Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[ArthurWankspittle]

#why would anybody appeal a conditional discharge. That's as good as not guilty if he keeps his nose clean.

Any normal person would but this is Tom Crawford, so the only thing to do is start a sweep on when he breaks the conditions.
I'm annoyed at the Nottingham Post for calling him a mortgage protester, mortgage repayment avoider would be more accurate.
Tom won't be appealing this for a long time, if ever, if he has to fund the transcript of 5 hours of court hearing. Can some confirm that is correct for English Law?
The bit about the repossession case I think relates to the part Godsmark also remarked on, the bit about computers being our servants or whatever it was. Most repossessions I can think of, the lender will turn up with statements showing arrears and accounts figures to the penny, something B&B failed to do.

[#six]

Before he got an appeal trial, wouldn't Tommy boy have to pursuade a judge that there were sound legal grounds for an appeal? Maybe he is not guaranteed the day in Crown Court he thinks he is going to get.

Wonder who this "Troll" is they say keeps appearing?

There is a definate reduction in the volume of videos being posted. Nothing from the 13th Sept hearing and nothing today. Is that due to the low numbers of supporters which would show how marginalised the Crawfrauds are now?

Yes, I think there do need to be grounds for appeal. Also, it looks like Tom may be disappointed in other ways. He believes that an appeal will involve a jury in the crown court. However, this link says otherwise. Magistrates court appeals are held in crown court but only in front of a judge and magistrates. Oops

https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-sente ... rt-verdict

[ArthurWankspittle]

Before he got an appeal trial, wouldn't Tommy boy have to pursuade a judge that there were sound legal grounds for an appeal? Maybe he is not guaranteed the day in Crown Court he thinks he is going to get.

No, you are mixing criminal and civil courts I think. Edit to add: I thought you were thinking of his injunction not to bring any more civil cases.

Wonder who this "Troll" is they say keeps appearing?

Not sure if Ceylon is pulling an "I see strangers" move there.

There is a definate reduction in the volume of videos being posted. Nothing from the 13th Sept hearing and nothing today. Is that due to the low numbers of supporters which would show how marginalised the Crawfrauds are now?

Possible. How much support does he still have? Family (most of them), the rooftop 6 and their partners, his crack legal team when they can be bothered and a few hangers on from GOODF. Hardly the 600+ who protested the first eviction. Most of them faded away as the full truth came out, in my opinion.

[FatGambit]

Judge plus two magistrates, hardly a 12 strong jury of your piers.

Is 'troll does runner' loose translation for 'he walked out the front door' LOL?

[Firthy2002]

I guess nobody told him he won't get a jury for an appeal. I'm failing to see what grounds he has. If he's got proper (i.e. not freetard) legal advice surely they will talk him out of it?

I may be missing something here but aren't members of the public in the gallery, crazy or sane, free to come and go as they please?

That's my understanding, as long as you don't disrupt proceedings you are free to observe any part of a case in open court.

Ceylon could almost be describing Anthony Able

That was my first thought! Although I'd put £10 on Ceylon starting it, he likes to instigate and then scurry away.

[letissier14]

Love the comments to Toms post over on EFOTB

[rumpelstilzchen]

I love this comment from Tricia Gearing:

I'm delighted it's all going according to plan for you Tom and Sue.

Freetards are so funny

[JamesVincent]

Ceylon could almost be describing Anthony Able

My thought also. Wouldn't that be ironic.

[TheNewSaint]

#why would anybody appeal a conditional discharge. That's as good as not guilty if he keeps his nose clean.

That's another inadvertent cruelty of this decision. Instructions to stay away from that place will have no effect on Tom. A conditional discharge is just giving him enough rope to hang himself.

[Burnaby49]

Tom won't be appealing this for a long time, if ever, if he has to fund the transcript of 5 hours of court hearing. Can some confirm that is correct for English Law?

I can't speak for England but our laws are based on British laws and here in Canada that's the case. The appellant is responsible for providing transcripts of a court hearing when he is appealing that hearing's decision.

[grixit]

As for the "troll", i think the fmotl are creating their own Slenderman. It starts in someone's paranoid imagination. Then someone else echos it. Others start chiming in in a self reinforcing loop-- kind of like following heffalumps around a tree. Soon, they're seeing him every time they go to court. Many stop going to court out of fear.

Eventually someone is going to be found hanging in their bedroom with a note saying it was the only way to escape.

[longdog]

The "troll" was probably the Nottingham local rag's 'crime reporter'.

Just as a drunken aside I would like to protest the misuse of the word troll. Back in the good old days when all this round here were fields an internet troll was somebody who could cause total havoc on a forum without actually breaking any of the rules and getting banned. The whole point was to cause a massive bun-fight and be able to stand back and credibly say "What did I do?". Unfortunately the 1nt3rw3bz n00bz (IE... Post 1997) seem to be confusing 'troll' with 'dickhead' or 'somebody who disagrees with me'.

Trolling is an art-form at which I once had some small skill

[wanglepin]

District Judge Tim Spruce said there did appear to be problems in how the civil courts had handled the repossession order for the home.

Sadly they will focus on that small statement, which I think needs to be clarified.

In the correct context,District Judge Tim Spruce was no doubt referring to the fact that Crawford and his retarded lawyers Taylor and Ebert didn't agree that the paperwork (court documents) were real, but forged.

[letissier14]

Follow on from the thread over on EFOTB

[Bungle]

Tom won't be appealing this for a long time, if ever, if he has to fund the transcript of 5 hours of court hearing. Can some confirm that is correct for English Law?

I can't speak for England but our laws are based on British laws and here in Canada that's the case. The appellant is responsible for providing transcripts of a court hearing when he is appealing that hearing's decision.

Presently, we only have Tom's rambling account of the hearing and the report in the Nottingham Post.

The hearing itself lasted for 5 hours and yet, very little was reported. For instance, on one of the F/B pages at the time, it was reported that the Judge warned that the supporters would be ordered from the court if they didn't stop their idiotic outbursts. This wasn't reported anywhere else.

Back to the verdict. At the end of any trial, the solicitor (or in this case Tom), would automatically ask for permission to appeal. Permission is either given or refused. We don't know whether Tom was granted permission. I would suspect not.

However if permission was given, then Tom would have to go through the appeal procedure.

If permission is refused, then it's like pushing water uphill. You may still appeal (as long as any appeal is within the strict time frames), but you would NOT be appealing the verdict. Instead, you have to appeal the DECISION (refusing you the right to appeal). You have to get over that hurdle first.

Permission to appeal will only be given to you if your appeal has a real prospect/chance of success or if there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.

I'm not sure what the position is with criminal convictions, but with civil cases in the County Court, the official GOV.UK website states this:

Filing an Application/Appeal

What documents do I have to lodge with my Appellant’s Notice?

You will need to lodge at least three identical copies of your Appellants Notice including

• grounds of appeal on a separate sheet;
• the court fee (see below);
• the sealed order or tribunal determination being appealed; any order granting or refusing permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal;
• the order allocating the case to a track (if applicable);
• a skeleton argument and the approved transcript of judgment.

[exiledscouser]

Things are a little easier appealing a Mags decision to the Crown Court, you just file your appeal, the court isn't too concerned whether you have any basis or merit.

Tom is a LIP (Litigant in Person) representing himself (and reinforcing the old adage that he has a fool for a client) so the court will usually do their best to accommodate him, even bend over backwards.

Where it will fail is he'll try the very same arguments rehearsed in the lower courts and serve the same nonsense paperwork with the same dismal result.

I love how the EFOTB crew puff one-another up with their shaky theories about the nature of debt, the sinister role of the Queen in all of this, something about a veil and (queue the Darth Vader theme) the "empire" of Westminster. And good old Liz of the family Watson weighing in with a long list of criminal charges the nature of which have not been seen since Nuremberg. They are only fooling themselves.

Tom and his supporters, know this, at the Crown Court appeal there is;

NO
FECKIN'
JURY!

Gottit?

In theory Tom can lose at Crown and go for a further appeal to the High Court. At that stage it gets a bit more tricky and a LOT more expensive and the merits of your case have to pass a threshold before progress. So I'd expect the appeal to be heard at Nottingham or Derby Crown later this or early next year.

[Bungle]

To my mind at least, attempting to break into his old house was a deliberate act with the sole intention of getting back into court and having a second bite of the cherry in trying to convince another court and another judge that there was something amiss with the repossession. He was hoping to get the court to again examine the warrant procedure etc.

Secondly, he hoped to be able to get a trial by jury.

He has failed and he is a failure. I would be surprised if he has more than half a dozen supporters.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Tom's behaviour is bizarre. He did not want to be found not guilty, he wanted to be found guilty so that he could appeal the guilty verdict for a not guilty.
Why would a not guilty verdict on appeal mean he does own the house but a not guilty in this case means he does not?

[#six]

So now they are aware that they won't get a jury. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when the penny dropped.

From ETFOTB

Di Gregg
Brilliant. Hoped for result. Now trial by jury of his peers. At last some hope for real justice.

Amanda Pike
No not a jury they are denying him that but 2 magisrraights and 1 high court judge all together x

Di Gregg
Oh no. How do they justify denying him his right to a trial by jury? I thought that was the whole idea.
Rob Metcalfe

It's no wonder we all get screwed over with a justice system that is so blatantly corrupt.......oh you can't have a jury of normal people because they're far too likely to be just as disghusted as we all are with so called justice........so they determine that your fate can be decided by hand picked judges who , as you've experienced more than your fair share of, have been told to give a verdict that quite clearly has been determined before you even get to court and any evidence has been seen.
Tom you are a great man to put yourself through this for the sake of many others.
To all the trolls, judges, court staff,bank staff, bailifs and police ......a cast of thousands......who are witness to this blatant corruption......you are no better than Hitlers brown shirts.......following orders is no excuse whatsoever and if you carry on turning your back the situation will only get worse and at some point affect your family.

[Bungle]

So now they are aware that they won't get a jury. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when the penny dropped.

From ETFOTB

Di Gregg
Brilliant. Hoped for result. Now trial by jury of his peers. At last some hope for real justice.

Amanda Pike
No not a jury they are denying him that but 2 magisrraights and 1 high court judge all together x

Di Gregg
Oh no. How do they justify denying him his right to a trial by jury? I thought that was the whole idea.

It was a deliberate stunt by Tom to get in front of a jury. The man is a complete failure and the sooner that he realises that he has been responsible for ensuring that he and his wife's future housing needs will be at the mercy of the local authority the better.

As both of them are pensioners, the council only have an obligation to provide them with a one bedroom property. He will be lucky to even get a garden. Chickens will be out of thr question.