Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

[Joinder]

Well , there we have it.....after questioning some things on here a member uses my profile to demonstrate how to use the "ignore" feature, effectively stifling my views.

I haven't pressed the ignore button which is why I was able to read the above.

I have no idea if anybody else has but respect that the button was pointed out for those that wish to use it.

As far as I am concerned I welcome the views of others,even if I disagree with what they are saying - and sometimes continue to disagree after I have read their views and they probably disagree with me - that's life , and is all the more interesting for it.

Thank you Mr Pox, frankly I think this site should encourage differing views, not every Quatloosian is always right, and not all their motives are necessarily noble or moral either.

[Joinder]

Joinder, we all know you are a Paid Shill from TPTB, planted to to create confusion and misdirection, so that TPTB may steal Tom's little Bungalow as part of its cunning plan to steal private housing, one Bungalow every 3 years, for the foreseeable future.

Seriously thought, I don't think your doubts about the situation are unfounded. However, I have looked at the videos, both, Facebook postings, and other "evidence" provided by both parties, and have concluded Yiam was stalked by TC, who knew he was going to be in the area, checking out the old house. Did Yiam goad them on by posting the pub, maybe, but at the end of the day, irrelevant. Tom has put his plight out in the public, and has put 3 Ferne Close on the map, literally, for any of us debunkers of the FMOTL/Tax Protester movement to check out. His house has become a symbol of the Free Money movement, and a must visit for any of us in Nottingham. So at teh end of the day, Yiam actions are not relevant here, Tom's are. Especially as said house is publicly listed for sale, the pub is a Public House, and both locations Tom is prohibited from going to. So who is the aggressor here? Tom may not like the result of his actions, but like a car crash, 3 Ferne Close has become something that we now can't help ourselves from checking out. If I were still living in the UK, and in the area, I would check it out too!

Damn you, my plan exposed.
Personally I wouldn't touch the house, knowing its history and potential problems. But if I was interested, I wouldn't advertise that I was a poster on Quatloos and had been commenting on Tom and his family. ( I nearly wrote " a member of Q" but I've been reprimanded over that massive faux pas already)

[NYGman]

Personally I wouldn't touch the house, knowing its history and potential problems. But if I was interested, I wouldn't advertise that I was a poster on Quatloos and had been commenting on Tom and his family. ( I nearly wrote " a member of Q" but I've been reprimanded over that massive faux pas already)

To each their own, and I think that is the crux of it. While you may not want to disclose your trip, Yiam did. Again, nothing wrong with doing so, and only mattered to Tom if he were reading Yiam's posts, and already following him, which to me is more disturbing than anything Yiam did.

While you would show restraint, Yiam publicized his visit. I take it on Yiam's word, that he didn't intend to attract the flies Crawfords with his post. However, and not keep harping on it [ ] but even if he did, Tom chose to react, when he should have let sleeping dogs lie. He didn't need to chase down Yiam, but he chose to, I think TC went looking for a confrontation, and he got what he wanted. Unfortunately, his spontaneous attack, didn't get the result he wanted. He was unable to bait Yiam in to a fight, and came across looking like a big bully.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Yiam is a grown man and it is entirely his choice how he behaves. It is no one else's business.
Time to move on.

[PeterPan]

Moving on..... Apparently the lovely Amanda has just posted this...

Just to let you know, and keep you in the loop, we have now had confirmation that OUR home has NOT been sold and has been withdrawn from sale from tomrrows auction, we have no details at this time as to the reasoning behind this.

I am sure someone in here said it had definitely sold...

[Jeffrey]

This subsequent sale has no bearing on Amanda or the Crawfords. If the house sells for a million dollars at auction, that money goes to the person who bought it off the bank, not to the Crawfords. As far as they're concerned their involvement with the house is over unless they plan on bidding for it.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I think previously some, including young Crawford and Monika said something along the lines of 'no case to answer' and the bench said ' will take that as a not guilty then'.

Yes, if I remember it correctly they both replied "no case to answer" which is the wrong time to use that submission and it isn't a plea. The court recorded "not guilty" pleas for both of them.

[Pox]

I think previously some, including young Crawford and Monika said something along the lines of 'no case to answer' and the bench said ' will take that as a not guilty then'.

Yes, if I remember it correctly they both replied "no case to answer" which is the wrong time to use that submission and it isn't a plea. The court recorded "not guilty" pleas for both of them.

Is there a right time to use such a submission?

Just asking?

Maybe, 'this is my evidence and therefore, I have no case to answer'?

Is this how it should work or have I been watching too many TV programmes?

[PeanutGallery]

The decision on whether a person actually has a case to answer is generally made by the prosecution and not so usually made by the Judge, they are bringing a case against you, they have evidence that they think will convict you. If they didn't, they probably shouldn't bring the case and likely wouldn't bring it.

In the event that the prosecution did bring a case without any real evidence of anything, then the Judge should recognise this and dismiss the charges, if asked by the defendant. The Judge, dismissing the case, would be telling the Defendant they had no case to answer.

The defendant doesn't get to have much of a say in whether or not they have a case to answer, they can ask for a judicial opinion, but without the Judge agreeing the matter of fact is that they are going to be tried and they will have to answer this case, they might feel that they are not guilty they might even be innocent of the charge, but they must still answer the case and present what should be the evidence of their innocence. It's also worth noting that despite them declaring they had no case to answer, the prosecution and courts have continued with the case.

Effectively the use in this case was more a statement that they didn't recognise the court or law and showed that once again Tom and co are so far out of their depth they can see Atlantis.

[Pox]

The decision on whether a person actually has a case to answer is generally made by the prosecution and not so usually made by the Judge, they are bringing a case against you, they have evidence that they think will convict you. If they didn't, they probably shouldn't bring the case and likely wouldn't bring it.

In the event that the prosecution did bring a case without any real evidence of anything, then the Judge should recognise this and dismiss the charges, if asked by the defendant. The Judge, dismissing the case, would be telling the Defendant they had no case to answer.

The defendant doesn't get to have much of a say in whether or not they have a case to answer, they can ask for a judicial opinion, but without the Judge agreeing the matter of fact is that they are going to be tried and they will have to answer this case, they might feel that they are not guilty they might even be innocent of the charge, but they must still answer the case and present what should be the evidence of their innocence. It's also worth noting that despite them declaring they had no case to answer, the prosecution and courts have continued with the case.

Effectively the use in this case was more a statement that they didn't recognise the court or law and showed that once again Tom and co are so far out of their depth they can see Atlantis.

Thanks for that.

So they must have had some excellent legal advice to have taken the stance that they have.

Some things never change. Talk about digging your own grave.
If I remember correctly, didn't Ginger Chris and Mark Gillard do what some would consider as the sensible thing? i.e. guilty and apologised?

I can understand that it must be hard to abandon one's principles but if it means just a slap on the wrist as opposed to something more serious, maybe it's a bit of a no brainier?

[getoutofdebtfools]

Here's hoping Haining goes full freetard and tries to arrest the Judge

[YiamCross]

Going back to Yiam's 'close encounter of the freeman kind' I have a couple of questions for him.

I was just wondering how far away from the pub you were when Tom stopped you?

About 50 yards.

Also, how did he get in front of you - Did he overtake you?

I was parked, had just got into the truck after leaving the pub

I'm sure I've read all the posts but can't remember really understanding how Tom Turpin stopped the Monster Truck.

Yeah, I'm sure I wrote it somewhere but hell, I don't mind repeating it. I was parked, hadn't had a chance to get the key in the ignition before Tom and Nicole did their drive by, stopped in front of me then reversed back and sat there in front of the truck. Hope that clears up who was following who.

On a slightly separate note, could Quatloos form it's own mobile Grand Jury operating from the back of Yiam's DAF? It could tour the country over-turning Freeman tosh from coast to coast

Sure, don't forget to bring beer.

[Skeleton]

Moving on..... Apparently the lovely Amanda has just posted this...

Just to let you know, and keep you in the loop, we have now had confirmation that OUR home has NOT been sold and has been withdrawn from sale from tomrrows auction, we have no details at this time as to the reasoning behind this.

I am sure someone in here said it had definitely sold...

She has added a caveat in the comments that she "hopes they have not been lied to," but offers no explanation as to where she has got this information. The group as normal though have bought it hook, line and sinker.

I can't think why she would post this though, beats me.

[Hercule Parrot]

Tom is so inherently attached to the concept that it is his house, he is now actively seeking to intercept those who view it.

British readers will note the similarity to "Oi, are you looking at my bird!?", a favoured line of mano-a-mano challenge for aggressive drunks in pubs and clubs. Replying yes will get you punched for daring to admire another man's "property", replying no will get you punched for implying that she's not attractive. The subconscious narrative is deep insecurity and anxiety, creating a need to appear powerful.

In the same way, TC wants us all to know about "his" house and talk about "his" house, sign petitions and write poems about "his" house, but at the same time he's an irrationally jealous man - if anyone raises a question about whether it really is his house any more then out comes the aggressive hectoring behaviour. Probably for the same reasons, that his psyche needs to believe that he has authority and agency even if reality suggests otherwise.

[Hercule Parrot]

I think previously some, including young Crawford and Monika said something along the lines of 'no case to answer' and the bench said ' will take that as a not guilty then'.

Yes, if I remember it correctly they both replied "no case to answer" which is the wrong time to use that submission and it isn't a plea. The court recorded "not guilty" pleas for both of them.

Is there a right time to use such a submission?

British law doesn't provide for it. The available pleas are Guilty or Not Guilty. If a defendant doesn't believe the prosecution is proper, for one reason or another, then the correct plea is Not Guilty. Attempts to wriggle or evade clarity will be recorded as Not Guilty. "No case to answer" will be recorded as NG, and the trial will proceed.

One exception is a process known as "Basis of Plea" where a defendant can offer to plead Guilty on a bargained basis, if the prosecutor agrees to that. So I might admit assaulting John Smith, but on the understanding that I only hit him once and under significant provocation. Another is that I might deny GBH'ing John Smith, but offer to plead guilty to a lesser charge of ABH. Note though that the end result is always binary - you admit it, or you don't.

Venturing onto thinner ice with our moderators, I wouldn't be surprised to see Basis of Plea in a case of this general kind. Eg I admit that I did X, Y & Z, but on the basis that I acted under an honest but mistaken belief that this was lawful in the circumstances. That would confine sentencing to the lower band of possible outcomes, and allow a degree of face-saving afterwards. If mods think this last para goes too far, I will not quibble deletion.

[wanglepin]

These thick Crawford's simply do not understand INCITEMENT BOOOOM!!!!1!!!!! do they.

[Burnaby49]

Venturing onto thinner ice with our moderators, I wouldn't be surprised to see Basis of Plea in a case of this general kind. Eg I admit that I did X, Y & Z, but on the basis that I acted under an honest but mistaken belief that this was lawful in the circumstances. That would confine sentencing to the lower band of possible outcomes, and allow a degree of face-saving afterwards. If mods think this last para goes too far, I will not quibble deletion.

Happens all the time in Canada and the US. It's called plea bargaining here. Generally prosecution and the accused agree that the accused will plead guilty to a lesser charge with prosecution recommending a sentence negotiated between accused and prosecution. It is still up to the judge to agree to the prosecution's recommendations. Saves court time and gets the workload done.

[Jeffrey]

Craig is literally a hairs width away from inciting violence with that little comment.

[littleFred]

Re: "no case to answer", expanding on PG's answer:

I was once at a complex trial when, after the prosecution had presented all its evidence, the defence barrister argued (without the jury present) that the prosecution evidence was not sufficient to prove some of the charges, even if the jury believed it all. After to-ing and fro-ing between barristers, the judge agreed there was no case to answer, the jury was recalled, and directed to find "not guilty" on those charges.

[Jeffrey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_case_to_answer

Not sure how that applies given that she's on video spitting at the cop then later admitting to it.