Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[wanglepin]

From that other site .. 4 Days to Crown Court Case

I cannot help but notice the amazing amount of responses Tom has on that thread,aesmith. I can see that court being crammed to the rafters.

[exiledscouser]

The final paragraph in the linked post is a plea for the "masses" to turn up. So he's feeling less confident than he cracks on and needs the support and adoration of the mob. Bad timing Tom as I suspect most will be on their xmas dooos, pissed up in a Weatherspoons somewhere or - shock - actually working.

I wonder how he'll spin this if he has his appeal thrown out - after all he does seem very upbeat about his chances of success.

Perhaps he'll throw in the towel and fade into the background, older, wiser, poorer.

Nah - will he bollocks. Expect the full gamut of (very well-practiced) post-court defeat freeman excuses. Here's a few, it's like bullshit management-speak bingo, see how many get trotted out:

Further evidence that the judiciary are corrupt

They ignored my paperwork

I've got them EXACTLY where I want them now. Ha ha har!

If they think they've heard the last of me.....

I did in fact win even though the appeal failed.

Judge Godsmark decided the outcome months ago.

They couldn't afford to let me win or their entire legal system would have crashed.

Can't even have a night on the tiles in this police state.

Can anyone lend me a tenner....?

[rumpelstilzchen]

From that other site .. 4 Days to Crown Court Case

Expect another thread next week titled:
4 Days after Corrupt Crown Court Case.

[letissier14]

Two idiots telling each other they are wrong, when in reality they are both wrong

[JimUk1]

He knows civil law?

To that end, which attempt is this now at proving his house was unlawful 'stolen'.

I think even Sigmund would go mad trying to explain the situation to Tom.

[exiledscouser]

Dumb meets Dumber.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement from the Baron who faces his own moment in the limelight early in the new year.

"You are misguided" says Tom to The Baron without a hint of irony.

"There is no thing as Law" The Baron helpfully observes, again without a trace of irony, this from someone churning out 100+ page diatribes citing and to an extent relying on law throughout.

Come on chaps, kiss and make up.

[The Observer]

But this is a win-win situation, as both of them in a few months will be able to point to each other and say "See? I knew you were wrong!", based on the outcome of the courts.

[SteveUK]

I strongly suspect the Baron is piping up now because of his own problems, rather than any concern for Tom. Clearly trying to move in on Tom's (diminishing) support base.

[TheNewSaint]

From the GOODF thread:

according to uk column yesterday Tom has been refused jury .It will be 3 judges.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Tom is going to stand as a man and claim the court?
He tried claiming Crawfraud Castle and look where that got him

Just a thought....is it possible there could be a market for Crawfraud Castle merchandise? T-shirts, mugs, thimbles, bookmarks, tea towels etc etc or is it too late?

[rumpelstilzchen]

Colon has posted a video in which Gerrish states that Tom has been charged with "Criminal damage to his own home".
Er no, Mr Gerish that is not what Tom has been charged with.

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... E_-fsumldg

[TheNewSaint]

I am so looking forward to this case because of the evidence I will be presenting, it will be so overwhelming that if there is justice to be had it cannot be denied.

Nice preemptive strike there. When he loses, it's because there is no justice to be had. It's almost as if he already knows he has no case, and needs to prepare his fans for defeat. The few fans he has left.

[Bones]

An early Christmas present from the Crawfrauds, I can hear the judge squirming in his chair and running out of the court room already.

Tom will be back in his former family home before christmas

[notorial dissent]

Not being familiar with UK court practices, but if all he's getting is three judges, wouldn't that indicate an appeal rather than a trial? At least here, once you've gotten beyond the actual trial phase, and been convicted, anything else is an appeal and is ONLY heard by a judge or panel of judges, and I would assume that the UK does something similar. If I were to do something stupid here and get convicted in city or county court, I can appeal to the local district court which covers my county and it will be heard de novo, but just by the judge, the next level would be the state Appellate Court and then state Supreme Court, at none of which would I get a further jury. I think Tom is in, again, for another disappointment. They really won't be interested in his prattling, just the facts of the case and what happened. I guess we'll shortly see.

[Bones]

Not sure how accurate this is, so take it with a pinch of salt

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-judgemen ... t-appeals/

The hearing

At the hearing, the judge sits usually with two lay magistrates who have not been concerned with the case in the magistrates’ court. Where the appeal is an appeal against conviction, the hearing itself is a complete re-hearing of the whole case. The lay magistrates must accept the law from the judge, but the decision on the appeal itself is a majority decision. Thus the lay magistrates may outvote the judge. A Crown Court judge giving the decision of the court must give reasons for its decision, and a refusal to do so might amount to a breach of natural justice.
Powers of the Crown Court

The Crown Court may:

Confirm, reverse or vary any part of the decision appealed against;
Remit the case to the magistrates with its opinion;
Make any such order as it thinks just.

[TheNewSaint]

What exactly is this Crown Court case about? If I've followed this saga correctly, it has to be the appeal of the criminal case against Tom, rather than anything to do with ownership of the home. Right?

[longdog]

What exactly is this Crown Court case about? If I've followed this saga correctly, it has to be the appeal of the criminal case against Tom, rather than anything to do with ownership of the home. Right?

I think you are right and as such the bench are not going to entertain any of Tom's crap regarding the civil case because it's not within their power to change any of that. If Crawford is hoping to retry the civil case he will fail and if he tries the "you can't commit criminal damage on your own property" defence he tried before that will fail for the same reason. Even if hell freezes over and by some bizarre combination of impossible circumstances he were able to overturn the civil case (in a civil court) it wouldn't stop him being convicted of criminal damage of the former Crawford Cottage because it wasn't legally his when the crime was committed.

Even in the fantasy world where he won the civil case he wouldn't get the house back. That's been sold to a new owner who has an unassailable good title to it. The only thing he would get is monetary compensation and he could try to buy the gaff back if he could talk the owner into parting with it.

[aesmith]

What exactly is this Crown Court case about? If I've followed this saga correctly, it has to be the appeal of the criminal case against Tom, rather than anything to do with ownership of the home. Right?

Exactly correct as far as I can see. Convicted in Magistrate's Court after a not-guilty plea he has the right to appeal against conviction and/or sentence in the Crown Court.

[notorial dissent]

Unless I am totally confused, and that wouldn't be a first, this is an appeal of his criminal conviction, on the house sitting????, and that is all and the only thing they are going to be interested in, the civil case might as well not exist as far as this will be concerned. Tom is just another clueless fool, fighting the wrong battle in the wrong theater. He lost the civil case and it is now dead and buried and cannot be resurrected. He is now getting ready to lose the criminal case yet again.

[littleFred]

Tom has a deliberate strategy of not telling people what his various court cases are for, or exactly what he has been charged with, or what the courts decide. This is a licence for Brian Gerrish and anyone to invent whatever lies they want.

I assume this is, as others here say, an appeal against a conviction of criminal damage. I suppose Tom will try (and fail) to convince the court that he owned the house.