Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[Forsyth]

So this, the damage charge, was basically a misdemeanor then? I would have thought the damage would have been sufficient to really nail him, damaging a roof and breaking in through it can't have been cheap to fix. I can't remmeber what our threshold is here, but it isn't all that high.

If I remember correctly, the victim stated that they were in the process of refurbishing the house and they were able to repair the damage with materials and tools that they had on hand.

I believe that the police or CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) were very careful in their choice of offence to charge Tom with. Knowing that he wanted to be charged with an offence that would hinge on the ownership of the house and that he wanted a jury trial, they chose an offence which would not give him any satisfaction. The chance of a successful prosecution was - possibly - reduced as a result, but my guess is that the outcome that they wanted was the court order banning Tom from returning to the house, which they got. It's worth noting that the court order could also have accompanied a not guilty verdict.

We don't have quite the same distinction of misdemeanours and felonies, but the sentence of (again, if I remember correctly) a conditional discharge effectively amounted to "Go away and don't be so silly again". The only thing lower than that is an absolute discharge which leaves off the "... and don't be so silly again" part.

[exiledscouser]

Appeals from Mags to Crown are, as stated automatic irrespective of merit. Whilst the CC can quash a conviction Tom would do well to consider that it can also "adjust" the sentence, increase things and add or waive costs.

They are most likely not going to increase things particularly as the offence in question was relatively minor, he (I recall) got some sort of conditional discharge and he will be cut the sort of slack anyone unrepresented is usually afforded.

If he loses again this Friday further appeals are possible but they start to cost. Lots. A single High Court judge acts as a gatekeeper of sorts to filter out hopeless further appeals and they usually have a keen eye.

Two sleeps till D Day......

[Interobang]

So this, the damage charge, was basically a misdemeanor then? I would have thought the damage would have been sufficient to really nail him, damaging a roof and breaking in through it can't have been cheap to fix. I can't remmeber what our threshold is here, but it isn't all that high.

If I remember correctly, the victim stated that they were in the process of refurbishing the house and they were able to repair the damage with materials and tools that they had on hand.

That was indeed the case. The roof has been torn off. The stupid old fool just saved them the effort of removing some tiles.

?!

[notorial dissent]

So this, the damage charge, was basically a misdemeanor then? I would have thought the damage would have been sufficient to really nail him, damaging a roof and breaking in through it can't have been cheap to fix. I can't remember what our threshold is here, but it isn't all that high.

According to the link I gave above, the breaking point in sentencing is £5000:

For cases where the damage is less than £5000 the maximum sentence usually handed down will not be greater than six months imprisonment. For offences of criminal damage where the damage caused is over £5000 the maximum sentence will be 10 years imprisonment.

It is possible that Tom's shenanigans resulted in less than 5K in damage. In fact, I think it's likely to be less than that, or we'd be hearing about "Tom Crawford facing ten years in prison for trying to reclaim his home."

Assuming we ever got an honest statement about ANYTHING from that quarter, which I do not. I think the whole bunch of them lie just to be lying.

[morrand]

Auto from the magistrate upwards. That means that when he loses the next round , it's the end of the road for our hatted friend.....

Not so fast. Many of us remember the jurisdiction of the Asda teashop.

I must have missed that one. The what exactly ???

From a little over a year ago.... Re: The Crawfords' post eviction liabilities

[SteveUK]

Not so fast. Many of us remember the jurisdiction of the Asda teashop.

I must have missed that one. The what exactly ???

From a little over a year ago.... Re: The Crawfords' post eviction liabilities

thanks for clearing that up....jesus wept

[letissier14]

More garbage from Amanda Pike

[longdog]

Be flabbergasted by new information?

I'll bet my Xmas turkey it's the same shit we've heard over and over again... But probably not the bit where they claimed judge Goodmark delivered a great and victorious judgement to the Crawfords.

[TheNewSaint]

Be flabbergasted by new information?

Maybe he found some new angle to try. Bradford & Bingley violated the Hertfordshire Horse and Carriage Act 1543 or whatever.

[JimUk1]

More garbage from Amanda Pike

I'm pretty to new to the Crawford saga- but I'm sure I've seen somewhere that his daughter claimed the judge could write what ever he wanted, because they won?

So why has she suddenly back peddled and asked for justice?

Shame on the people enabling him. Full detachment from reality will probably begin tomorrow and declare its further proof the judiciary is conspiring against him.

[letissier14]

I've been passed this information regarding Toms appearance in court last week. How true it is I'm not sure, so consider it 3rd hand information, but the person who passed it to me hasn't been wrong so far.

Crawford asked for witness summons for land registry and county court staff, denied (crawford got angry and started shouting)

Other than that the usual lies, fraud, house stolen etc

This is new to me, Crawford screwed doors shut from inside, during the siege of fearn chase, preventing entry

[mufc1959]

I hope the Nottingham Post will be in attendance so we get an accurate record of the proceedings.

[Bones]

Whatever, happens he will call it a win and be exactly what he was planning to happen

Some plan - lose your family home and get a criminal record

[mufc1959]

The Post has been emailed, in case they didn't know about it.

[Arthur Rubin]

We don't have quite the same distinction of misdemeanours and felonies, but the sentence of (again, if I remember correctly) a conditional discharge effectively amounted to "Go away and don't be so silly again". The only thing lower than that is an absolute discharge which leaves off the "... and don't be so silly again" part.

I don't think he is able to meet the "don't be so silly again" clause.

[TheNewSaint]

I'm pretty to new to the Crawford saga- but I'm sure I've seen somewhere that his daughter claimed the judge could write what ever he wanted, because they won?

To make a long story short: he lost badly, but Ceylon and the rest of his idiot gurus told him he won. And, being even bigger idiots, the Crawfords believed it. Which led to this unintentional hilarity:

35. Mr Crawford : His Honour Judge Godsmark, you’re referring to?
36. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes. Yes.
37. Mr Crawford : These points have never been dealt with.
38. Mr Justice Phillips : The point is that at the end of the day what happened was that he
made an order in which he granted you permission to appeal, dismissed your appeal and
lifted the suspension on enforcement, so that’s what the court has ordered. And you’re now
trying to reargue that aren’t you?
39. Mr Crawford : No, no. The judgment was fine. It was excellent. But in fact the order
that was passed down it didn’t reflect the actual judgment.
40. Mr Justice Phillips : Right.
41. Mr Crawford : The order that came out was misleading, we became the defendants, it
wasn’t heard in the County Court, it was heard in the Family Court, we asked for a review
and revise hearing and this was totally ignored by the filing staff at Nottingham County
Court.
42. Mr Justice Phillips : You’re going to have to explain to me a bit more carefully.

You can read the whole transcript here: viewtopic.php?t=10829#p211565

[JimUk1]

I'm pretty to new to the Crawford saga- but I'm sure I've seen somewhere that his daughter claimed the judge could write what ever he wanted, because they won?

To make a long story short: he lost badly, but Ceylon and the rest of his idiot gurus told him he won. And, being even bigger idiots, the Crawfords believed it. Which led to this unintentional hilarity:

35. Mr Crawford : His Honour Judge Godsmark, you’re referring to?
36. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes. Yes.
37. Mr Crawford : These points have never been dealt with.
38. Mr Justice Phillips : The point is that at the end of the day what happened was that he
made an order in which he granted you permission to appeal, dismissed your appeal and
lifted the suspension on enforcement, so that’s what the court has ordered. And you’re now
trying to reargue that aren’t you?
39. Mr Crawford : No, no. The judgment was fine. It was excellent. But in fact the order
that was passed down it didn’t reflect the actual judgment.
40. Mr Justice Phillips : Right.
41. Mr Crawford : The order that came out was misleading, we became the defendants, it
wasn’t heard in the County Court, it was heard in the Family Court, we asked for a review
and revise hearing and this was totally ignored by the filing staff at Nottingham County
Court.
42. Mr Justice Phillips : You’re going to have to explain to me a bit more carefully.

You can read the whole transcript here: viewtopic.php?t=10829#p211565

Thank you very much. I'd already looked at the YouTube videos and such.

I'm not a freeman, I'm very interested in the actual movement. I'm beginning to think it's mostly aimed at anti-government protestors,people who seem to think the state should provide everything.

It is clear that the trust between the working man and the judiciary/police has been broken somewhere. Very interesting ning, thanks for this.

[Bones]

Don't think there will be much of a turn out.. Only 22 people have commented



Most of the comments are along the lines, wish I could be there, sorry can't make it etc.

I think there is only one comment by someone that actually says they will be there

I wish ginger chris was going, could do with a laugh

[Hercule Parrot]

You can read the whole transcript here: viewtopic.php?t=10829#p211565

Reading it again, over a year later, it's clear that TC hasn't moved on at all. He's still blustering the same evasive, irrelevant gibberish, still hiding from the simple fact that he didn't repay the capital. 25yrs of interest-only payments left him owing the full sum at the end. As he knew it would.

[AndyPandy]

Does anyone have a copy of his first ever post on goofy, the one where he knew there was still £43k to pay because the endowment had 'disappeared', the one he then later deleted, even though it was later proved that payments had ceased to be made from Sue's account ?