The Crawfords Keep Looking For A Unicorn

[rumpelstilzchen]

While the Crawfords continue to obsess about the correctness of one particular document they are forgetting an important fact. They have absolutely no documentation that proves they are the owners of the property. So, let us turn their own argument onto them.
To the Crawfords: Please show us the documentation that states you are the owners of the property ........tick.....tock......tick......tock....
.

[littleFred]

I still don't get what's behind their claim that the judge "ordered" those documents to be produced.

Judges are ultra polite, forever indebted to counsel of both sides for their assistance, and respectful of anyone they disagree with.

However, in the end, they issue orders. "It is ordered that Alice pays Bob the sum of ten shillings." It's what they do. The judge may have ordered this, but I wouldn't put any significance on the word.

[exiledscouser]

I posed the question before but I can't see where all this talk of a 'break-through' takes TC & Co.

He can't go back into the civil courts - he expertly and with great cunning gained himself vex lit status so that door is firmly closed.

In the criminal arena and for offences he deliberately committed to further his agenda he was convicted by the Magistrates.

Found guilty that is and by a no-nonsense DJ (a paid Magistrate sitting alone) who gave his arguments short shrift.

Undeterred by this set-back Tom appealed, his conviction was upheld. Bugger - still guilty.

Costs were added. Ooof!

His next stop is the High Court (not the Supreme Court - not yet Tom lad) but to get even there he'll have to convince the court that he has proper grounds and an arguable case.

Unlike an appeal from Mags to Crown progression isn't automatic; he'll have to seek the court's permission, in the first instance, usually from a single judge, a gatekeeper who's job it is to kick out the frivolous and without merit appeals. That'll surely hurt TC's increasing sense of self-entitlement, having to go cap in hand to Yeronner. Costs will be added. The link explains the process.

If the single judge turns him down, costs will be awarded. He can further apply to a panel of three judges but if one of their colleagues has previously dismissed the first appeal it is highly likely he won't succeed. Yet more costs will be added. If the basis of the appeal is without merit they can refuse permission for the matter to be taken any further, that really will be the end of the road.

So far he hasn't trumpeted his intentions to the supporter's club.

Unless anyone has any other views, I think the High Court appeal route is the only legal avenue still open to him.

[TheNewSaint]

To the Crawfords: Please show us the documentation that states you are the owners of the property ........tick.....tock......tick......tock.....

And just for the record, let's include the proof that they don't own it:

96. The Crawfords are fighting for their home of 25 years. Their desperation is easy to understand, and their predicament has attracted interest in the press and much public support. When the case came before me in February 2015 I was troubled that at the end of the mortgage term the Crawfords owed more than they had borrowed.

97. Factually the position is now clearer. The reason that the Crawfords owed more at the end of the mortage than they did at the beginning is that there is no longer an endowment policy which was supposed to repay the capital borrowed. However that came about, the Crawfords have known since at least 1999 that there was no means in place of repaying the original capital. Mr. Crawford was offered the means to repay capital by way of a repayment mortgage but refused. That explains how we ended up at the end of the mortgage term without repayment of capital.

98. This hearing is an appeal. The Crawfords need permission to appeal before an actual appeal can continue. Permission to appeal is granted where an appeal has a real prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard (CPR 52.3(6)).

99. The order under appeal is a mortgage possession order. As I have indicated in paragraph 50 above, once there are qualifying arrears (two months installments), Bradford & Bingley is entitled to possession. There is no dispute that there were qualifying arrears.

100. Mr Crawford has raised a number of points which he says should ground an appeal. I have scrutinised the points made by Mr Crawford in this hearing with care. Due to the public interest I have attempted above to set out as simply as I can the law which applies in this case and my analysis of Mr Crawford's legal positions.

101. The points made by Mr Crawford are either without foundation or legally misconceived. Factual assertions about changing the terms of the mortgage are misplaced; both sides agree that the mortgage terms were not changed. The legal challenges raised are misconceived and I have laid out above why this is so.

102. None of the points raised by Mr Crawford have any substance in terms of potentially defending the possession claim. None of them can be described as a point with a real chance of success on appeal.

103. I have considered separately whether there is any other compelling reason why an appeal should be heard. Though this case is unique to Mr Crawford, it is sadly one of many similar cases which courts deal with all the time. It raises no new point of principle.

104. The order I make is that permission to appeal out of time is granted but permission to appeal is denied. The suspension of the execution of the warrant for 3 Fearn Chase is lifted.

http://www.nottinghampost.com/tom-crawf ... story.html

[Hercule Parrot]

I still don't get what's behind their claim that the judge "ordered" those documents to be produced.

Judges are ultra polite, forever indebted to counsel of both sides for their assistance, and respectful of anyone they disagree with.

I agree. What's happened here is that TC has blathered on about missing documents, and the Judge has urbanely asked the prosecutor to check the CPS file and let TC have copies of anything relevant they might have. Prosecuting barrister has murmured "Of course, M'Lud". It counts for nothing.

Longdog is right when he says below that a defendant cannot impose arbitrary proofs upon the proceedings. If sufficient evidence has been presented to satisfy the court, that's the end of it. If Crawfraud tried to appeal this he'd be laughed out of court.

[grixit]

He hasn't appealed to the Council of Barons yet.

[aesmith]

So grounds for appeal .. "The CPS don't have some documents that weren't needed or relied on for conviction, nor would they support the defence or weaken the prosecution, further more they are documents that nobody would expect them to have in any case. This renders the conviction unsound because ...."

[AndyPandy]

He hasn't appealed to the Council of Barons yet.

Maybe he needs to stand under the Magna Carta - Article 61 and 'Lawfully Rebel'...... that'd show them !!

[Penny Wise]

Breaking News !!1!!

The Crawfords have won, it has been reported today that they will be moving back into the property next week

Nottingham Echo

[aesmith]

With 12 minutes to spare.

[grixit]

I was hoping it was a link to an actual April Fool's article. But if there were one, sovs would be quoting it as real.

[grixit]

Hmm. Just looked back through this topic, and nobody got a unipony.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Hmm. Just looked back through this topic, and nobody got a unipony.

I'm working on the My Little Knackers Yard.

[Hercule Parrot]

Hmm. Just looked back through this topic, and nobody got a unipony.

I'm working on the My Little Knackers Yard.

So I probably missed a joke, what's with all the My Little Ponies?

[Chaos]

Hmm. Just looked back through this topic, and nobody got a unipony.

I'm working on the My Little Knackers Yard.

So I probably missed a joke, what's with all the My Little Ponies?

what do you mean?

[littleFred]

I spent ages trying to get rid of the annoying ponies. Later I saw that according to webhick, we were invaded. I might think it was her little April 1st joke, but rule #1 is don't cast aspersions on the webmaster, so I'd never say so.

[Gregg]

You know, just bringing it up puts you on the watchlist of our 699th Airborne Assault Dachshund Regiment...



We're keeping an eye on you!

[notorial dissent]

I love that picture. That is one placid puppy.

[getoutofdebtfools]

As one of Tom's pointless arguments is that B&B changed his mortgage without telling him (although it may be that they told Sweaty Sue and she failed to tell Hatted Tom) do you think he genuinely understands that if a mortgage is interest only and any endowment was cancelled, then the house is not paid for?

[Pottapaug1938]

As one of Tom's pointless arguments is that B&B changed his mortgage without telling him (albeit it may be that they told Sweaty Sue and she failed to tell Hatted Tom) do you think he understands that if a mortgage is interest only and any endowment was cancelled, then the house is not paid for?

He doesn't WANT to understand. He wants to get out of the financial hole into which he has willingly driven himself and his family; and he will grasp at any answer, no matter how wacky, which isn't something like "I screwed up, and now I have to pay the price". Interest? Amortization tables? These and other related mortgage terms are just inconvenient facts to him.