Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[PeanutGallery]

I have to say I agree with Philistine, we have many reasons to look down on Ceylon, but really we shouldn't mock his lack of stature.

[Chaos]

agreed. I kicked a dime on the floor today not realizing he was hiding on the other side of it. he could have been seriously injured.

[daveBeeston]

agreed. I kicked a dime on the floor today not realizing he was hiding on the other side of it. he could have been seriously injured.

Dear god, sometimes we really need a like button on the fourm..

But seriously the man isn't here to "give as good as he gets" so lets stop with the short jokes and get back on topic.

[exiledscouser]

I feel i should stand up for my fellow vertically challenge peers, trouble is i stand just 5'8 so could someone loan me a ladder so people will see me......

Dave I can understand that you're not Happy.

So.....

Erm......

Which one are you?

(Reaches for coat)

[daveBeeston]

I feel i should stand up for my fellow vertically challenge peers, trouble is i stand just 5'8 so could someone loan me a ladder so people will see me......

Dave I can understand that you're not Happy.

So.....

Erm......

Which one are you?

(Reaches for coat)

Well if you must know im the one directly behind Gene Wilder's hat, the one that has the top of his head cut off in the picture,and even though Gene is sitting down i still had to stand on a table.

[Pox]

I feel i should stand up for my fellow vertically challenge peers, trouble is i stand just 5'8 so could someone loan me a ladder so people will see me......

Dave I can understand that you're not Happy.

So.....

Erm......

Which one are you?

(Reaches for coat)

Well if you must know im the one directly behind Gene Wilder's hat, the one that has the top of his head cut off in the picture,and even though Gene is sitting down i still had to stand on a table.

After a rubbish day thank you, made me smile

[Hercule Parrot]

Do you have to prove grounds to make an appeal in Britain?

It appears to be an automatic right if you are convicted in the Magistrates Court after a not-guilty plea. Appeal will be in the Crown Court, but not necessarily with a jury so he may be out of luck there once again.

And criminal appeals are not in any way managed by civil judges. So his appearance before Godsmark is not a criminal process. Interesting that he refers endlessly to 'my case' without saying whether he is the applicant or defendant, or what the proceedings actually are.

There's a piece of the story missing here, and I suspect it's significant.

[AndyPandy]

Do you have to prove grounds to make an appeal in Britain?

It appears to be an automatic right if you are convicted in the Magistrates Court after a not-guilty plea. Appeal will be in the Crown Court, but not necessarily with a jury so he may be out of luck there once again.

And criminal appeals are not in any way managed by civil judges. So his appearance before Godsmark is not a criminal process. Interesting that he refers endlessly to 'my case' without saying whether he is the applicant or defendant, or what the proceedings actually are.

There's a piece of the story missing here, and I suspect it's significant.

Judge Godsmark was appointed as a Circuit Judge in 2012, Circuit Judges in England & Wales hear cases in the County Court, Criminal Court and some divisions of the High Court.

[TheNewSaint]

Interesting that he refers endlessly to 'my case' without saying whether he is the applicant or defendant, or what the proceedings actually are.

There's a piece of the story missing here, and I suspect it's significant.

I can never tell how much of Tom's reporting is intentional dishonesty, and how much is his inability to write clearly.

He has to be vague about his court cases, because he's trying to keep alive the fantasy that he's still fighting for ownership of the home, so he will continue to draw attention from the FMOTL community and be the hero of his pathetic, brow-beaten family.

On the other hand, the guy simply can't write for shit. From his most recent missive (emphasis mine):

Godsmark expressed an interest to sit on our case, but then he told me after some consideration he decided against it, and I agreed with him and said that I may well even call him as a witness to which he looked a bit startled and leaned back in this chair and said that would be interesting.

Some other facts came to light when we were talking about evidence especially when I pointed out to him that the police and the CPS could not find a judge in Nottingham County Court to verify the warrant and once again he leaned back in his chair with an expression of so what, so I added to it that maybe he would consider verifying the warrant himself, to which he quickly declined stating that maybe his involvement in the case should be ended.

I'm sure Godsmark was just humoring Tom, and Tom is putting his own spin on an informal conversation, but the story is difficult to follow. Godsmark recuses himself from the case, Tom talks to him about evidence, and then Godsmark says "his involvement in the case should be ended" when it was already ended. Tom also implies the conversation was official, with details like "he leaned back in his chair", "coming from the highest judge in Nottingham" etc. Then his story skips immediately from this informal conversation to "we are still on course with our plan" without saying anything about the actual hearing!

(Yes, there are alternate ways the above paragraphs could be parsed, but those would be even more confusing.)

They say "never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence." But when dealing with freedmen, it's hard to tell the two apart.

[SoLongCeylon]

I'm sure Godsmark was just humoring Tom, and Tom is putting his own spin on an informal conversation, but the story is difficult to follow. Godsmark recuses himself from the case, Tom talks to him about evidence, and then Godsmark says "his involvement in the case should be ended" when it was already ended. Tom also implies the conversation was official, with details like "he leaned back in his chair", "coming from the highest judge in Nottingham" etc. Then his story skips immediately from this informal conversation to "we are still on course with our plan" without saying anything about the actual hearing!

(Yes, there are alternate ways the above paragraphs could be parsed, but those would be even more confusing.)

I agree - in fact it also fits that Godsmarks comments could have been mildly condesending towards Tom but Tom is too stupid to notice.

[NYGman]

I agree - in fact it also fits that Godsmarks comments could have been mildly condesending towards Tom but Tom is too stupid to notice.

Godsmark expressed an interest to sit on our case, but then he told me after some consideration he decided against it, and I agreed with him and said that I may well even call him as a witness to which he looked a bit startled and leaned back in this chair and said that would be interesting.

I am sure the last part of this paragraph was in fact Godsmark being sarcastic...

[TheNewSaint]

Godsmark expressed an interest to sit on our case, but then he told me after some consideration he decided against it, and I agreed with him and said that I may well even call him as a witness to which he looked a bit startled and leaned back in this chair and said that would be interesting.

I am sure the last part of this paragraph was in fact Godsmark being sarcastic...

Is what Tom wanted even permissible? Can a judge be called to testify on behalf of one party in a case they previously ruled on? The idea strikes me as a violation of judicial impartiality.

[aesmith]

The whole idea is nonsense anyway, the case that Judge Godsmark heard is done and dusted long ago, what's on the cards just now is criminal prosecution against Crawford. What would he add as a witness? Character reference? "yes this guy is bonkers enough to think he still has a claim on the property that he's been caught damaging"

[PeanutGallery]

Presumably Tom shouldn't need to call on the Judge at any point, the Judges involvement in any case is a matter of record and in his Judgement he set out the reasons behind his decision. Those reasons were valid in law, which has been supported by the evidence that Tom has made failed attempts to put this matter to a higher court.

Tom wants to overturn a civil verdict by fighting in the criminal courts, this is an exceptionally stupid thing to do, he won't change the decision of the civil court and all he will do is harm himself and any chance he may have of a peaceful future.

[NYGman]

Tom wants to overturn a civil verdict by fighting in the criminal courts, this is an exceptionally stupid thing to do, he won't change the decision of the civil court and all he will do is harm himself and any chance he may have of a peaceful future.

Hit the nail on the head there, and to confirm the stupidity of this idea, one need only look to his crack team of legal advisors, who do not seem to know the first thing about the law, or what it really means to provide legal advice. It all makes perfect sense in their distorted reality. However, in the real world where we all live, it is ridiculous.

[AndyPandy]

Tom wants to overturn a civil verdict by fighting in the criminal courts, this is an exceptionally stupid thing to do, he won't change the decision of the civil court and all he will do is harm himself and any chance he may have of a peaceful future.

Hit the nail on the head there, and to confirm the stupidity of this idea, one need only look to his crack team of legal advisors, who do not seem to know the first thing about the law, or what it really means to provide legal advice. It all makes perfect sense in their distorted reality. However, in the real world where we all live, it is ridiculous.

It's all to do with the Rooftop 6 being acquitted, that's why Tom went on the roof in the first place, if the others were acquitted because of a problem with the warrant then he can't be convicted because he still owns the property because the warrant was defective- if it hadn't been defective then they wouldn't have acquitted the 6 and that means he still owns it.....

Or some such convolution nonsense.

[longdog]

Presumably Tom shouldn't need to call on the Judge at any point, the Judges involvement in any case is a matter of record and in his Judgement he set out the reasons behind his decision. Those reasons were valid in law, which has been supported by the evidence that Tom has made failed attempts to put this matter to a higher court.

And even if the reasons weren't valid in law and the judge made a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing he still wouldn't be able to call the judge as a witness. That's just not how these things work and I'm surprised that even somebody as boneheaded and ignorant as TC would think otherwise.

Mind you... He thinks a member of the public sitting in the public gallery of a public court is committing a criminal offence so...

[notorial dissent]

In the US, and where I happen to live, it is procedure that when a case is heard the case # is listed along with the judge and the time at the courthouse on the day, and usually days before hand, and that anyone can then contact the court house and get information about what was being heard on that particular day simply by calling the Clerk's office. Is that not the case in the UK? That would resolve all the back and forth as to why Tom of the family Fraud was in court and that particular court on that particular day.

[Interobang]

That would resolve all the back and forth as to why Tom of the family Fraud was in court and that particular court on that particular day.

The hearing is for an appeal on his criminal conviction.

?!

[notorial dissent]

Was there actually an outcome or just a postponement?