as though Tom knows that a charge of criminal damage could be resolved without touching on who owns the property (after the original rooftop protest this should be expected), so he deliberately attempted to be arrested for an offence where his "honest beliefs" wouldn't be considered, but the real matter of ownership might.

If the above is correct, then I wonder if the police have deliberately chosen not to prosecute for the burglary offence precisely because it is what Tom wants and to avoid getting bogged down in the details that Tom was planning to raise.

You may have a point there as IIRC a burglary charge is movable to a Crown Court in front of a jury. Just what Tom would have wanted in terms of an audience. But the CPS/Police can try to get some restraining order this way without all the Crown Court fuss and risk of loss (You are more likely to be acquitted at Crown Court than Magistrates Court).

[ArthurWankspittle]

The article states the developer paid £93500 at auction for the property. I thought a lower figure had been mentioned on here?

Think it was bought for £55k at auction then re-sold.

[aesmith]

I suppose I should pipe up here as a dissenting voice. While I'm far from certain that he'll be found not guilty, I do think that is more likely than not what will happen. That has nothing to do with my own opinion on Tom's actions, but that the defence that is open to him (that he honestly believed that he still owned the property) may be difficult to disprove.

Wasn't Mr Ebert convicted of damage in spite of his unrelenting insistence that it was still his house?

[Fearnchase]

Loving the guy Taylor comments on the Nottingham post article

[PeanutGallery]

One of the issues with the crawford campaign is that they only listen to their own arguments and dismiss any others.

Craig thinks Tom won because he basically stuck his fingers in ears and did not recognise the other sides arguments having any merit. We have to remember that we are dealing with a very special kind of stupid.

[Skeleton]

Loving the guy Taylor comments on the Nottingham post article

Tom will be hating the Nottingham Post even more for the fact he can't have that comment section turned off. He needs to stop burying his head in the sand like he does on YT and read the comments. He may not like comments but he may actually learn something from them that may stop him being sent to jail, because even if does not on this occasion that is where he is heading if he keeps this ridiculous behaviour up. It is also becoming more and more apparent he is not the cleverest man in the world. You can't simply dismiss someone else's argument purely based on the fact you disagree with it and that is all he continues to do.

[getoutofdebtfools]

Loving the guy Taylor comments on the Nottingham post article

Good to see Guy Taylor has finally seen sense and is telling Tom how it really is

I'm surprised that his avatar is a full pint though, that'd have been empty by 9:30am surely?

[Bones]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/5311314 ... 667254727/

Tom Crawford
19 mins

Hi all,
First of all, I would like to thank all those who attended court yesterday and for the many wonderful messages of goodwill, my family and I really do appreciate all of your support and now the heads up on yesterday’s court day.

There was a small case heard before we entered the court so we had time to speak to a solicitor, the reason for speaking to the solicitor was because the court had once again attempted to pervert the course of justice.

1. The court would not allow me to cross examine the prosecution’s witnesses and they appointed a solicitor to cross-examine the prosecutors witnesses, this is an abuse of the law which is only there to protect vulnerable witnesses i.e. rape victims and children, we were going to refuse this but we decided that we may gain some information for further down the line.

2. I had requested 4 witnesses, but the judge refused my application, the only witness I could call was Mark Ceylon who did an excellent job explaining the documentation that was entered into Leicester Crown Court was not court documents and rejected by the court judge also they could not get any judge in Nottingham to verify the warrant, and then he went on to explain the attempted murder by the police using steel bars to knock them off the roof, thank you Mark great job.

3. The solicitor asked a few questions off the prosecution witnesses and then we broke from lunch.

4. On return from lunch it was my turn, I first presented to the district Judge who was conducting the court case three bundles of documents, the first bundle was evidence relating to our home and in it we showed the judge and all those in attendance the fraud that has taking place in the last two court cases in Nottingham. We showed the judge that Bradford & Bingley had lied in both those court cases as seen in the documents I had given him to confirm this, we also showed where they had lied regarding the endowment and produced the evidence, and finally because we didn’t want to go too much into this subject as he had been very obliging in letting us explain and we finally showed him the receipts for all the payments we had made to the end of the mortgage plus an extra one confirming the mortgage was fully paid with the exception of the missing endowment which was part of the fraud we presented to prove that Bradford & Bingley solicitors lied in court because of concealment which comes under the 2006 fraud act.

5. The next 2 bundles related to the court case itself were the first of these bundles showed the fraud committed by the County Court and the solicitors for Bradford & Bingley, there was nine facts stated and reluctantly confirmed by the judge, the remaining bundle was all the criminal acts that they had broken totalling approximately 12, a lot of them carried prison sentences.

The judge was very obliging he allowed me a lot of leeway in pointing out the fraud in our case, we were also very pleased that the general public was present got to view our case properly. There were some funny points in the court case and we had the judge smiling as well, it was generally are very relaxed court case and only so by judge who realised the people in court were human, I will also add one small thing was that the prosecution (cps) floundered through the majority of the day.

So thank you all for coming once again for your fantastic support and that is on behalf of Sue myself and of all family.

Cheers Tom

[getoutofdebtfools]

The county court and solicitors et al must be quaking it their boots at the above! Prison sentences ahoy

[getoutofdebtfools]

2. I had requested 4 witnesses, but the judge refused my application, the only witness I could call was Mark Ceylon who did an excellent job explaining the documentation that was entered into Leicester Crown Court was not court documents and rejected by the court judge also they could not get any judge in Nottingham to verify the warrant, and then he went on to explain the attempted murder by the police using steel bars to knock them off the roof, thank you Mark great job.

What a laughable waste of the courts time

[rumpelstilzchen]

Crawford wrote:

we finally showed him the receipts for all the payments we had made to the end of the mortgage plus an extra one confirming the mortgage was fully paid with the exception of the missing endowment which was part of the fraud we presented to prove that Bradford & Bingley solicitors lied in court because of concealment which comes under the 2006 fraud act.

Tom, the reason it was missing is because you stopped paying into it.
That is why you lost your house. Yes you may well have made the interest payments but you fucked up when you stopped paying the endowment.
Until you admit that fact you will continue to appear to be a silly old fool.

[letissier14]

5. The next 2 bundles related to the court case itself were the first of these bundles showed the fraud committed by the County Court and the solicitors for Bradford & Bingley, there was nine facts stated and reluctantly confirmed by the judge

I don't believe for one minute that the judge reluctantly confirmed that the 9 facts stated were indeed fraud.

How deluded are these fools?

[Skeleton]

2. I had requested 4 witnesses, but the judge refused my application, the only witness I could call was Mark Ceylon who did an excellent job explaining the documentation that was entered into Leicester Crown Court was not court documents and rejected by the court judge also they could not get any judge in Nottingham to verify the warrant, and then he went on to explain the attempted murder by the police using steel bars to knock them off the roof, thank you Mark great job.

What a laughable waste of the courts time

His "star" witness was Ceylon, seriously?

Did they ask Ceylon his name? One assumes they did............................

[TheNewSaint]

I couldn't help but be moved by this remark:

Ps if Dads up to it he will post later or tomorrow bless his heart he is exhausted.

Why can't Tom's family see that their father is driving himself to his grave? I do not exaggerate. We have all noticed Tom's severe physical and mental deterioration from when the case started. At the current rate, I gave him two more years to live, tops.

Because I can believe that he's exhausted. Being in court, for any reason, is exhausting. Having to research and prepare a case is exhausting. Constantly being in high-stakes situations is exhausting. Feeling that you're the target of injustice is exhausting. The prospect of jail time or other societal punishments is exhausting.

And the tragedy is, none of it exists, except in the Crawfords' twisted imagination. There is no injustice, no case, no reason for them to be in court, and certainly no reason to be facing criminal charges. Their home wasn't stolen from them. They lost it because they stopped making payments, refused to negotiate with the bank, and then sought and used the advice of incompetent, self-serving scumbags like Mark Ceylon.

That's who they should be angry at: Mark Ceylon and the rest of the GOODF crowd who did so much to enable them. But they'll never see it. One day - probably in 2017 - they'll all stand around Tom Crawford's coffin and blame everybody except the people who drove him into it. Amanda and Craig and the rest will blame the banks, they'll blame the courts, they'll blame the Quatlosers, they'll blame the trolls. Many of whom were actually trying to help them by giving correct advice on the situation.

The freedman world is insidious that way. FMOTL gurus present normal societal rules as the problem, and themselves as the solution. In doing so, they take someone's bad situation and make it worse, thus becoming the problem themselves. But by then, the person is so invested in the freedman solution that they can't see that the guru is the villain of it all.

[longdog]

I think when you are living in their universe a judge saying "I see" means "I agree with everything you say" rather than "I understand what point you are trying to make even if it's a stupid one or totally irrelevant to the case" or just "I'm listening... Continue..."

[TheNewSaint]

Yes, I suspect that "The judge agreed with my 9 points" really means "the judge acknowledged certain basic facts of the home ownership situation." Which may come back to bite Tom, as he has now said certain things on the record regarding ownership, which could be used against him if he tries to argue a good-faith belief that he owned the house.

His account says that the court was lenient in letting him talk; they may be giving him the rope he needs to hang himself.