Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[Bones]

**WARNING BS LEVEL GOING UP*****

Amanda Pike You did AMAZING and the 2nd half with what you kept pushing and the bits you got to tell you clearly proved you've been wronged. Hours and hours of you showing errors our paper work the laws broken its obcence what they're doing and you were brilliant. I know you were pleased with the result knowing they don't have the jurisdiction where we needed but on you go as planned and we're right behind you. Love you loads im proud of you x
Like · 3 · 2 hrs

Amanda Pike Weirdly if we had won dad would only have got off his conviction and it would all have been for nothing so its a good thing we are well aware having seen how the judges are completely ignoring the law and protecting each other that who knows if the next stage will be any different however we have so many plans its far far from over even at the next stage xx
Like · 1 · 1 hr

Amanda Pike To add at the supreme court they have to take into consideration EVERYTHING not just why dads had that charge but WHY dad did it. So on he goes to tell the court e everything and they have to listen x
Like · 1 hr

Amanda Pike Yes dad should have won. So in that regard its just highlighted their corruption or did they do it to allow dad to go to supreme who knows but we are happy with this result. Even the cps barrister told me to go to the police to get them to investigate when i questioned her they know they ALL know

[Bones]

Tom Crawford
24 mins

Appeals to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases. It hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population and plays an important role in the development of United Kingdom law. It hears appeals on arguable points of law of general public importance from, among others, the civil division of the Court of Appeal and, in some very limited cases, the High Court.

The Supreme Court has its own set of rules (Supreme Court Rules 2009) (the 'SCR') and its own set of Practice Directions. These are entirely separate to the Civil Procedure Rules which govern procedure in the County Courts, High Court and Court of Appeal.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Given that Tom is a vex lit, he has to get permission to bring a case to the Supreme Court or the next level court before he gets to the point of even attempting to take a case to the Supreme Court.
Further info:
https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the- ... structure/

....all criminal cases will start in the magistrates’ court, but the more serious criminal matters are committed (or sent) to the Crown Court. Appeals from the Crown Court will go to the High Court, and potentially to the Court of Appeal or even the Supreme Court.

Civil cases will sometimes be dealt with by magistrates, but may well go to a county court. Again, appeals will go to the High Court and then to the Court of Appeal – although to different divisions of those courts.

So, if I have this right, Tom has got as far as Crown Court in his criminal case and High Court in his civil actions.

[#six]

What are the rules on calling witnesses during an appeal? I can't see the court allowing a mass calling of new witnesses who could have and should have been called during the original trial unless there's a good reason why they weren't called at the time.

As a self-defended man he can hardly blame the failure to call relevant witnesses on an incompetent lawyer and I can't see the court accepting "I only thought of calling these people after I'd been convicted" as a legitimate argument.

This is the heart of the matter.

An appeal is not a second stab at a court case. Appeals can only be granted where there is an error in the implementation of the law or where there is new material evidence the proves innocence. If there was evidence and witnesses that were reasonably available to the defence at the time of the initial case but were not presented at that time, then that is the fault of the defendant. The defendant does not get a chance to present them at the appeal. Now, if there was evidence that the prosecution witheld and the witnesses could shed light upon that then they would have been allowed to be heard.

Sadly, the lack of knowledge of legal matters is not going to help Tom one bit.

[wanglepin]

So then, after court bundle that "had taken two weeks to prepare" the village idiot managed at least to inform Judge Rosalind Coe QC that he:

still had the sword of truth

.
Well that’s a lie .

T.C. wrote;
the courts are there to protect their masters the banks in a criminal cartel

I bet that down well.

On Trolls he says;

T.C. wrote;
we have all the information on every one of these individuals and they will be getting their collars felt once I finish taking on the big boys.

That`s a side splitter

[mufc1959]

Tom Crawford
24 mins

Appeals to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases. It hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population and plays an important role in the development of United Kingdom law. It hears appeals on arguable points of law of general public importance from, among others, the civil division of the Court of Appeal and, in some very limited cases, the High Court.

The Supreme Court has its own set of rules (Supreme Court Rules 2009) (the 'SCR') and its own set of Practice Directions. These are entirely separate to the Civil Procedure Rules which govern procedure in the County Courts, High Court and Court of Appeal.

But he was appealing a criminal case, not a civil case. He can't take any further action in the civil case (Bradford & Bingley (or UK Asset Recovery) vs Crawford) because Judge Godsmark made a civil restraint order against him.

Also, the prosecution didn't want to cross-examine him because it would've been pointless, as he'd already dug his own grave with his own fuckwittery.

[letissier14]

[JimUk1]

I presume Amanda Pike is Tom's daughter?

What an idiot, is she this idiotic all the time?

https://m.facebook.com/groups/531131453 ... 2011560725

"If dad had of won it would of all been for nothing".

Ffs just the other day I had seen a screen shot saying exactly the opposite?

Is she that educational challenged?

Oh lord save me for people without a brain!

[TheNewSaint]

Amanda Pike Weirdly if we had won dad would only have got off his conviction and it would all have been for nothing

Yes! That's exactly right! If you'd won, your dad would only have got off his conviction. Now, just stop talking, and think ab--

so its a good thing we are well aware having seen how the judges are completely ignoring the law and protecting each other that who knows if the next stage will be any different however we have so many plans its far far from over even at the next stage xx

[PeanutGallery]

Even the Crawfraud fan club don't have faith in him winning

Tom is probably thinking of appealing to the ECHR as his ultimate step. He won't get that far. Tom will most likely be denied leave to appeal to the supreme court. This is confirmed in the guidance on making an appeal to the Supreme Court in 1.17 detailed here.

Basically Tom would only be allowed to appeal if his was a case of 'exceptional public importance'. Tom will likely base his argument on the notion that mortgage fraud would be 'exceptional public importance' except the conviction he is appealing isn't about mortgage fraud, it's about a man entering property belonging to another and damaging it.

Tom should therefore be refused leave on those grounds. This will be the end of the road as far as this criminal conviction would be concerned. He may well attempt to Groundhog Day his way out of this by repeating his crime ad nauseam.

[letissier14]

Taken from the Nottingham Post facebook page - (half way down)

Craig defending his dad

https://www.facebook.com/TheNottinghamPost/

[ArthurWankspittle]

Taken from the Nottingham Post facebook page - (half way down)

Craig defending his dad

When I looked he was the only person posting who was.

[Chaos]

Tom Crawford wrote:

My family and myself will not be beaten by liars, cowards and criminals we will keep going to the end of this battle and we shall never leave the battlefield until we win.

Would it be unfair to infer from those words that at this stage things are not going exactly according to plan?

I assumed it meant he was finally giving up on his posse of scammers like taylor and colon but I could be wrong.

[TheNewSaint]

Craig is just incurably stupid.

The court wouldn't allow Tom any witnesses

And an appeals court is correct to do so, unless it is somehow relevant to the appeal. Who were these witnesses anyway? Probably some combination of Ceylon, Guy Taylor, and the other GOODF idiots who helped get Tom into this mess.

against his human rights

Craig uses this phrase a lot, but doesn't explain how this is so.

Told him they were sorry for the way it was all going down

They feel sorry for Tom because he and his entire family is too fucking stupid to understand why they lost, and keep dragging themselves into pointless court proceedings where all they can do is lose again. Personally, I think that's more empathy than they deserve at this point.

They don't have the jurisdiction... a jury could

Juries have jurisdiction now?

Even though by law you can request and have a trial by your peers

No, you can't. Try reading the law sometime. Or read this thread, where we've been explaining all this for weeks now.

He wasn't allowed to cross-examine his own witnesses

Since his witnesses weren't allowed in the first place, am I supposed to be shocked he wasn't allowed to cross-examine them?

...when he is representing himself!!!

Huh? Is not getting to cross-examine your un-admitted witnesses somehow more shocking when you are pro se?

So he cant even face his accusers

So his witnesses are his accusers? This doesn't make any sense at all. In any case, this is an appeals court. The criminal trial was when he got to face his accusers, dumbass. He lost. That's why you were here today. To appeal that conviction. Try to keep up.

We've played this game to get where we are going... to a court that can over turn Judge Godsmark's judgment

The Godsmark judgment? Which you won? Which Tom Crawford himself called "excellent"? That judgment? And you think the route to overturn a civil judgment is via criminal appeals court?

It's a game of chess

And you're playing tic-tac-toe.

Ultimately you have to lose to win in this court system

No. Winning in court is a very simple process:

1. Win

That's it. If your case can't win at the fundamental level, appealing to a higher court doesn't make it any more likely.

Think about that bigger picture.

Nothing you've said evokes a bigger picture. In fact, the Crawford clan seems utterly incapable of grasping the big picture. Which is that they could have gotten out of this mess long ago at much less cost, if not for their pointless, ignorant belligerence.

If anyone's interested in the fraud we have uncovered

I've heard enough, thanks.

If he was wrong...

He's wrong.

[grixit]

The british supreme court is a brand new institution, created by parliament and unknown to common law. Why would a sovereign living soul standing in truth, etc, etc, like Tom, even consider going there?

[notorial dissent]

Tom doesn't seem to grasp the differences between civil and criminal law and/or judgments. He currently DOESN'T have a civil case of any kind, and he has already lost on the criminal case, essentially twice now, so to me it would seem he is flat out of options, I doubt seriously if the court will grant him leave to appeal further. He has already been told he can't overturn a civil case at a criminal trial, or vice versa, so that is dead out as well.

[Forsyth]

So he cant even face his accusers

So his witnesses are his accusers? This doesn't make any sense at all. In any case, this is an appeals court. The criminal trial was when he got to face his accusers, dumbass. He lost. That's why you were here today. To appeal that conviction. Try to keep up.

The only way I could make sense of this was if he was hoping to call someone from his civil case as a witness (such as Bradford and Bingley). Of course, that wouldn't make sense either...

[longdog]

There's a term for Tom's condition - QUERULOUS PARANOIA

To be honest I don't think that's what is happening in Tom's case as it implies a certain degree of mental imbalance and detachment from reality which could be explained only by mental illness. Crawford is not mentally ill and he's not delusional in a mental health sense... He's arrogant and stupid and stubborn but the fact that is that he knew from the word go that he hadn't paid his mortgage and was going to lose the house as evidenced by his posts to GOODF some years ago. viewtopic.php?f=52&t=11243#p238195

Tom has ALWAYS fully understood the reason why he lost his house but he has managed to fabricate a story which portrays him as a victim of injustice which certain very stupid people have chosen to believe even though reality clearly shows otherwise.

If you define paranoia as a belief that 'they' are out to get you then yes... He's paranoid... Because they ARE out to get him. They are out to get him because he borrowed money on a house and didn't repay it. If you define paranoia as an IRRATIONAL belief that they are out to get you then no... He's not. There's the old joke that goes "Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not out to get you"... Conversely... Just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're paranoid.

[Chaos]

So he cant even face his accusers

So his witnesses are his accusers? This doesn't make any sense at all. In any case, this is an appeals court. The criminal trial was when he got to face his accusers, dumbass. He lost. That's why you were here today. To appeal that conviction. Try to keep up.

The only way I could make sense of this was if he was hoping to call someone from his civil case as a witness (such as Bradford and Bingley). Of course, that wouldn't make sense either...

didn't he think he was going to get some judge to testify for him?

[Gregg]

Fifty-fifty chance his future "you have to lose to win" strategy ends with the house in flames.