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

[midjit-gems]

Is there not still a chance he could get into deep hot water if the roof toppers go with the defence "we had permission from the legal owners of the house tom and sue crawford "?

James John (John james) Bradley has said in Facebook in the past they couldn't be done for trespass as they had permission from tom. Surely this is the proof of collusion they are charged with as well as trespass? However Amanda likes to dress it up by saying UKAR need to prove they owned the house at the time and as yet have not been able to prove it to tom and sue.

Just a thought

[getoutofdebtfools]

Well I for one am a happy man

Confirmation from Tom's own mouth that he's going back to the RCJ soon, there are many more court cases to come and he will take it all the way to the United Nations. Brilliant, just brilliant.

I'm sure someone can post the video from this link directly but this Facebook one is pure comedy gold

https://www.facebook.com/ian.k.kerry/vi ... 406091414/

Remember the Crawford Comedy is for life, not just for Christmas

[getoutofdebtfools]

I see the High Court Daily Cause List suggests Yiam has 2 applications being heard today....

Daily list for Tuesday, 17 November 2015

Updated Monday, 16 November 2015 16.11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

APPLICATIONS
Adams v Lawrence & anr
Same v Crawford & anr
JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & anr v Pugachev

Yiam, you never did clarify what the case against Lawrence & Another was....

[vampireLOREN]

I see the High Court Daily Cause List suggests Yiam has 2 applications being heard today....

Daily list for Tuesday, 17 November 2015

Updated Monday, 16 November 2015 16.11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

APPLICATIONS
Adams v Lawrence & anr
Same v Crawford & anr
JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & anr v Pugachev

Yiam, you never did clarify what the case against Lawrence & Another was....

You might wonder that?....but spare a thought for the 'other' in the JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshleeniy Bank vs Pugachev ....Wonder who they are?.

[midjit-gems]

Off topic I know and apologies so please remove if you so wish

It's yiam birthday today

Happy birthday

[vampireLOREN]

Off topic I know and apologies so please remove if you so wish

It's yiam birthday today

Happy birthday

I bet he didn't get a card from the Crawfords

[vampireLOREN]

Well I for one am a happy man

Confirmation from Tom's own mouth that he's going back to the RCJ soon, there are many more court cases to come and he will take it all the way to the United Nations. Brilliant, just brilliant.

I'm sure someone can post the video from this link directly but this Facebook one is pure comedy gold

https://www.facebook.com/ian.k.kerry/vi ... 406091414/

Remember the Crawford Comedy is for life, not just for Christmas

God This is getting stranger by the day, it was a facebook comment that made me watch it again.......Old Crawford appears to be packing!!!!. Someone asked did he have socks tucked down there.

[Joinder]

Off topic I know and apologies so please remove if you so wish

It's yiam birthday today

Happy birthday

Same age as Tom, at least they have that in common

[midjit-gems]

Well I for one am a happy man

Confirmation from Tom's own mouth that he's going back to the RCJ soon, there are many more court cases to come and he will take it all the way to the United Nations. Brilliant, just brilliant.

I'm sure someone can post the video from this link directly but this Facebook one is pure comedy gold

https://www.facebook.com/ian.k.kerry/vi ... 406091414/

Maybe he was just very excited about then win?

Remember the Crawford Comedy is for life, not just for Christmas

God This is getting stranger by the day, it was a facebook comment that made me watch it again.......Old Crawford appears to be packing!!!!. Someone asked did he have socks tucked down there.

Maybe he was just excited about the win?

[getoutofdebtfools]

Oh and I forgot to mention that "John Hurst knows more law than 99% of the Judges".

Didn't he lose his property too?

[YiamCross]

I see the High Court Daily Cause List suggests Yiam has 2 applications being heard today....

Daily list for Tuesday, 17 November 2015

Updated Monday, 16 November 2015 16.11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

APPLICATIONS
Adams v Lawrence & anr
Same v Crawford & anr
JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & anr v Pugachev

Yiam, you never did clarify what the case against Lawrence & Another was....

I think I did but I''m happy to do so again. I just got litigation fever. That Lawrence, I never liked him.

Truth being stranger than fiction it was a Miss Adams who is no relation to me who had a case in the same court on the same day. Red faces all round when I stood up and told the judge he'd made a mistake and he told me he hadn't. Except he had since he didn't realise my case was listed for the same day but it's always difficult correcting a High Court judge so I let it slide.

[midjit-gems]

Does this mean there's been a falling out between tom ebert and guy? Maybe over who's round it was at the bar?

[Joinder]

I see the High Court Daily Cause List suggests Yiam has 2 applications being heard today....

Daily list for Tuesday, 17 November 2015

Updated Monday, 16 November 2015 16.11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

CHANCERY DIVISION

APPLICATIONS
Adams v Lawrence & anr
Same v Crawford & anr
JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank & anr v Pugachev

Yiam, you never did clarify what the case against Lawrence & Another was....

I think I did but I''m happy to do so again. I just got litigation fever. That Lawrence, I never liked him.

Truth being stranger than fiction it was a Miss Adams who is no relation to me who had a case in the same court on the same day. Red faces all round when I stood up and told the judge he'd made a mistake and he told me he hadn't. Except he had since he didn't realise my case was listed for the same day but it's always difficult correcting a High Court judge so I let it slide.

Who is the Lawrence feller then ?

[getoutofdebtfools]

Yiam, you never did clarify what the case against Lawrence & Another was....

I think I did but I''m happy to do so again. I just got litigation fever. That Lawrence, I never liked him.

Truth being stranger than fiction it was a Miss Adams who is no relation to me who had a case in the same court on the same day. Red faces all round when I stood up and told the judge he'd made a mistake and he told me he hadn't. Except he had since he didn't realise my case was listed for the same day but it's always difficult correcting a High Court judge so I let it slide.

Who is the Lawrence feller then ?

Read it again Joinder...

[ArthurWankspittle]

Is there not still a chance he could get into deep hot water if the roof toppers go with the defence "we had permission from the legal owners of the house tom and sue crawford "?

Don't see how as he wasn't the owner.

James John (John james) Bradley has said in Facebook in the past they couldn't be done for trespass as they had permission from tom.

The rooftop six aren't being charged with trespass.

However Amanda likes to dress it up by saying UKAR need to prove they owned the house at the time and as yet have not been able to prove it to tom and sue.

Only because Amanda, Tom and Sue seem to be lacking in reading comprehension. Given that in law you can only damage your own property, the rooftop six would have to prove that the six of them collectively owned 3 Fearn Chase, anything else isn't a defence.

[longdog]

Given that in law you can only damage your own property, the rooftop six would have to prove that the six of them collectively owned 3 Fearn Chase, anything else isn't a defence.

Is that 100% accurate? I have a feeling you can be done for criminal damage to 'your own' property if somebody else has an interest in it. Without going in to long and boring ancient history a friend of a friend of a etc etc etc of mine back in the 80s did time for damaging 'his' bungalow with a JCB during a messy divorce.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Given that in law you can only damage your own property, the rooftop six would have to prove that the six of them collectively owned 3 Fearn Chase, anything else isn't a defence.

Is that 100% accurate? I have a feeling you can be done for criminal damage to 'your own' property if somebody else has an interest in it. Without going in to long and boring ancient history a friend of a friend of a etc etc etc of mine back in the 80s did time for damaging 'his' bungalow with a JCB during a messy divorce.

I guess you have to take "own" as clearly own yourself without other parties having an interest. So more fail by the Crawfords and the protesters.

[FatGambit]

Organised by Grant Sinclair (who lost his property(s)), speaking Guy Taylor (who lost his property)* and Tom Crawford (who lost his property).

* and is a convicted criminal and is bankrupt. I wonder if any of this lot would pass a CRB / DBS (Criminal Records Bureau / Disclosure Barring Service) check.

CRB / DBS are for criminal convictions, so their criminal conviction would be listed (baring speeding offences) but the bankrupcy's would not unless it involved fraud.

As pointed out, you don't 'pass' or 'fail' these checks, ultimately it's up to the organisation requesting the check to decide if the information has any relevance to the job you are going to do, for example my DBS was clean, but I happen to know one of the teachers at the school had a conviction for GBH but was still allowed to start his job as the conviction was 20 years ago.

On the info we know, Tom's CRB would probably come back clean unless the CPO has added any information.

[getoutofdebtfools]

I think I did but I''m happy to do so again. I just got litigation fever. That Lawrence, I never liked him.

Truth being stranger than fiction it was a Miss Adams who is no relation to me who had a case in the same court on the same day. Red faces all round when I stood up and told the judge he'd made a mistake and he told me he hadn't. Except he had since he didn't realise my case was listed for the same day but it's always difficult correcting a High Court judge so I let it slide.

Many thanks for clearing that up, I must have missed your earlier response.

It will be interesting to see if they abide by the order already granted given that their stupidity knows no bounds and whether they bother to attend the next hearing.

Maybe Tom can attend in person, lodge his further Court cases that will get him his house before travelling onto the UN

[NG3]

Hardly a win

It was obvious looking at the videos on the day of the eviction that they only arrested him to get him out of the way.

Iirc one or two on here even predicted the charges being dropped (which may well have happened if not for subsequent silliness like the rooftop 6 fiasco).

To a degree it was the same with Craig, it was obvious if he hung around he was going to get nicked, if only to get rid of the fool and to secure bail conditions. Under other circumstances that may have got dropped also (see ginger Chris).