Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[Chaos]

his grammer's (sic) horrendous

indeed. it's actually readable.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Amanda Pike wrote:

His grammer's awful.

[AndyPandy]

Amanda Pike wrote:

His grammer's awful.

[Kay Powell]

Grammer's awful? Well, he'll never return to the glory days of Frasier, but "awful" is a bit harsh.

[Bones]

I hear that Tom is planning to rely on Betty as the star witness

[Philistine]

That Amanda...always attacking the elderly. Shameful.

[Skeleton]

I hear that Tom is planning to rely on Betty as the star witness

If they do it may will be the brains on Tom's crack legal team, i base this theory purely on the fact it will be the only brain on the team.

[exiledscouser]

I hear that Tom is planning to rely on Betty as the star witness

Final confirmation that they are truly "clucked", will end up with "egg" on their faces, it'll be an enormous "cock-up", Tom'll have to "shell" out on legal fees and the whole sorry mess will be reported on News At "Hen".

Yes I'm bored and on the train.

[Skeleton]

I hear that Tom is planning to rely on Betty as the star witness

Final confirmation that they are truly "clucked", will end up with "egg" on their faces, it'll be an enormous "cock-up", Tom'll have to "shell" out on legal fees and the whole sorry mess will be reported on News At "Hen".

Yes I'm bored and on the train.

I would concur Scouser you are indeed bored! I hope you got a seat on said train.

[aesmith]

Anyone going to be there on the 13th?

[Fearnchase]

No it's old hat and have far better things to do

[Gregg]

I hear that Tom is planning to rely on Betty as the star witness

In a tradition that dates all the way back to the golden age of Piracy, you cannot be extradited from Key West to England, its in a secret writ from Queen Elizabeth (the first one).

Betty (whose Witness Protection Program codename is "Original Recipe" knew exactly what she was doing when she came here.

[Firthy2002]

Anyone going to be there on the 13th?

I shall be there. Be interesting to see who turns out for TC. Amanda seems to imply on FB she won't be there herself.

[Bones]

I hear that Tom is planning to rely on Betty as the star witness

In a tradition that dates all the way back to the golden age of Piracy, you cannot be extradited from Key West to England, its in a secret writ from Queen Elizabeth (the first one).

Betty (whose Witness Protection Program codename is "Original Recipe" knew exactly what she was doing when she came here.

At times, I wished this forum had a like button

[Interobang]

Anyone going to be there on the 13th?

I shall be there. Be interesting to see who turns out for TC. Amanda seems to imply on FB she won't be there herself.

I'm sure the new, and rightful owners, would like to see you there!

?!

[Bungle]

Anyone going to be there on the 13th?

I shall be there. Be interesting to see who turns out for TC. Amanda seems to imply on FB she won't be there herself.

Over on EFOB, Amanda copied a post that she made on the Ireland Hub F/B page a few days ago.

Given what she has written, it would be best if she stayed away from court on the 13th.

Amanda Pike shared The Hub - Ireland's post.
September 1 at 9:45am

Look what these scum do to people. Theres some vile people who claim my family have done what they have to become martyrs if anyone with half a brain cell believes that they need locking up. No my family did what they did because they owe NOTHING and refused to be black mailed but also to help stop this crime.

The idiots that pay these monsters the money they demand when none is owing are supporting and helping these criminals and in turn poor people like this are being effected in the worst possible way.

If you are part of this problem and are paying these fake amounts demanded you should be ashamed of yourselves and you discust me. Fight fot justice don't feed it!

[Firthy2002]

Can see her kicking off in the public gallery as soon as Tom's plan goes wrong and the court demands to stick to the actual reason for the appearance.

[Bungle]

Can see her kicking off in the public gallery as soon as Tom's plan goes wrong and the court demands to stick to the actual reason for the appearance.

To my mind at least, I think that Tom's rooftop appearance was a childish stunt set up to ensure that he was arrested and charged and if possible, to be tried in front on a jury.

He obviously thinks that this will give him yet another shot at getting someone to believe his nonsense about the damn warrant.

[AndyPandy]

Can see her kicking off in the public gallery as soon as Tom's plan goes wrong and the court demands to stick to the actual reason for the appearance.

To my mind at least, I think that Tom's rooftop appearance was a childish stunt set up to ensure that he was arrested and charged and if possible, to be tried in front on a jury.

He obviously thinks that this will give him yet another shot at getting someone to believe his nonsense about the damn warrant.

Not forgetting the fallacy surrounding the fact he'd 'paid his mortgage' when all he'd done is pay the interest.

[Forsyth]

If this case is about criminal damage then I would expect that the result will depend far more on Tom's honestly held beliefs than on the ownership of the house. If if can be shown that Tom honestly believed that he still owned the house then he couldn't have committed criminal damage to it.

It's important to understand that his belief doesn't need to be a reasonable belief, just one that he honestly holds. 'Honestly' in this case means that he is not lying about his belief, not that the belief is true or even reasonable. As such, it's quite possible that he wouldn't be found guilty of committing criminal damage but - as always - this will have nothing to do with who actually owns the house.

The fact that a magistrate has said that it appears that the case will be about who owns the house is irrelevant as they will have just repeated what Tom has said is the basis for his case. In reality Tom can win the case by proving that he really, really, truly THINKS that he owns the house regardless of whether he can prove ownership. Providing various document and psuedo-legal gobbledygook will support the demonstration of his belief without any need for it to be examined for actual validity. If he turned up in court without any evidence to support why he held his belief it might be seen as a sign that he didn't truly hold the belief, but the important thing is that no-one apart from Tom has to believe in it for it to be a defence against accusations of criminal damage.

Making out that this case will be about the ownership of the house allows Tom to claim that, if found not guilty, that the court have ruled that he owned the house when all they will be ruling on is Tom's beliefs.

Of course, if Tom is found guilty of criminal damage then that would indicate that the court didn't believe that Tom's stated beliefs were ones that he actually honestly held, which would be very significant.