Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[LaVidaRoja]

I do hope you do not mean that literally. I would think that a charge of arson would NOT be in the best interests of anyone in the Crawford family. I don't mind pointing and laughing, but so far, Tom has not done real, measurable harm to anyone outside of his immediate family. Arson would not only be real harm to the current owners, but also possibly harm his former neighbors.

[AndyPandy]

I do hope you do not mean that literally. I would think that a charge of arson would NOT be in the best interests of anyone in the Crawford family. I don't mind pointing and laughing, but so far, Tom has not done real, measurable harm to anyone outside of his immediate family. Arson would not only be real harm to the current owners, but also possibly harm his former neighbors.

We've speculated about this in the past and like yourself I honestly don't want him to do anything as resoundingly stupid as this ..... BUT he's desperate to get in front of a Jury and desperate men have been known to do incredibly stupid / reckless things.

[notorial dissent]

Really seriously NOT wanting someone to NOT do something "resoundingly stupid" as AndyPandy so rightly says is one thing, but when you have someone who is "resoundingly stupid" on top of being self destructive and desperate for attention as TC has proven himself to be, it is just not an optimal mix I fear. It begins to look like he wants a for real long prison sentence to prove himself right. That kind of stupit generally has really bad disastrous consequences.

[littleFred]

Prison wouldn't stop him. He could continue legal battle from there, and others could do physical activities on his behalf. Ceylon etc would thrive if Tom were a martyr in prison.

To me, Tom symbolises the moral bankruptcy of SovCittery. He knew he had to repay his mortgage or lose his house. But the SovCit crowd persuaded him otherwise. They told him he could borrow money to buy a house, not pay the money back and keep the house.

I think Tom now believes those lies. Encouraged by manipulative Ceylon, Ebert, Michaels O'B and O'D, and his own daughter Amanda, he has persisted down a self-destructive trail. He knows that even if a court found him not guilty of criminal damage (which won't happen), this wouldn't get his house back. So why does he fight this pointless battle? Because this is now his life. He has to tilt at this particular windmill because there is nothing else in his life. It is a moral crusade, backed by lies, and painfully wrong.

[exiledscouser]

Agreed, Tom's crusade is ultimately self destructive and selfish.

I can't rationalise between his rage at not being acquitted due to the evil conspiracies operating against him contrasted with the claim that the loss was all part of a deliberate strategy, a cunning master plan to get access to the Supreme Court. His daughter displays the same cognitive dissonance, what you could properly term a dichotomy.

Before you get to the SC there is the small matter of the High Court to overcome. You can't side-step. He'll need to convince a single judge that his case has merit before even facing three HC judges, the so called full court.

At each stage the judge or judges can rule against him and deny permission for any further appeal. When that happens, that's it, game over.

Court time is precious, they are not there to indulge old men in their legal fantasies or allow time wasters or serial litigants through the door.

He can rage away at this, huff and puff on social media all he and his cabal likes but that's what happens to vexatious, hopeless or ill founded appeals day in, day out.

This, IMHO is the end of the road, legally speaking.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I do hope you do not mean that literally. I would think that a charge of arson would NOT be in the best interests of anyone in the Crawford family. I don't mind pointing and laughing, but so far, Tom has not done real, measurable harm to anyone outside of his immediate family. Arson would not only be real harm to the current owners, but also possibly harm his former neighbors.

Sadly, as has been pointed out and discussed previously, there is a chance this is possible. He might conclude he hasn't done anything "big" enough to get in front of a jury. After all the "powers that be" made sure he was only charged with criminal damage not burglary. He doesn't even need to take the step of "if I can't get it back no-one can have it", he'll think he will rebuild it with the compensation he'll be getting when he eventually wins. He also doesn't care about his former neighbours (- see that, they are English neighbours ) compared to whether he is right. He claimed they supported him but the newspaper ran an article or two saying otherwise.

I say in absolute seriousness that arson or large scale criminal damage (e.g. driving a vehicle into the place) is a possibility once it gets into Tom's head that the current criminal damage conviction won't get him what he wants. He no longer commands the hundreds of deadbeats who fell for his lies about his mortgage and turned out to support him. He's down to a handful of drinking buddies who may or may not be willing to take action to help this time round. Face it, even his children don't do anything more than turn up in court and shout on social media these days; they've never taken part in the action (except maybe Craig when there's been a crowd with him, and he hasn't taken any direct action since getting arrested).

[SteveUK]

Tom is getting a bit of a kicking over in goodfy-land , and he's not a happy bunny.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 2&start=10

His grand plan is being deconstructed and he's not a happy chappy at all.

draw a line under this action which the Crown brought against 'you' and focus on the real issue at hand; this is not going up to The Supreme Court and even if by some unfathomable reason it did - they would not (imho) overturn the decision of the appeal court

it will only be on procedural matters and matters of law, which is my strong point,

this case wasn't about your mortgage - it was about the actions/steps you took after you failed to make a case (defence) when the lenders brought a claim and eventually took possession of the property

other than that - I have no wish to be drawn further into a debate over this

take note readers; we do it to ourselves

It is hard to see what good has come from all this but Tom has gotten a criminal record.

deadbeatdad wrote:
cunning plan Baldrick.....



Quite!!!! Non of Baldricks plans worked. Ever.

[daveBeeston]

The sad thing is that there are still people out there that firmly believe that his mortgage was changed and that B&B admitted it in court, just have a look on the Nottinghampost Facebook page.
One user in particular claims to have been in court during the case and insists that they admitted changing the mortgage despite the transcript saying different.
While he still has a few supporters like that he will continue his ridiculous mission(which is nothing more than self promotion).

[Bones]

Sadly most of their supporters are no better than trained seals...

They are not allowed to say anything but what they have been coached to say for fear of being banished from the group.

I would say the need to belong is more important for them than the truth.

Craig and Amanda are doing more than just supporting their father.. They now seem to be actively encouraging him.

Given his historic health and the now developing mental health issues, they should be more concerned about his wellbeing and with spending quality time with him.

I think Craig has recently gone 360 and has gone back to enjoying the attention that all this is drawing to him.

Amanda thinks being told to report it to the police, is an admission that it is all wrong. Obviously, it was just a very polite, f off and leave me alone you idiot...

[He Who Knows]

Litigants-in-person like Crawford, Rekha Patel et al should be screened for mental health before embarking on attention-seeking quests for their "rights" all the way to the Supreme Court. The courts are full of them. Judges can sniff em out from 50 paces. Vexatious litigants with Dunning-Kruger syndrome and Querulous Paranoia are jamming up the legal system to the point of gridlock and it's bloody tedious. What's so frustratingly time-wasting about this is that the courts bend over backwards for L-i-Ps and allow them the attention they crave (a courtesy not usually allowed the legally represented) so that they -- like Crawford -- get addicted to the free publicity and notoriety that their new Sov-Cit status affords them. Psychopathy: a 21st Century Scourge. . . .

[letissier14]

This is all the pages on Quatloos from the start of the Tom Crawford saga

551 pages on how Tom lost, including judgments and transcripts and other documents

Link 1. viewtopic.php?f=47&t=10330
Link 2. viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10614
Link 3. viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10688
Link 4. viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10722
Link 5. viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10829
Link 6. viewtopic.php?f=52&t=11057
Link 7. viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10691
Link 8. viewtopic.php?f=52&t=11243
Link 9. viewtopic.php?f=52&t=11113

[PeanutGallery]

Litigants-in-person like Crawford, Rekha Patel et al should be screened for mental health before embarking on attention-seeking quests for their "rights" all the way to the Supreme Court. The courts are full of them. Judges can sniff em out from 50 paces. Vexatious litigants with Dunning-Kruger syndrome and Querulous Paranoia are jamming up the legal system to the point of gridlock and it's bloody tedious. What's so frustratingly time-wasting about this is that the courts bend over backwards for L-i-Ps and allow them the attention they crave (a courtesy not usually allowed the legally represented) so that they -- like Crawford -- get addicted to the free publicity and notoriety that their new Sov-Cit status affords them. Psychopathy: a 21st Century Scourge. . . .

I wouldn't want to go that far to support screening. A person could have mental health issues and a viable case. What should be looked at is the prospects of success and the issues being argued and these should be determined fairly. While some abuse the system, it is better than one where the system risks becoming abusive.

[Bones]

One of the Crawfrauds faithful fanclub members

Sally Jane Shaw carly right I look at it this way losing is winning in a way ..if you continue to loose you can prove eventualy to the public that you went to court time and time again a you showed these things they ignored them eventualy all that will be left will be the public to show the whole facts .they think the media will protect them .but what if the media cant sway public opinion
Like · 5 mins

[notorial dissent]

Or, you're an idiot and keep doing the same stupid thing over and over again.

[daveBeeston]

One of the Crawfrauds faithful fanclub members

Sally Jane Shaw carly right I look at it this way losing is winning in a way ..if you continue to loose you can prove eventualy to the public that you went to court time and time again a you showed these things they ignored them eventualy all that will be left will be the public to show the whole facts .they think the media will protect them .but what if the media cant sway public opinion
Like · 5 mins

That post there sums up everything that is wrong with their thought process, continually going to court and loosing only shows you have no case, the public at large will not see it as a conspiracy they will only see it as an old man with a grudge that he lost his house because he didn't pay for it and then invented a backstory where it was the banks fault.

Tom's continued personal crusade is harming those with genuine grievances against banks/building societies and other lenders, those still supporting him despite his proven lies are just as culpable.

I do wish that he would make this evidence he has available, the evidence he routinely spouts as showing proof of the fraud, he could post it on wikileaks or get anonymous to post it on his behalf if it is so earth shattering as to bring down the banks and the courts im sure they would love to.

[Pox]

TC got a 6 month suspended sentence in September so if he has any sense (????) he won't do anything stupid until after this has expired.

But he also has a restraining order banning him from visiting Fearn Chase. Could he challenge this on the basis of not being able to visit/live in his 'home'?
I'm thinking along the lines of human rights etc ?

[exiledscouser]

But that's surely the point: the property is no longer his, it belongs to someone else. Who has just the same rights, article 8 rights, to a private life etc.

Why should his "rights" trump someone else's?

[Pox]

But that's surely the point: the property is no longer his, it belongs to someone else.

Yes, I realise that the property is no longer his (although I am not sure that he does).
I was just posing a hypothetical question - what options could he have if he wanted to pursue this route ?
Would it give him the opportunity to present all the 'evidence' that he so desperately wants to present?
Would his 'rights' trump the current owners on the basis that he was first in the queue (in his own mind)?

[AndyPandy]

But that's surely the point: the property is no longer his, it belongs to someone else.

Yes, I realise that the property is no longer his (although I am not sure that he does).
I was just posing a hypothetical question - what options could he have if he wanted to pursue this route ?
Would it give him the opportunity to present all the 'evidence' that he so desperately wants to present?
Would his 'rights' trump the current owners on the basis that he was first in the queue (in his own mind)?

I think (and I'm happy to be corrected) but wouldn't that be a Civil Court issue and he's banned from starting proceedings in the Civil Courts?

[Forsyth]

TC got a 6 month suspended sentence in September so if he has any sense (????) he won't do anything stupid until after this has expired.

Tom was given a conditional discharge rather than a suspended sentence. A conditional discharge means that if he re-offends in the time span then the sentencing for the criminal damage will be reconsidered. A suspended sentence is different in that the sentence that will be imposed in the case of a further breach is stated in advance (e.g. "Sentenced to two months in jail, suspended for one year").

In practice, conditional discharges are usually used where the offence is very minor and the offender is of good character. Suspended sentences are used where the offender is on the brink of being sent to jail but is being given one last chance, which is hopefully not appropriate here.