Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

SoLongCeylon
Pirate
Pirate
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:25 am

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby SoLongCeylon » Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:46 am

hucknallred wrote:Time for another transcript whip round?



Good idea - although we could all probably write it ourselves.

Is it possible the three Judges reserved their judgement to think about the decision rather than decide there and then?

Forsyth
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 235
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:36 pm

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby Forsyth » Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:21 am

http://www.nottinghampost.com/campaigner-tom-crawford-wins-courts-sympathy-but-loses-appeal-against-his-conviction/story-29990459-detail/story.html

In short, verdict stands, sentence stands, restraining order stands. Tom's comment on the matter: "Now I am going to the Supreme Court". It's interesting that the Nottingham Post add to this "He said this would deal with the criminal charge while barristers were also looking at civil law aspects of the case".

exiledscouser
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 620
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:01 pm

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby exiledscouser » Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:27 am

It's official - Tom has won !!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.nottinghampost.com/campaigne ... story.html

Won the sympathy vote but lost his appeal.

Oh.

Mortgage campaigner Tom Crawford won a court's sympathy but lost a fight to clear his name over a damaged house roof.

The OAP claimed he still owns the Carlton home and could not be charged with criminal damage by pulling off six tiles and making a hole to get inside on March 28.

In September, he was found guilty at Nottingham Magistrates' Court and has now lost an appeal against that conviction. A six-month conditional discharge remains in place - as well as a restraining order which bars him from ever returning to Fearn Chase.

In the latest move, Nottingham Crown Court heard of his long-running dispute with the Bradford and Bingley bank, the Land Registry and civil law claims.


We have a new member of the judiciary for the haters, HHj Coe QC;

Crown Court Judge Rosalind Coe QC, who sat with two magistrates, dismissed the appeal and told him: "We have considerable empathy and sympathy with your position.

"You believe you are a victim of a criminal conspiracy and fraud. We do not think it is the case but it doesn't mean we don't have some empathy with you."

Miss Almas Ben-Aribia, for the Crown Prosecution Service, said the house was repossessed after "the mortgage was not repaid". A civil court case referred to Crawford's claims as "without foundation and misconceived".

Crawford admitted removing the tiles and entering the detached house. Then he roped up the front door and blocked the lock with a screw.

A Youtube video was shown in court with Crawford outlining his case and saying "he intended to commit a burglary and take items from the address".

The court heard from Barry Eckman, who paid £93,500 for the home shortly before it was due to the auctioned. At the time, he was unaware of the dispute.



Yeah right Mr. Eckman.

Miss Ben-Aribia asked: "Are you satisfied you are the legal owner." He replied: "Absolutely, yes."

Mr Eckman said he had bought 250 properties in 30 years and always used the same solicitor without problems.

"We have bought houses where people have been murdered or died in them. To be honest, it would not have made any difference," he told the judge.

A "trespass notice", which carried Crawford's phone number, had been posted outside the house. Mr Eckman said: "I showed it to my solicitor and he had a good laugh about it. He thought it was rubbish."

Mr Eckman said Crawford's dispute appeared to be with the bank and he would hand back the property if compensation were paid.

Commenting on Crawford, Mr Eckman added: "If he has been stuffed accidentally, I hope he gets it sorted out. We have got no axe to grind."

Crawford played a video in court referring to a case in Minnesota, where a judge questioned the mortgage system where banks loan money they do not hold.

"It has been suppressed. The judge didn't live very much longer because he was assassinated a few months later," said Crawford.


Tom threw everything he had, played every card, deployed every tired old arguement. With predictable results.

During the five-hour hearing, Crawford told Judge Coe: "I believe a serious fraud has taken place. I do not believe the bank had a right to take away my family's home. In the words of Lord Denning, 'fraud unravels everything'."

Judge Coe said the hearing could not overturn civil court rulings and said Crawford had already tried to get them changed. The civil courts decided he was no longer the home owner.

He responded: "There is an abundance where there is a lawful excuse. I own the property. That is my view."

The judge asked him: "You believe at the time the property was yours to damage?" He replied: "Correct."

Outside court, Crawford, 65, said: "Now I am going to the Supreme Court." He said this would deal with the criminal charge while barristers were also looking at civil law aspects of the case.


So that's it. Tom wants to go to the SC because Lord Denning says so and some judge in the US who was right all along got assassinated shortly after finding the 'Truth'. Actually next stop would be the appeal courts but he'll find that a lot harder to achieve.

The Crown Court has indulged him but it was all to no good.

What next I wonder?

rumpelstilzchen
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:00 pm
Location: Soho London

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby rumpelstilzchen » Sat Dec 17, 2016 9:44 am

Crawford cited the Credit River bullshit?
That is priceless :haha: :haha: :haha:
BHF wrote:
It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.

SteveUK
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1116
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 8:30 pm
Location: Nottingham

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby SteveUK » Sat Dec 17, 2016 10:01 am

another stunning success loss !!!!1!!!
Is it SteveUK or STEVE: of UK?????

littleFred
Stern Faced Schoolmaster of Serious Discussion
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:12 am
Location: England, UK

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby littleFred » Sat Dec 17, 2016 10:19 am

He [Tom] said this would deal with the criminal charge while barristers were also looking at civil law aspects of the case.

Do we think there is any chance that Tom is actually using genuine barristers?

User avatar
Skeleton
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2015 7:37 am
Location: Thailand

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby Skeleton » Sat Dec 17, 2016 10:24 am

Forsyth wrote:http://www.nottinghampost.com/campaigner-tom-crawford-wins-courts-sympathy-but-loses-appeal-against-his-conviction/story-29990459-detail/story.html

In short, verdict stands, sentence stands, restraining order stands. Tom's comment on the matter: "Now I am going to the Supreme Court". It's interesting that the Nottingham Post add to this "He said this would deal with the criminal charge while barristers were also looking at civil law aspects of the case".


No way is Tom ever going to go near a real Barrister. He wants legal advice from a team that tells him things he wants to hear while stroking his ego. Fairly safe to assume that Taylor, Ebert etc are now Barristers because Tom says they are.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played. :lol: :lol:

letissier14
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 896
Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 4:02 pm

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby letissier14 » Sat Dec 17, 2016 10:44 am

littleFred wrote:
He [Tom] said this would deal with the criminal charge while barristers were also looking at civil law aspects of the case.

Do we think there is any chance that Tom is actually using genuine barristers?


Can't see it myself

Would I pay an hourly rate for a barrister?

Our fees are usually based on hourly rates. The rates vary according to how senior your barrister is, how urgent your case is and how complicated it is.

As a guide, barristers‘ fees are in this range:

Under 5 years experience: £75 – £125 per hour + VAT
5-10 years experience: £125 – £275 per hour + VAT
10-15 years experience: £150 – £450 per hour + VAT
Over 15 years experience: £200 – £500 per hour + VAT
Queen’s Counsel (Silk): £350+ per hour + VAT
I don't take sides, I read all the facts and then come to my own conclusions

User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 4397
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker
Contact:

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby Gregg » Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:18 am

rumpelstilzchen wrote:Crawford cited the Credit River bullshit?
That is priceless :haha: :haha: :haha:


Jerome Daily, the Justice of the Peace in the Credit River case was not assassinated. He is dead, but that has more to do with the case being from 1968 than someone putting 2 between his eyes. He was also convicted of willfully failing to file federal income tax returns for the years 1967 and 1968. In rejecting his appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit noted: "Defendant's fourth contention involves his seemingly incessant attack against the federal reserve and monetary system of the United States. His apparent thesis is that the only 'Legal Tender Dollars' are those which contain a mixture of gold and silver and that only those dollars may be constitutionally taxed. This contention is clearly frivolous."

Daly had been an attorney, but was later disbarred by a decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court in a case similar to the Credit River case, involving the same justice of the peace, in which disbarment proceeding the Court stated that Daly had:

without justifiable explanation or excuse, intentionally and defiantly disregarded an order of this court prohibiting him and a justice of the peace from further proceedings in a declaratory judgment action, then pending before the justice of the peace, which was obviously, and for numerous reasons outlined in our decision, beyond the limits of jurisdiction of a justice of the peace.
Daly was also convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. section 371, fifteen counts of willfully aiding and assisting in the preparation of false individual income tax returns under Internal Revenue Code section 7206(2), and one count of aiding and abetting the making of a false statement to the United States government under 18 U.S.C. sections 2 and 1001, in connection with a tax scheme involving the "Basic Bible Church of America."

Even bringing up that case in some parts of the US will get you sanctioned, and people will point at you while suppressing laughter even if you don't.
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.

mufc1959
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 788
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:47 pm
Location: Manchester by day, Slaithwaite by night

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby mufc1959 » Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:31 am

Skeleton wrote:
No way is Tom ever going to go near a real Barrister. He wants legal advice from a team that tells him things he wants to hear while stroking his ego. Fairly safe to assume that Taylor, Ebert etc are now Barristers because Tom says they are.


Agreed. Any barrister worth his or her salt will read the Godsmark judgement and tell Tom in no uncertain terms that he lost, he has never won, he owed the bank £44,000 which he didn't pay, the warrant was valid and he hasn't owned the house since July 2015 when it was finally repossessed.

It seems Tom is also now contradicting himself, according to the news report. His original argument all along is that he paid the mortgage in full, through his monthly payments. In fact, as we know, he was only ever paying the interest as Sue had cancelled the endowment in 1992 and the surrender proceeds of about £136 were paid to the mortgage account. Now, it seems, he showed the court a video about the usual freeman woo of 'fake' money created by signature, banks not lending anything, and so nothing is owed.

So is his position now that he paid the mortgage in full? Or is it that the bank never lent him anything to start with and he created the money himself? There is a fundamental conflict in him advancing both arguments.

ArthurWankspittle
Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
Posts: 2754
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:35 am
Location: Quatloos Immigration Control

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby ArthurWankspittle » Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:32 am

Craig Crawford wrote:Theres more to life than sitting in your bedroom in your mothers house wanking....
Something you can't do. (Sorry couldn't resist that one.)
As everyone is saying, all we are getting is deflection and bluster as to what Tom is GOING to do. He's still a homeless criminal. (By the way, hope he's either told his car insurers about his changes of circumstances or he's stopped driving.)
Going to Tibet now and deleting Facebook you have my email address

Tuco
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed Aug 17, 2016 9:35 am

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby Tuco » Sat Dec 17, 2016 11:44 am

bollocks
Bungle told me that she worked at the CAB
She lied

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby Bones » Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:13 pm

I am wondering if it has now occurred to Tom that even a little bit that he has been wrong all along and that people like Colon, Guy, Ebert and the two Michaels don't have a clue and have just been using him.

What am I saying ??

It will be this is all part of his plan and just what he wanted.

I also wonder if Camp Crawford is in damage control. Were they waiting for press reports first so they didn't get caught out telling lies again.

Also strange no mention of the stalker attacking a female supporter and getting arrrested. You would think something so dramatic would be worth a mention by the Nottingham Post - as their reporter would have witnessed it
Last edited by Bones on Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SoLongCeylon
Pirate
Pirate
Posts: 184
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2015 7:25 am

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby SoLongCeylon » Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:26 pm

Tuco wrote:bollocks



Is this the first draft of your Autobiography?

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby Bones » Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:39 pm

Please ignore him on this thread - this one is too important and interesting to become derailed - The Simon thread has been dead for a long time -Tom is a current freetard with lots of entertainment to be given

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby Bones » Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:57 pm

I hope Tom and his family take this time to relfect upon what they have been told each time they go to Court.

Tom himself has posted evidence to prove that the endowment was credited to his mortgage account and that the payments he was making were only for the interest.

Tom if you are reading this, for your own sanity accept reality - concentrate on spending time with family and loved ones - rebuild your life and move on with your life - this battle you are so determined to fight will eat you up

Hercule Parrot
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1493
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:58 pm

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby Hercule Parrot » Sat Dec 17, 2016 1:58 pm

exiledscouser wrote:http://www.nottinghampost.com/campaigner-tom-crawford-wins-courts-sympathy-but-loses-appeal-against-his-conviction/story-29990459-detail/story.html

The Crown Court has indulged him but it was all to no good.

They certainly did indulge him. Considerable judicial discretion required to permit a defendant to waste the court's time with US conspiracy videos trawled from youtube. Their kindness is wasted of course, TC is now so deeply immersed in this imaginary victimhood that he'll never let go of it.

PS - Very surprised by the reference to the Fearn Chase bungalow selling for £93,500. That seems way over-priced to me. If so, perhaps TC doesn't have such a large sum still owing to the bank.
"don't be hubris ever..." Steve Mccrae, noted legal ExpertInFuckAll.

User avatar
Bones
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1874
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: Laughing at Tuco

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby Bones » Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:02 pm

I could be wrong HP but I think that refers to the 2nd time that it was sold

Edit - found this

http://nethouseprices.com/house-prices/ ... ham,%20ng4

Image
Last edited by Bones on Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

littleFred
Stern Faced Schoolmaster of Serious Discussion
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:12 am
Location: England, UK

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby littleFred » Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:04 pm

I've got old following Tom, so my memory is going, but I think the castle was sold to someone at about £45,000 then quickly turned around for double that.

EDIT: I cross-posted with Bones, who doubtless has the correct numbers.
Last edited by littleFred on Sat Dec 17, 2016 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

wanglepin
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1195
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:41 am

Re: Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

Postby wanglepin » Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:11 pm

Tuco wrote:bollocks

No, this is Bollocks
"It has been suppressed. The judge didn't live very much longer because he was assassinated a few months later," said Crawford.
:haha:


Return to “United Kingdom”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BoomerSooner17, MegaIndex [Bot] and 1 guest