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

[Joinder]

Why is Yiam using Taylors mugshot on his FB

to annoy them

Not completely. It's because someone on EFOTB decided that's who Yiam Cross was. I couldn't resist rubbing in the stupidity.

We know you are really Roy the Greenhat, vampireLOREN told me.

[NigelJK]

However, I support Yiam in his quest to expose the poisonous group comprised of TC, MH, GT, Ebert, Bonkers Bernicia, Dreary O'Deirra etc as he has at least come out from behind the keyboard.

This question is more aimed at Yiam as he's encountered what constitutes communication amongst the poisonousness ones. Do you think they have any notion of the dogma that there is 'no honour amongst thieves'?

[Colin123]

The next person to be targeted


Jay Brad Bradley
49 mins
Well guys please share and show this far and wide this is the guy who claimed he had not come to court for us but sat there throughout taking notes, when we asked what he was doing he became abusive and threatened Craig Crawford for no reason


https://youtu.be/1lAnFRtFcvc

[letissier14]

So Crawford asks him if he is nervous and then says I would be....

Sounded like a threat to me....... then again the Crawfrauds are used to doing that

Typical of their MO though

Surround a stranger, film them and threaten them

[Pox]

So Crawford asks him if he is nervous and then says I would be....

Sounded like a threat to me....... then again the Crawfrauds are used to doing that

Typical of their MO though

Surround a stranger, film them and threaten them

When I don't see the beginning and the end of these vids it always makes me wonder what bits have been edited out and why?

[Losleones]

So Crawford asks him if he is nervous and then says I would be....

Sounded like a threat to me....... then again the Crawfrauds are used to doing that

Typical of their MO though

Surround a stranger, film them and threaten them

But why go there then Yiamesque style? Why incite ? The Judicial System will run its course & i for one have better things to do. We can poke fun on the forum at the hideous Freetard movements but to appear at their court hearings?

[Pox]

But why go there then Yiamesque style? Why incite ? The Judicial System will run its course & i for one have better things to do. We can poke fun on the forum at the hideous Freetard movements but to appear at their court hearings?

What is Yiamesque style?

Anyway, some may go to the hearings to hear what is being said from the horses mouth so to speak as opposed to being given an edited version?

The whole saga has been made public by the Crawford camp, so it is not surprising that folks with no direct involvement would find the proceedings interesting.

I don't know if anybody at the hearing 'poked fun' or incited anyone so can't comment.

[Burnaby49]

So Crawford asks him if he is nervous and then says I would be....

Sounded like a threat to me....... then again the Crawfrauds are used to doing that

Typical of their MO though

Surround a stranger, film them and threaten them

But why go there then Yiamesque style? Why incite ? The Judicial System will run its course & i for one have better things to do. We can poke fun on the forum at the hideous Freetard movements but to appear at their court hearings?

I wasn't aware that it was bad form to exercise a democratic right by attending a public court hearing. I do it all the time, I was at a tax evasion hearing just yesterday. I write them up on Quatloos;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9377&start=480#p184697

[LordEd]

While I don't have enough interest or risk threshold to actually attend, what Burnaby does is an immense service as the freemen never report the end results.

By reporting the failures, it may discourage the least closed-minded of the sheep from taking the path to ruin.

[FatGambit]

Oh the irony....


Random voice: At least we haven't sworn at you
Followed by lots of questions one after another without letting guy answer.
Craig: ...look in the mirror mate, you look like a fucking psycho

[PeanutGallery]

It's only because they are paranoid about us that they are reacting in this manner. They think we are behind Tom losing his house and all the other bad things that have happened in their life. We aren't. But they need someone to blame, someone they can gang up on and make themselves feel as though they are better than.

It's also notable that because they blame us they avoid recognising the true source of their financial calamity, Tom won't ever understand that he was evicted because he didn't pay ALL the money he owed at the end of his mortgage. None of them will recognise that Tom's eviction was his and Sue's own fault.

Yes we have enjoyed watching Tom get what was coming to him, if only because it proved we were right when we said he was on a road to a bigger disaster than he needed to have. Yes we have made jokes about him and his family and we have sometimes been cruel (well at least I have, though all my mocking has been public and I haven't tried to privately goad the man), but that has only been because Tom has been trying to get people to follow him along the path, when we know it leads to disaster, and has been aggressive to anyone who suggests he is heading for that clearly signposted disaster.

I'm considering attending one of the court hearings, I'll probably wear a suit and most likely drive up. It would be interesting to see the players in action and to note how the court deals with them. It would be of interest to the part of me that still harbours some affinity towards law from the brief period I spent studying it.

[Pox]

I'm considering attending one of the court hearings, I'll probably wear a suit and most likely drive up. It would be interesting to see the players in action and to note how the court deals with them. It would be of interest to the part of me that still harbours some affinity towards law from the brief period I spent studying it.

And if I lived locally and had nothing better to do, I would also consider attending one of the hearings - because of GOOFY, here and the National media, the whole saga has become quite high profile.

If I did it wouldn't be to incite or to poke fun (might have a quiet snigger to myself though) and I think it is wrong to assume that such attendance would indicate that I was.

Am I correct to glean that the 'chap with no name' was observed by the Crawford camp to be taking notes and he was approached and asked why?

Is this the opinion that others have reached?

[YiamCross]

IIRC from recent posts, that's our very own Joinder there with Craig & co is it not? Thought he was a Quaker but then I understand how difficult it can be to keep your cool when faced with pure stupidity and I guess we can't all be up to the test.

So Joinder, what have they edited out to make you and your comments appear in the worst possible light? I have to say Craig hardly comes off well calling you a psycho to your face.

I am having difficult time understanding why there's a problem with anyone exercising their right to attend a public place or event without being accosted by imbeciles who think they have exclusive access.

I personally think more should attend these trials to show the Crawfords and their little gang of thugs they don't control the streets of Nottingham.

I would also question whether photography or video is allowed anywhere in a court building. Certainly isn't in the RCJ.

[Burnaby49]

I am having difficult time understanding why there's a problem with anyone exercising their right to attend a public place or event without being accosted by imbeciles who think they have exclusive access.

I personally think more should attend these trials to show the Crawfords and their little gang of thugs they don't control the streets of Nottingham.

My interest is in stopping them from controlling the narrative. Which one of these fools hasn't had a court hearing and then reported it as a total victory regardless of the outcome? Which of them hasn't lied about what actually happened in the courtroom? Having neutral observers (I at least try to be neutral and objective in my court reports) ensures that factually correct versions of what happens in court become public.

[Pox]

I am having difficult time understanding why there's a problem with anyone exercising their right to attend a public place or event without being accosted by imbeciles who think they have exclusive access.

I personally think more should attend these trials to show the Crawfords and their little gang of thugs they don't control the streets of Nottingham.

My interest is in stopping them from controlling the narrative. Which one of these fools hasn't had a court hearing and then reported it as a total victory regardless of the outcome? Which of them hasn't lied about what actually happened in the courtroom? Having neutral observers (I at least try to be neutral and objective in my court reports) ensures that factually correct versions of what happens in court become public.

Exactly, doesn't mean that you are there to 'incite' or 'poke fun'.

[Bones]

For me, I would like to attend purely for entertainment and for comedic value

To see Colon poop himself and give his name and to see the judge be arrested or evern better in true Tom style, the judge looking embarrassed and running out the court 5 or 6 times.

On a more serious note, Tom and co have a history of not telling the truth about what happens in Court. We can all recall the stunning victory !!1!!!!

Besides, why shouldn't anyone go if they want to. Funnily enough the courts do allow it.

I have no problem in admitting I find the woo woo they come out with to be very entertaining and I do find it funny

[FatGambit]

whether photography or video is allowed anywhere in a court building. Certainly isn't in the RCJ.

I've seen a couple people doing selfies in the waiting area of our local county/mags court and being asked not to do it again, but never arrested, I think it depends on the security guard outside the courtroom and whether they can be bother or not.

[Hercule Parrot]

My interest is in stopping them from controlling the narrative. Which one of these fools hasn't had a court hearing and then reported it as a total victory regardless of the outcome? Which of them hasn't lied about what actually happened in the courtroom? Having neutral observers (I at least try to be neutral and objective in my court reports) ensures that factually correct versions of what happens in court become public.

I agree. I have attended a few interesting hearings over the years, wearing a dark suit and keeping to myself. If approached I would say I was a student or researcher, I wouldn't admit to any prior knowledge of the parties. Being identified as 'opposition' cannot lead to anything helpful.

Whether it was Joinder or anyone else, that guy was entitled to observe proceedings in a public court. We cannot allow Goofy or any other criminals to make that area their own. It is public, and people should peaceably come and go as they please.

[Hercule Parrot]

I would concur with Bones' analysis, however I would say that you have enough in their, in my lay opinion, to get an injunction against these individuals.

I agree. It's easy to find faults in the application, there's some weak legal argument and some poor grammar, and also a bit too much condemnatory rhetoric towards the defendants. But High Court Judges are not stupid, and they will see that the core of the application is an evidenced pattern of orchestrated stalking and harassment. I think it's likely that an injunction will be granted, but probably not with a penal notice at this stage. Perhaps the question will be how that injunction can be exactly worded, given the number of false identities colluding with each other.

Somewhere in the application is a request for a disclosure order relating to IP addresses for GOOFy posters. Not sure if that will go anywhere, but if Jon Witterick finds himself getting dragged in then he might think more carefully about how he permits Colon to misuse GOOFy.

Anyway, well done to Yiam for standing up to these bullies. What they have tried to do to him is not the same as we do here. We may deconstruct and mock the greedy, stupid dishonesty of GOOFys, but we do not try to identify their families and children, encourage violence and harassment towards them, etc.

Good luck for Friday, Yiam.

[Burnaby49]

My interest is in stopping them from controlling the narrative. Which one of these fools hasn't had a court hearing and then reported it as a total victory regardless of the outcome? Which of them hasn't lied about what actually happened in the courtroom? Having neutral observers (I at least try to be neutral and objective in my court reports) ensures that factually correct versions of what happens in court become public.

I agree. I have attended a few interesting hearings over the years, wearing a dark suit and keeping to myself. If approached I would say I was a student or researcher, I wouldn't admit to any prior knowledge of the parties. Being identified as 'opposition' cannot lead to anything helpful.

This is the problem I face, I can't stay anonymous. I'm often the only public member at freeman/OPCA hearings and I'm obviously scribbling away. Then the report comes out on Quatloos. So they all know that the old bearded guy in the front row is Burnaby49. Some are fine with it, Chief Rock actually wanted me to write his hearing up, but others don't take it well.