Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[AndyPandy]

It's not going to happen I know, but the best bit of advice that can be given to Tom would be to walk away from Mr Ebert.

Way too late for that I would think, he could go to a top flight barrister and still ignore him and think Ebert is correct, when the rest of us read quasi legal gobbledegook Tom reads salvation !

[TheNewSaint]

It's not going to happen I know, but the best bit of advice that can be given to Tom would be to walk away from Mr Ebert.

The best bit of advice that can be given to Tom would be to walk away. Period. Give up this pointless quest, and try to enjoy what's left of your life.

Tom couldn't fire Ebert now if he wanted to. From the documents letissier14 posted, it's clear that Tom gets his major ideas from Ebert. I doubt Tom could have come up with any of that on his own. And it seems to be the driving force behind everything Tom has done since: e.g. Tom's comment "the judgment was great but the order was wrong" to Judge Phillips from earlier this thread, and his misguided, self-destructive quest for a jury trial to overturn that order. If Crawford sought proper counsel at this point, all they could say is "sorry, you have no case, you've already lost." Only the current path offers any hope.

Which is sad. Tom is a belligerent prick, but he couldn't have fought this long without this kind of "help." Judge Godsmark's decision explains, in plain English, why all of Tom's arguments - the ones he continues to make to this day - are wrong. Perhaps if Tom had some time to digest that ruling, without Ebert's annotations, he might have come to his senses. But it's too late for that now.

I will always consider Ebert and the rest of that lot contributors to Tom Crawford's self-destruction. I'd wager 100 quatloos he won't live to see 2019. The physical deterioration, and the amount of stress he feels about all this, is obvious. Pile another loss and some jail time on top of that in 2017, and the process of driving himself to an early grave will be about 95% complete.

[JimUk1]

Tom was incredibly obsessed by obtaining a trail by jury.

Had he ever considered the jury probably would have found against him?

[Pottapaug1938]

Tom was incredibly obsessed by obtaining a trail by jury.

Had he ever considered the jury probably would have found against him?

I doubt it. I'm betting that he was convinced, beyond any doubt, that a jury would have nullified the (ahem) oppressive laws under which he was accused and persecuted, and ordered him returned to hearth and home (or something like that).

[Arthur Rubin]

Tom was incredibly obsessed by obtaining a trail by jury.

I think you meant trial by jury, but the only jury that would support him is probably on a trail somewhere....

[JimUk1]

Tom was incredibly obsessed by obtaining a trail by jury.

I think you meant trial by jury, but the only jury that would support him is probably on a trail somewhere....

Whoops

[TheNewSaint]

Tom was incredibly obsessed by obtaining a trail by jury.

Had he ever considered the jury probably would have found against him?

It doesn't even matter how the jury finds. Tom doesn't understand that any such jury can only rule on the criminal charges against him, and not ownership of the house. Even if he burglarized the house, got a jury trial, and brilliantly convinced the jury to acquit him, it wouldn't restore him to 3 Fearn Chase. Which is the only thing he wants.

As an aside, I think that would be the cruelest possible outcome of all this. For Tom to follow this misguided path, win, and find out there was never a prize at the end.

[longdog]

Judge Godsmark's decision explains, in plain English, why all of Tom's arguments - the ones he continues to make to this day - are wrong. Perhaps if Tom had some time to digest that ruling, without Ebert's annotations, he might have come to his senses. But it's too late for that now.

I'm starting to think that If HHJ Godsmark had handed down a judgement which read...

"Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed hendrerit efficitur metus, id vehicula enim molestie ac. Donec a purus iaculis odio suscipit condimentum. Nam congue leo ac justo tempor finibus vehicula eget sapien. Suspendisse pharetra leo eu vestibulum tincidunt. Sed vel augue at nibh dapibus dignissim. Integer condimentum orci eros, sed dignissim mi malesuada vitae. Donec at nisi sit amet arcu laoreet pulvinar. Vestibulum vehicula vel ex sed commodo. Duis suscipit sollicitudin fringilla. Mauris malesuada urna in mi ultrices, vel egestas mauris elementum..."

...it would've been more effective.

Plain English doesn't seem to have worked so fake Latin gibberish might've done the job.

[PeanutGallery]

Even then Tom would simply claim it was evidence of greater corruption, then return to the bottom of the hill and start rolling the boulder back up it.

[TheNewSaint]

Even then Tom would simply claim it was evidence of greater corruption, then return to the bottom of the hill and start rolling the boulder back up it.

I think Tom can only push the boulder up the hill so many times. The physical toll it's taking on him is evident.

[littleFred]

A jury might find Tom not guilty of any number of criminal offences, but that wouldn't restore the house to Tom.

Godsmark delivered a judgement backed by the full reasoning process. He didn't need to make significant findings of fact, because the two parties agreed on the significant facts.

Tom wants juries to try civil law cases because juries can ignore the facts and decide a case on emotional factors, and they don't have to explain their reasoning. Doubtless a suitably chosen jury could be persuaded that Tom should keep his house without repaying the mortgage.

But juries don't decide civil cases, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

[notorial dissent]

I think what TheNewSaint said is a good starting point here, "Tom is a belligerent prick" to which should have been added ignorant and illiterate on top of being just flat out stupid. His actions at the very first court appearance indicate to me that his understanding and comprehension of his tongue is next to nil. The judge did explain to him just exactly what had happened and the sequence of events that ultimately lead to him being in court and ultimately turfed out on his ear. I am come to the inescapable conclusion that he did not and could not follow what the judge was saying, and that he has no real idea about the rest of the nonsense he has been parroting of late.

[Normal Wisdom]

It shouldn't be a surprise that Tom is incapable of understanding the intricacies of any of his court cases. He had already demonstrated that he was unable to understand the much more simple fact that in surrendering the endowment policy he (and/ or Mrs Crawford) had been the author of his own downfall and then failed to comprehend that B&B were in fact offering him way out of this disaster and not, as he suspected, trying to rip him off.

[arayder]

I think what TheNewSaint said is a good starting point here, "Tom is a belligerent prick" . . .

Once you see the video of Tom very nearly running over police officers at his Fern Chase eviction you know all you need to know about him.

[PeanutGallery]

I think what TheNewSaint said is a good starting point here, "Tom is a belligerent prick" to which should have been added ignorant and illiterate on top of being just flat out stupid. His actions at the very first court appearance indicate to me that his understanding and comprehension of his tongue is next to nil. The judge did explain to him just exactly what had happened and the sequence of events that ultimately lead to him being in court and ultimately turfed out on his ear. I am come to the inescapable conclusion that he did not and could not follow what the judge was saying, and that he has no real idea about the rest of the nonsense he has been parroting of late.

My recollection was that Tom admitted to having initially thought he had lost and that it was only when he listened to Ebert he was told, no you are wrong, you won BUT they had to use language to make it sound like you lost. Which very obviously isn't how the law works, Tom wanted to believe Ebert, that is why he proclaimed it a victory and why Tom thanked the Judge in court.

This case, or rather series of cases, should serve as an example of the danger of seeking the advice you want to get rather than hearing the truth you need.

[JimUk1]

Tom wants juries to try civil law cases because juries can ignore the facts and decide a case on emotional factors, and they don't have to explain their reasoning. Doubtless a suitably chosen jury could be persuaded that Tom should keep his house without repaying the mortgage.

.

Nail-Head! Having been a juror myself there are those that do rule with heart and not head.

100% agree with you Fred.

[TheNewSaint]

My recollection was that Tom admitted to having initially thought he had lost and that it was only when he listened to Ebert he was told, no you are wrong, you won BUT they had to use language to make it sound like you lost.

If so, this is exactly what should be in the Tom Crawford documentation archives. The Godsmark ruling, followed by Tom's initial reaction, then by the pages of Ebert's drivel that letissier14 shared above, followed by Tom's following Ebert's advice in the Phillips ruling.

[letissier14]

Like father like son????

Just some of the things he said

Firstly, YES! I’m blessed enough to be a full-time marketer. And YES! I’m blessed enough to of generated over 3.000.000 million dollars launching products online

On top of that I’ve generated about $150,000 Extra from a venture I do as a kind of side earner for the business, it’s well worth it as it’s little work with a big return

So that’s $540,000 from the past 2 and a half years of my business

I live in a nice area, nice house, nice car, I own a Jacuzzi, a nice bar and buy things I like, I go to nice places on holiday… I go to eat in nice restaurants and I can help family and friends with money problems and I can also help with charities and charity work!

People look up to us like gods, because they want that “holy grail” called “online success” that we’ve managed to place our hands upon

I’m being featured in a documentary on channel 4 in my country the UK – We’re in a film, which is going on netflix

[SoLongCeylon]

Like father like son????

Just some of the things he said

Firstly, YES! I’m blessed enough to be acts online
full-time marketer. And YES! I’m blessed enough to of generated over 3.000.000 million dollars launching produ
On top of that I’ve generated about $150,000 Extra from a venture I do as a kind of side earner for the business, it’s well worth it as it’s little work with a big return

So that’s $540,000 from the past 2 and a half years of my business

I live in a nice area, nice house, nice car, I own a Jacuzzi, a nice bar and buy things I like, I go to nice places on holiday… I go to eat in nice restaurants and I can help family and friends with money problems and I can also help with charities and charity work!

People look up to us like gods, because they want that “holy grail” called “online success” that we’ve managed to place our hands upon

I’m being featured in a documentary on channel 4 in my country the UK – We’re in a film, which is going on netflix

I think most of Craig's output is BS and a smoke screen to make it look like he is successful so other people will buy whatever he is flogging.

His website is no longer live : http://paramountprofits.com/
His Facebook page hasn't been updated since July

I wonder if his mini biography is a cut and paste from somewhere else?

[grixit]

Hey Craig.

I know your dad doesn't need a house since he already has one, albeit temporarily occupied by thieves.

But you know, where he's staying in the meantime can't be all that great.

So how about, you use some of your amazing profits to buy him something. Say a big country cottage on a large rural lot. Not only could he and your mom live there while the fraud gets sorted out, but he could use the grounds to host all those victory celebrations and educational conferences. The hundreds of people who show up can camp out without needing a permit, because it's private property. Albeit, you might have to give some assurance about noise, behavior, and sanitation-- but hey, we all know what responsible people fmotls are.

You could even host your own seminars there and teach people how to become as rich as you.

WIN-WIN-WIN!!!!