Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[Bones]

Ooops. I wonder what TC's dwindling band of admirers thought about this. He's probably lost a few more since they found out that he's been lying to them throughout.

Hence why Craig and Amanda don't like him anymore

[Bones]

Tom is up late and posting on EFOTB - He is obviously a reader of Quatloos and is posting in response to recent comments made to this thread -

Hi Tom, why don't you wake up and tell people he truth for once ?

Tom Crawford shared a link.
1 hr

Hi all,
My family and I would like to say that these 6 people are an inspiration to the rest of us and it is an honour to know them.

After all this still no sign of a real warrant and this is after 21 requests to see it, 2 requests by a Hight court judge in the Royal courts of Justice also a High court Judge in Leicester crown court, the only thing that has been seen is a FAKE! one that the Judge in Leicester seen and described as not a court document. he then told the CPS to bring the real warrant to court and have it verified! by a judge in Nottingham! the next day the CPS told the judge that no Judge in Nottingham would verify it, the CPS then dropped the charges.

On the 9th of December last year at my court hearing I asked Judge Gogsmark QC to verify his fake warrant, this was asked in open court HE DECLINED!!!!!

Tom's problem is that he will not accept anything as a "real warrant"

Tommy boy, you forget that your own daughter posted this:

Amanda Pike
31 July 2015

WE NOW HAVE THE UNICORN IN OUR POSSESSION. I REPEAT WE HAVE THE UNICORN......However its got no horn whatsoever and is about as useful as a piece of bog roll! (Shocker) I can't currently go into it to much as we've got some things to sort out in relation to it and its being thoroughly analysed but as soon as we're able we'll put it up for you all to see with all its defects listed. The saddest thing of all is that it would be absolutely hilarious if it wasn't so serious! I can confirm now though that it is a county court warrant and NOT a high court writ. And yes...yes they did break into our home ripping down fencing walls and the door to get in. And violently removed my mother often giving her threats to help remove her........ With no notice!

You also forget that an attempt was made to give you the warrant on the day you were evicted from your family home. If you had remained calm, you would have been given it that day



The Crawfraud's come out with so much crap they can't even remember the things they have previously said

[letissier14]

The request to reissue the warrant in May 2015

[Bones]

In response to Tom's late night post, the onesie wearing one has posted:

Amanda Pike Those trolls would ride their own flatulence if they could let alone a unicorn. As for those guys they'll never realise how good a thing they did and they did help as if it wasn't for them none of that about the warrant would be know. Fantastic people xx

Very true because whilst Amanda said the Crawfrauds would post the warrant, which she herself confirmed they had received 6 months before the hearing, the Crawfrauds have never posted it. As the warrant was in the case bundle, it is true without the Rooftop 6 + 1, or more specifically 1 of the rooftop 6 who discovered the truth, we would never have seen the warrant.

Both Colon and Jay have previously lied about the warrant being out of date, when upon closer examination it was from December 2014.

We also have the leader of the Crawfraud fan club posting in support of the liar clan

Coral Melissa Penn Is it an offence to bandy about in Public a fake document in the name of the court ( Not Legit ) as a tool to defame ?
Like · 1 hr · Edited

Yet they are unable to state a single reason why the warrant that was used to evict Tommy Crawfraud is "not legit".

Coral, call the Police and report the crime

[letissier14]

Coral Melissa Penn is just one of a few handful of people who still believe in everything Tom says. She has no idea what she is talking about and certainly has no idea how the law works.

[Bungle]

The request to reissue the warrant in May 2015

The warrant is entirely valid and the 'reissue' request was simply as a result of the 14th May 2015 decision by His Honour Judge Godsmark QC to reject the Crawfords application to stay execution of the writ.

There are probably less than 10 people now (including Tom, Sue, Amanda and Craig) who believe that the Crawford house was stolen or that the warrant was a fake.

[Jeffrey]

There are probably less than 10 people now (including Tom, Sue, Amanda and Craig) who believe that the Crawford house was stolen or that the warrant was a fake.

#1. I'm not sure if we can honestly include the Crawfords in that list.

#2. Who exactly are they claiming faked the warrant? The judge says he issued a warrant, they got a copy of the warrant, where's the fakery? Why would B&B fake a warrant when they got a real one from the judge? Or are they saying the judge issued a fake warrant? Why would a judge issue a fake warrant when, as a judge, he can issue a real warrant for the same amount of effort?

[TheNewSaint]

#2. Who exactly are they claiming faked the warrant? The judge says he issued a warrant, they got a copy of the warrant, where's the fakery?

The copy is the fakery. At least it was when it came up in the Judge Phillips hearing:

Mr Justice Phillips : Did you receive a warrant from the court?
Mr Crawford : No. I got a facsimile that looks like a warrant …

He never directly says it, but his argument is that the warrant is invalid because it's a copy.

Tom Crawford is very good at framing the story to make himself look like the victim. When he says "we received no warrant", he really means "we received no warrant that meets our imaginary standards", and no one ever calls him out on it.

Similarly:

Amanda Pike
31 July 2015

WE NOW HAVE THE UNICORN IN OUR POSSESSION. I REPEAT WE HAVE THE UNICORN......However its got no horn whatsoever and is about as useful as a piece of bog roll! (Shocker) I can't currently go into it to much as we've got some things to sort out in relation to it and its being thoroughly analysed but as soon as we're able we'll put it up for you all to see with all its defects listed.

Again, they acknowledge receipt of the warrant, but immediately declare it unsatisfactory for reasons that are never explained.

[notorial dissent]

I think what the judge was probably trying to say, and poorly, was that he had a "copy" of the warrant, and that was all he needed, but that it wasn't a valid warrant as it was a copy and not the original, but that there had been an original since he had the copy. The actual valid warrant had gone to the bailiffs and had been served and executed. Tom's grasp of his mother tongue is at best tenuous I think.

[Bungle]

Tom Crawford is very good at framing the story to make himself look like the victim. When he says "we received no warrant", he really means "we received no warrant that meets our imaginary standards", and no one ever calls him out on it.

You have hit the nail on the head.

[getoutofdebtfools]

As I understand it Bailiffs always use copies of warrants/writs. The originals are usually kept in the office and only produced if required. Tom would have never had the original given to him.

[daveBeeston]

It wouldn't matter if Tom was present when the original document/warrant was created, stamped and signed, he would still proclaim it a fake/fraudulent document, he (and to a lesser degree his family) is now nothing more than professional victim.

[TheNewSaint]

I think what the judge was probably trying to say, and poorly, was that he had a "copy" of the warrant, and that was all he needed

I agree, Judge Phillips could have made this point more clearly. But Tom flitted from subject to subject so quickly that the judge seemed to have a hard time keeping up.

[Bones]

Sue was shown a copy of the warrant on the day of the eviction before Tom returned. This is confirmed when she screams to him that it isn't even signed.

The reason that it was not signed was because it doesn't have to be.. If you look at a warrant for possession, there are only two places for signatures. 1) The Baliff, signs after he has taken possession and 2) The Claimant signs after the Baliff has given possession to the claimant.



The warrant used to evict Tom is from December 2014. Tom posted this video in January 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_np7fv2xxs

As per the above showing the court stamp/seal

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/proce ... part02#2.6

Court documents to be sealed

2.6

(1) The court must seal(GL) the following documents on issue –

(a) the claim form; and

(b) any other document which a rule or practice direction requires it to seal.

(2) The court may place the seal(GL) on the document –

(a) by hand; or

(b) by printing a facsimile of the seal on the document whether electronically or otherwise.

(3) A document purporting to bear the court’s seal(GL) shall be admissible in evidence without further proof.[

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/proce ... l/glossary

Seal
A seal is a mark which the court puts on a document to indicate that the document has been issued by the court.

[Bones]

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... d.pdf.html

Bailiffs’ folders

Your bailiff folders, in the form of two ring binders, one for home warrants and one for
foreign warrants should be used to record details of all warrants received on a
particular day and a record of their disposal i.e. final return. You will receive the
relevant pages with the warrant. The warrants are produced by the court
computerised warrant control system on CaseMan. Check that the area details are
correct; this will also include all re-issued warrants.

It is important to check that you have received a computer generated warrant page
relating to the warrant you have received, as this forms evidence of work received
during a calendar month.

Use of force by Bailiffs
You may lawfully use reasonable force to execute a possession warrant – both as to
entry and as to the physical removal of occupiers. The only exception is where there
is a local prohibition on the use of reasonable force as directed by your District
Judge. While the drafting of EX96 is being considered the following guidance should
be noted:

If an occupier refuses to leave when told to do so by a Bailiff with a possession
warrant then that occupier is disobeying a court order and may be committing a
criminal offence. This will depend on the circumstances. If an occupant refuses to
leave, you may use the minimum force necessary to remove them. If you have to use
force, have a witness present and do all you can to avoid an allegation of assault. If
possible, withdraw and call the police who will stand by to prevent a breach of the
peace.

If there is passive resistance, the Bailiff may use reasonable force when requested
by the Claimant, to evict the defendant if the warrant is in form N49

[exiledscouser]

Jeffery said above

Why would a judge issue a fake warrant when, as a judge, he can issue a real warrant for the same amount of effort?

Which is surely the nub of all this endless nonsense.

If it lies within the gift of a judicial authority to issue a warrant quite properly if the necessary criteria is met then he or she can issue a warrant. Or, if the criteria are not met, don't. Warrants (quite properly) get refused all of the time on a range of grounds, that's because we have a fair-minded and impartial judiciary who take their jobs seriously.

No need to act unlawfully and put one's reputation, career and liberty at risk.

No need to enter into a hugely resource-intensive giant conspiracy, one which relies on the total and complete omerta of all concerned, one which grows uncontrollably as the thing takes life, getting bigger and bigger as more and more folk from the courts, police, bailiffs etc become involved, one which, if it were to exist, would all come tumbling down if just one person 'spilled the beans' now or in the future. Just to boot some innocent carpet fitter out of his house for want of 40 grand?

No need at all to do any of this, just issue the warrant or don't issue the warrant as your position dictates.

What's the more likely;

that the warrant application was properly made out and thereafter properly authorised

or

a huge, secret, massively costly conspiracy is born along the lines claimed by TC et al?

Surely a job for Occam's Razor!

Furthermore, if there is a complaint that a warrant was deficient (or for that matter unlawful) in any material aspect, the avenue is judicial review (JR) which any competent brief could carry forward on Tom's behalf and all the facts would be examined. He could even try it pro se or crowd-fund from his many followers.

Indeed, in all the bluster and posturing, no-one has ever brought this to Tom's attention, none of the legal giants blowing in his ear or any of the faithful lap-dogs sustaining his campaign and I don't think he's ever tried or considered the JR route. They crow on and on about the (apparent) inability of the Crown to produce a copy of said warrant at the Rooftop 6 trial ("there is no warrant!!!11!!!"), well for my part if that were true then I'd be reaching into the JR jar and calling up m'learned friends pretty sharpish, fairly confident in victory.

That said, I don't believe them. Any competent brief would probably advise Tom that the warrant was perfectly proper and that he would be wasting both time and money on a JR.

No, in the words of an old boss of mine, the warrant issue is a "Blind Herring".

[Dr. Caligari]

No, in the words of an old boss of mine, the warrant issue is a "Blind Herring".

Yes, but doesn't a blind herring find an acorn once in a while?

[littleFred]

Tom continually refers to courts as corrupt, and judges and magistrates as criminals. For example, when describing his appeal against his criminal conviction, the judge and two magistrates are "three criminals". When the judge said the house was no longer Tom's property, "only a criminal with the most corrupt intent will come out with such a comment."

Arguing about the criminality of judges, or validity of warrants, is pointless in the absence of any evidence. Merely finding aganst an appellant isn't evidence that the judge is a criminal. If a warrant doesn't comply with Tom's invented rules, this doesn't make it invalid.

If Tom has any real evidence of criminal judges, or invalid warrants, he has never shown it. I'm not holding my breath.

EDIT: I made a typo, "his [Tom's] convictions". As far as I know, he has only one.

[TheNewSaint]

Arguing about the criminality of judges, or validity of warrants, is pointless in the absence of any evidence.

Such statements appeal to Tom's fan base. They keep his true believers interested in the struggle, and keep him relevant in the FMOTL world. They're not going to question it, and since Tom Crawford isn't even back-page news anymore, no one else will either. Except us, I guess.

[Normal Wisdom]

One of the basic problems all along is that Tom et al have no understanding of the purpose of a Warrant of Possession. They (choose to?) equate it with an arrest warrant "sworn out" by a judge when in fact a Warrant of Possession it is simply an instruction from the court for a bailiff to execute the Order of Possession.

The Order is the record of the judge's decision that possession of the property must be given to the claimant. The Warrant simply an instruction to execute that decision.

Their focus on the validity of the warrant has always missed the point. Godsmark ordered that possession be given to the claimant and the Crawfrauds failed to successfully challenge that decision.