Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[ArthurWankspittle]

Was there actually an outcome or just a postponement?

Pretty sure this was just a preliminary hearing and the full thing is in a few months.

[Bones]

As usual with Tom you only get half truths and facts... He has said that there is a hearing the Crown Court in December

Tom Crawford
28 October at 17:43

Hi all,

This is a quick update on what has just occurred in court today regarding our case.

We attended court at 10:30 AM but had to wait until 2:30 PM to be called, which I was not very pleased about.

Never mind on with the update, well you could have knocked me down with a feather who was presiding over the case was our old nemesis judge Godsmark, and now I know why we were kept so long.

Godsmark expressed an interest to sit on our case, but then he told me after some consideration he decided against it, and I agreed with him and said that I may well even call him as a witness to which he looked a bit startled and leaned back in this chair and said that would be interesting.

Some other facts came to light when we were talking about evidence especially when I pointed out to him that the police and the CPS could not find a judge in Nottingham County Court to verify the warrant and once again he leaned back in his chair with an expression of so what, so I added to it that maybe he would consider verifying the warrant himself, to which he quickly declined stating that maybe his involvement in the case should be ended.

Speaks volumes of the validity of the warrant coming from the highest judge in Nottingham.

So in a nutshell I couldn't be happier we are still on course with our plan and are now in the Crown Court this coming December and I will keep you all up to date with what is happening.

Also we did have our resident troll in court today "but unfortunately for him" he missed most of what happened because he was late after lunch break I suppose they won't be learning how to tell the time until next term Lol, joking aside I hope his next trip to court will not be as a stalker but as a defendant and we will be there giving evidence.

I have to thank you all once again those that attended court and all the support on the Internet you all give us the inspiration to battle these criminals.

Cheers Tom

[Burnaby49]

Comments like this show that Crawford is totally divorced from reality;

Also we did have our resident troll in court today "but unfortunately for him" he missed most of what happened because he was late after lunch break I suppose they won't be learning how to tell the time until next term Lol, joking aside I hope his next trip to court will not be as a stalker but as a defendant and we will be there giving evidence.

What has the "stalker" done that's claimed to be criminal? He's attended an open session of court the same as any other member of the public is free to do. As followers of my court postings know I spend an immense amount of time in court recording proceedings. I assume that this makes me, in Tom's eyes, a criminal stalker too. The free access to court proceedings is considered a fundamental cornerstone of a democracy's open and honest court system. But, I suppose, in Tom's world, that only applies if only his supporters are allowed in.

It would be very helpful if Tom, in making these statements, would back them up with a citation to whatever law he thinks his stalker is violating. That way he could inform court security next time and get the miscreant arrested.

[Interobang]

Was there actually an outcome or just a postponement?

Pretty sure this was just a preliminary hearing and the full thing is in a few months.

It's 16th December.

?!

[notorial dissent]

That was my impression as well after ignoring the patented Crawfraud bob and weave of not actually telling anything like even a smidgen of the truth. I'm still trying to determine if there was actually anything done at the hearing other than to set a date for the actual hearing. Seems like an awful lot of bother to go through for another denial.

[littleFred]

I don't know the facts of Tom's various court appearances.

I suspect the most recent one was merely case management, which is a brief meeting to establish what the parties agree and disagree about, and what evidence they will want to produce to support their arguments, in order to book the courtroom, witnesses and so on.

[mufc1959]

What a dilemma ...

On 19 November Tom Crawfraud launches the Declaration of Winchester in, er, Winchester.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 0&t=104134#

But on the same date, Colon is hosting the latest meeting in Nottingham, with a talk on A4V and advice on how to treat cancer.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... CTEuMk_xoM

What to do... what to do ... ah dammit, I have a prior engagement in the Stretford End that day.

But I thought Colon and Crawfraud were joined at the hip. Surely they share a diary?

[TheNewSaint]

On 19 November Tom Crawfraud launches the Declaration of Winchester in, er, Winchester.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 0&t=104134#

I took a look at their declaration:

Interfere with the 1215 Magna Carta at your peril….

[government] have deliberately and treasonously driven a coach and horses through the 1215
Great Charter (Magna Carta) and our ancient Trial by Jury Common Law of the Land
constitution.

[The Magna Carta] enjoys complete precedence and supremacy over all statutes passed by all Parliaments since.

Magna Carta 1215 cannot lawfully be repealed or tampered with in any way

The strictures of the Great Charter are completely binding on Executive, Legislature, the
Judiciary and the entire population. Unfortunately, this simple constitutional fact has been
overlooked by our politicians who continue to legislate and pass hundreds, if not thousands of
statutes

Um... that's all wrong, isn't it?

My understanding is that the Magna Carta has little remaining legal effect, having been superseded by subsequent law. And, that it is only one of several documents that form the basis of UK law. And, there's no UK equivalent to the US Supremacy Clause that makes it a higher law than any other. And assertions like "Magna Carta cannot be repealed or tampered with" are just plain stupid.

These are obviously American constitutional arguments that make no sense under the UK's legal foundations. Do I have all that right?

[aesmith]

There was a surprisingly successful FOI request which was answered with an actual list of the Magna Carta articles, showing which were still in force and which have been repealed.

Magna Carta

To me as a non-lawyer it would seem illogical that the Magna Carta could in some way be impossible to repeal or supercede. In any sane world the most recent law must take precedence, otherwise you can never have reform.

[Burnaby49]

There was a surprisingly successful FOI request which was answered with an actual list of the Magna Carta articles, showing which were still in force and which have been repealed.

Magna Carta

To me as a non-lawyer it would seem illogical that the Magna Carta could in some way be impossible to repeal or supercede. In any sane world the most recent law must take precedence, otherwise you can never have reform.

What kind of nonsense is this? Are you saying that you want to end clause 29 regulating the exercise of castle-guard duty? Or clause 49 ordering the return of hostages held by the King? Do you want Elizabeth the second to just keep any hostages she wants without any regulation stopping her?

[notorial dissent]

The remaining clauses are:

• Clause 1: The liberties of the English Church
  Clause 13: The privileges of the City of London
  Clauses 39 & 40: The right to trial by jury

[aesmith]

I assume Mr Crawford has never actually read the Magna Carta if he really thinks all it's articles are still in force.

[grixit]

"liberties of the english church"?

How did that change when the english church became the anglican church with the king at the head?

[littleFred]

There is no super-law (or meta-law) that says: once a law (or, more generally, an Act of Parliament) has been made, it can never be changed.

Nor is there a restricted super-law that says: some specific Acts (eg Magna Carta, Bill of Rights) can never be changed.

As a practical matter, some Acts are more foundational than others, and this makes them more difficult to change. But not impossible.

This super-law is simply a SovCit fantasy. They claim that they don't have to obey any statutes but everyone else has to obey not just current statutes but even the old ones that have been repealed.

[notorial dissent]

Considering that Magna Carta was issued, revoked, and reissued, what three-four times, considerably changed each time, immutability hardly seems to be a factor of it. It was issued in the same way that the King's laws were were pretty much done at the time, as essentially a decree, and then changed in the same way, and Parliament eventually assumed that facet of the King's authority. So since it is a law, they certainly can change it, or do away with it altogether, as they have in many of the clauses. The one now still, barely, in force is the last one which was considerably shortened and condensed from the original John was forced to sign.

Poor footl's, ignorance and illiteracy are difficult barriers to cross.

[mufc1959]

It's pissing down in Winchester today. I hope Tom's wearing his waterproof hat.

[letissier14]

It's pissing down in Winchester today. I hope Tom's wearing his waterproof hat.

It's next week

[Jeffrey]

There is no super-law (or meta-law) that says: once a law (or, more generally, an Act of Parliament) has been made, it can never be changed.

One of the key points of SovCit that differentiate it from anything on the political spectrum. Both anarchists and totalitarians and everything in between know that laws are just words on a piece of paper we choose to enforce. SovCits give those words magical powers.

[rumpelstilzchen]

SovCits give those words magical powers.

One of the stupidest SovCit/footle idea I have come across is when they claim certain words in reality have a secret meaning and it is the secret meaning that is being used to control us without us being aware of the secret meaning. We believe the word means one thing but it really means something else. They fail to understand that if no one is aware of the secret meaning that secret meaning cannot affect us.

[ArthurWankspittle]

The remaining clauses are:

• Clause 1: The liberties of the English Church
  Clause 13: The privileges of the City of London
  Clauses 39 & 40: The right to trial by jury

I read the "unrepealed" ones as 1, 9 and 29.