hucknallred wrote:Time for another transcript whip round?
Good idea - although we could all probably write it ourselves.
Is it possible the three Judges reserved their judgement to think about the decision rather than decide there and then?
Moderator: ArthurWankspittle
hucknallred wrote:Time for another transcript whip round?
We have a new member of the judiciary for the haters, HHj Coe QC;Mortgage campaigner Tom Crawford won a court's sympathy but lost a fight to clear his name over a damaged house roof.
The OAP claimed he still owns the Carlton home and could not be charged with criminal damage by pulling off six tiles and making a hole to get inside on March 28.
In September, he was found guilty at Nottingham Magistrates' Court and has now lost an appeal against that conviction. A six-month conditional discharge remains in place - as well as a restraining order which bars him from ever returning to Fearn Chase.
In the latest move, Nottingham Crown Court heard of his long-running dispute with the Bradford and Bingley bank, the Land Registry and civil law claims.
Yeah right Mr. Eckman.Crown Court Judge Rosalind Coe QC, who sat with two magistrates, dismissed the appeal and told him: "We have considerable empathy and sympathy with your position.
"You believe you are a victim of a criminal conspiracy and fraud. We do not think it is the case but it doesn't mean we don't have some empathy with you."
Miss Almas Ben-Aribia, for the Crown Prosecution Service, said the house was repossessed after "the mortgage was not repaid". A civil court case referred to Crawford's claims as "without foundation and misconceived".
Crawford admitted removing the tiles and entering the detached house. Then he roped up the front door and blocked the lock with a screw.
A Youtube video was shown in court with Crawford outlining his case and saying "he intended to commit a burglary and take items from the address".
The court heard from Barry Eckman, who paid £93,500 for the home shortly before it was due to the auctioned. At the time, he was unaware of the dispute.
Tom threw everything he had, played every card, deployed every tired old arguement. With predictable results.Miss Ben-Aribia asked: "Are you satisfied you are the legal owner." He replied: "Absolutely, yes."
Mr Eckman said he had bought 250 properties in 30 years and always used the same solicitor without problems.
"We have bought houses where people have been murdered or died in them. To be honest, it would not have made any difference," he told the judge.
A "trespass notice", which carried Crawford's phone number, had been posted outside the house. Mr Eckman said: "I showed it to my solicitor and he had a good laugh about it. He thought it was rubbish."
Mr Eckman said Crawford's dispute appeared to be with the bank and he would hand back the property if compensation were paid.
Commenting on Crawford, Mr Eckman added: "If he has been stuffed accidentally, I hope he gets it sorted out. We have got no axe to grind."
Crawford played a video in court referring to a case in Minnesota, where a judge questioned the mortgage system where banks loan money they do not hold.
"It has been suppressed. The judge didn't live very much longer because he was assassinated a few months later," said Crawford.
So that's it. Tom wants to go to the SC because Lord Denning says so and some judge in the US who was right all along got assassinated shortly after finding the 'Truth'. Actually next stop would be the appeal courts but he'll find that a lot harder to achieve.During the five-hour hearing, Crawford told Judge Coe: "I believe a serious fraud has taken place. I do not believe the bank had a right to take away my family's home. In the words of Lord Denning, 'fraud unravels everything'."
Judge Coe said the hearing could not overturn civil court rulings and said Crawford had already tried to get them changed. The civil courts decided he was no longer the home owner.
He responded: "There is an abundance where there is a lawful excuse. I own the property. That is my view."
The judge asked him: "You believe at the time the property was yours to damage?" He replied: "Correct."
Outside court, Crawford, 65, said: "Now I am going to the Supreme Court." He said this would deal with the criminal charge while barristers were also looking at civil law aspects of the case.
Do we think there is any chance that Tom is actually using genuine barristers?He [Tom] said this would deal with the criminal charge while barristers were also looking at civil law aspects of the case.
No way is Tom ever going to go near a real Barrister. He wants legal advice from a team that tells him things he wants to hear while stroking his ego. Fairly safe to assume that Taylor, Ebert etc are now Barristers because Tom says they are.Forsyth wrote:http://www.nottinghampost.com/campaigne ... story.html
In short, verdict stands, sentence stands, restraining order stands. Tom's comment on the matter: "Now I am going to the Supreme Court". It's interesting that the Nottingham Post add to this "He said this would deal with the criminal charge while barristers were also looking at civil law aspects of the case".
Can't see it myselflittleFred wrote:Do we think there is any chance that Tom is actually using genuine barristers?He [Tom] said this would deal with the criminal charge while barristers were also looking at civil law aspects of the case.
Jerome Daily, the Justice of the Peace in the Credit River case was not assassinated. He is dead, but that has more to do with the case being from 1968 than someone putting 2 between his eyes. He was also convicted of willfully failing to file federal income tax returns for the years 1967 and 1968. In rejecting his appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit noted: "Defendant's fourth contention involves his seemingly incessant attack against the federal reserve and monetary system of the United States. His apparent thesis is that the only 'Legal Tender Dollars' are those which contain a mixture of gold and silver and that only those dollars may be constitutionally taxed. This contention is clearly frivolous."rumpelstilzchen wrote:Crawford cited the Credit River bullshit?
That is priceless
Agreed. Any barrister worth his or her salt will read the Godsmark judgement and tell Tom in no uncertain terms that he lost, he has never won, he owed the bank £44,000 which he didn't pay, the warrant was valid and he hasn't owned the house since July 2015 when it was finally repossessed.Skeleton wrote:
No way is Tom ever going to go near a real Barrister. He wants legal advice from a team that tells him things he wants to hear while stroking his ego. Fairly safe to assume that Taylor, Ebert etc are now Barristers because Tom says they are.
Something you can't do. (Sorry couldn't resist that one.)Craig Crawford wrote:Theres more to life than sitting in your bedroom in your mothers house wanking....
Tuco wrote:bollocks
They certainly did indulge him. Considerable judicial discretion required to permit a defendant to waste the court's time with US conspiracy videos trawled from youtube. Their kindness is wasted of course, TC is now so deeply immersed in this imaginary victimhood that he'll never let go of it.exiledscouser wrote:http://www.nottinghampost.com/campaigne ... story.html
The Crown Court has indulged him but it was all to no good.
No, this is BollocksTuco wrote:bollocks
"It has been suppressed. The judge didn't live very much longer because he was assassinated a few months later," said Crawford.