Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[longdog]

If the judge was persuaded that the warrant was relevant (which it wasn't) he could've halted the trial until the CPS produced it, declared a mistrial or simply acquitted Tom Crawford. He did none of these things and Crawford was convicted which suggests he thought it wasn't relevant.

If TC and his 'legal team' genuinely believe the warrant or lack thereof was relevant and the judge should've acted other than how he chose to act they should appeal the conviction which, as far as I'm aware they haven't done and which I suspect they are now too late to do. They've known about their entirely spurious 'missing warrant' defence since the original court case so why didn't they appeal straight away?

This blather will just go on and on and on with the Clan Crawford repeating the same shit until they finally realise nobody's listening and nobody cares. All talk, zero action.

[TheNewSaint]

And the judge is on the record as saying to Tom, "Let's not make the mistake of thinking we are dealing with the Bradford and Bingley. No-one else is in the court but you." Which suggests the court had little interest in what Tom wanted to make the criminal case about.

[notorial dissent]

So you're saying pretend stupid and cluelessness as opposed to the genuine article? Not much of a stretch one way or the other in my book.

To some people a misleading story believed is better than the plain truth.

Particularly when the plain truth contradicts your every word.

aesmith you are making the very fatal assumption that ANYTHING Amanda or anyone from Clan Crawfraud said was anything at all like factual. I really doubt the judge said any such thing, if he had wanted or needed a copy of the warrant he would have either ordered them to get one or adjourned the trial, or he might just possibly have nipped in to his chambers and looked it up on the system, since I am sure there is a record of it being issued there, and that is a court record.

[Forsyth]

In search of hypothetical reasons why it might, possibly, be relevant that the CPS specifically had a copy of the warrant, I came up with this:

For a criminal damage conviction it would be a defence for Tom to show that he honestly believed that the property was his. This defence is intended for situations where, for example, someone might tear down a fence believing it's theirs, only for it to be shown later that the fence belonged to their neighbour. This then becomes a civil matter for compensation rather than a criminal one for conviction.

In Tom's case, the prosecution might therefore look to present evidence both that the house was not Tom's (such as the warrant being issued), and also then present evidence that Tom knew prior to the events that the house was no longer his (such as Tom having seen the warrant - or perhaps just having had a clear opportunity to see it).

To attempt the latter, the prosecution (and I speculate) may have claimed in court that Tom knew that the house was not his because the police had themselves made a copy of the warrant available for him to inspect (such as, perhaps, at the eviction). If this was disputed by Tom (which would be consistent with his denials that the warrant existed at all), then the judge might suggest that if the police had done this, then the copy of the warrant should be on their files and could be produced to support their claim. Not, I stress, that the warrant existed, but that the police had a copy at the scene of the eviction.

Of course, police files being what they are (particularly as far as items that were taken out on site and brought back), it may not have been possible for the prosecution to locate the copy that was shown (or at least was present to be seen) at the eviction in a timely manner. It should be noted that an inability to find the copy would not prove that it wasn't present, but if a copy was found then it would support the case that it was present.

In this case a number of possibilities present themselves: the judge may have decided that the police were more reliable witnesses, the prosecution may have presented sufficient other evidence to support their case, Tom may have produced evidence that worked against his own case himself, or Tom may simply not have attempted to prove his belief in the ownership (as opposed to attempting to prove the actual ownership) as a defence at all.

I emphasise that the above is speculative.

[longdog]

I see where you're coming from Forsyth but I wouldn't think a stubborn refusal to face reality would be much of a defence. Tom KNEW there was a court order for possession because he was in court when the order was made, when it was suspended pending appeal and when the suspension was lifted. His actions from the word go, including the aborted eviction when rent-a-mob showed up, prove that he knew full well that he had lost the property. His stubborn refusal to admit defeat doesn't really come in to it and doesn't constitute a genuinely held belief that a reasonable man would have.

The fact that TC was on the roof of the property is in itself evidence that he knew the property was not, legally speaking, still his. A protest isn't a protest without something to protest about and clearly he was protesting the fact that the property had been taken from him by the courts.

I can't see the criminal courts allowing a defence of "I thought it was my property" when the civil courts had been quite clear that it wasn't any longer his property. The civil judges had told him to his face that he'd lost and the fact he didn't like the result is neither here nor there. His dislike of the verdict, which he clearly understood, doesn't constitute a reasonably held belief that it was without effect.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I would say the fact there was an order for possession in force prior to the warrant being issued is proof enough that Tom would have known he had spunked his house away. I don't see why the prosecution would have any need to produce the warrant when they could simply refer the court to the order. The Crawfords appear to believe if there is a flaw in the warrant it means the possession order is null and void. That exposes their level of stupidity.

[longdog]

It occurs to me there's a huge difference between a defence of "I did the act but I was mistakenly under the impression the object I damaged was mine. It won't happen again" and "I did the act because it's mine and I'm going to carry on doing it". The first invites the court to acquit while the second invites the court to stamp on such foolishness to prevent a repeat performance.

[letissier14]

I think the prosecution would only have to show this video at 6 min 34 seconds in

https://youtu.be/WedSGlpSSO8?t=395

[Forsyth]

My apologies, I wasn't trying to suggest that Tom had or hadn't got a valid defence, just that the prosecution may have had a reason to bring up the fact that Tom may have been shown a copy of the warrant by the police and that the judge may have asked for evidence of that - nothing more.

Judges often seem to progress through the evidence piece by piece before bringing all the threads together at the end. I can certainly imagine a situation where the police say "Tom saw a copy because we showed it to him at the eviction" only for Tom to say "Oh no you didn't" and the judge to say, "Well, if you did you'll have a copy on the file, please bring it here tomorrow". The judge would then continue to hear all the evidence before deciding what parts are relevant.

This would explain Tom's comments about the judge asking the CPS to produce their copy of the warrant, but would also have no bearing on the existence of the original warrant.

We know both the possession order and conviction are valid because they have been tested in court (subject to Tom's threatened appeal to the Supreme Court, of course). At the moment I'm more interested in Tom's curious line of reasoning in continuing to justify his claims to the contrary despite all this.

[aesmith]

By why would anyone be interested at this stage? I understood that the criminal case is complete, with a guilty verdict, leaving nothing outstanding to be decided on the basis of the presence or absence of these documents.

[letissier14]

By why would anyone be interested at this stage? I understood that the criminal case is complete, with a guilty verdict, leaving nothing outstanding to be decided on the basis of the presence or absence of these documents.

It's the Crawfrauds normal tactics to fabricate a story to keep what few supporters they have left, still interested.

[Hercule Parrot]

By why would anyone be interested at this stage? I understood that the criminal case is complete, with a guilty verdict, leaving nothing outstanding to be decided on the basis of the presence or absence of these documents.

That is correct, of course. There has been no unresolved legal question in this matter for several years, it's very straightforward. But Tom Crawfraud and his dwindling band desperately want people to remain interested, to imagine that there's some sort of question mark over the propriety of these events, and to thus perceive TC as a martyr.

And behind that is the unspeakable secret, fully-known to the whole family and to any supporter who has read the court papers, that the Crawfraud's tragedy is entirely their own doing - They cancelled the endowment, so nothing was being saved to pay off the capital loan. They declined the lender's early and correct advice to convert to a conventional mortgage. They wilfully blinded themselves to the cliff-edge they knew to be ahead of them. And when that cliff-edge was reached, they shunned all sensible options of refinancing or downsizing.

The fevered churning of victimhood postings on Facebook is simply cognitive dissonance - bluster and distraction to repress the unspeakable secret.

(Edit - I left the reply window open, and Let14 sneaked in with a quicker and more economical explanation of same!)

[daveBeeston]

I find it very ironic that Tom holds up a picture in that video of someone who he describes as "an obnoxious, egotistical person an evil person who take homes from old people, sick people and young people with children with no concern", the first part of the description perfectly describes Tom and the later a symptom inflicted on those that follow the advice that Tom peddles.

Tom if anyone could be accused of being evil its you, you constantly lie to desperate people in order to gain their trust and then peddle advice that if followed will cost them their homes, you are a parasite and an oxygen thief.

[TheNewSaint]

Tom's not evil. He's stupid, obnoxious, dishonest, greedy, gullible, a bully, and a professional victim, sure. But he's just parroting what others have taught him. He couldn't have come up with any of that drivel on his own. He was agreeing with Judge Godsmark until Ebert coached him otherwise. He's a tool of people like Ebert and Ceylon, who want to promote their theories at no risk to themselves. Tom's not a kingpin; he's the low-ranking operative who gets caught committing the actual deed, and pays the actual punishment while everyone who put him into that situation skates.

[doublelong]

Tom's not evil. He's stupid, obnoxious, dishonest, greedy, gullible, a bully, and a professional victim, sure. But he's just parroting what others have taught him. He couldn't have come up with any of that drivel on his own. He was agreeing with Judge Godsmark until Ebert coached him otherwise. He's a tool of people like Ebert and Ceylon, who want to promote their theories at no risk to themselves. Tom's not a kingpin; he's the low-ranking operative who gets caught committing the actual deed, and pays the actual punishment while everyone who put him into that situation skates.

I agree with you on Ceylon but Ebert has paid a very high price over the years and that has to make you wonder how he is so effective at getting people to follow his advice without question.
I take it this is the end now for Tom? And as long as he does not break the law (criminal) his days in court are no more?

[aesmith]

His civil restraining order will run out this summer...

[AndyPandy]

His civil restraining order will run out this summer...

I'm guessing the first legal action he attempts to bring will be swiftly followed by either an extension to the existing order or an indefinite one granted.

[NYGman]

His civil restraining order will run out this summer...

And then he will become less civil? is that even possible??

[The Observer]

Given that this topic has hit 99 pages, Crawford has exhausted all of his available options to keep Fern Chase, and that he is now just ranting gibberish over his lost battles, I am going to close this thread. I will start another one under the title "The Crawfords Keep Looking For A Unicorn."