Stilton Cheesewright

Guy did indeed appear at Hereford Crown Court this week. He was previously convicted of trespass at Bodenham Manor for which he was sentenced to: a 12 month community order: 150 hours of community work a £1000 fine a restraining order not to go near Bodenham Manor or it's owner. Unfortunately I could not attend the hearing personally so I am not entirely sure whether he sought to appeal the conviction or the sentence. Similarly I don't know the grounds for his appeal although he has long maintained that the original warrant used to evict him from the property was fraudulent and thus he could not be guilty of trespass. As I have previously observed any warrant in any case in which Guy has even a passing interest is, according to him, fraudulent. I am told that his appeal was rejected and he was to pay £650 towards the costs of the Crown Prosecution Service. He will now be subject to the original sentence which was suspended pending the appeal. He has talked for some time about mounting private prosecutions against the agency and or the individuals enforcing the warrant against him but this latest reverse plus the fact that since 2012 he has been an undischarged bankrupt makes such action unlikely. I also understand that Bodenham Manor has been resold in two lot i.e. the building and the land and that as reported above planning permission has been sought to demolish the building.

Well I am. The quote doesn't seem relevant. This isn't about civil disobedience or even a decision to consciously break the law. Guy et al claim that they are trying to ensure that the law is upheld. However their understanding of the law is so flawed that sometimes they end up breaking it. More to the point whenever their interpretation of law is tested, it fails. In such circumstances most reasonable and logical people might question whether their interpretation is correct but no, their excuse is that the courts are corrupted so that they cannot win. It's a nice circular argument that means that they can never be wrong. This underpins a lot of the "freeman" thinking - as if to admit even one failure risks their whole shaky house of cards tumbling down. The most obvious recent example of this is Guy's insistence that Tom has "won" his court hearing about the Possession Order on his house even in the face of the transcript of the hearing and judgment being publicly available and obviously showing completely the opposite. Personally I object to people like Guy etc giving desperate or gullible people false hope of success using their totally discredited methods, almost certainly costing them money and undoubtedly being a drain on public resources. I called him a time waster but he is arguably much worse.

Guy alleges that the court documents were not properly prepared or served in every case with which he becomes involved and to date without once coming close to proving it. The spectacular failure of his advice in Tom Crawford's case is merely the latest example. However since his understanding is based on the teachings of serial case loser Mr Ebert that is no surprise. Back in the real world he is just a serial time waster.

duplicated post deleted

This is primarily another example of Guy Taylor pretending that he has some expertise and understanding in the law which means that he or the people he is advising can wriggle out of their responsibilities (forensic legal consultant indeed!). Guy trots out his arrant nonsense about court seals and signatures and fraudulent documents at every possibly occasion. Unfortunately, most police are not trained in court processes and documentation etc. and can be easily bamboozled by someone who appears to know what they are talking about - even if what they are saying is self serving nonsense. At best all that Guy achieves is that proceedings are delayed. His mentor, Mr Ebert and one of his disciples, Tom Crawford have both managed to achieve "vexatious litigant" status and it can surely only be a better of time before this happens to Guy - or that he has another spell in prison. With regard to the involvement of police in a "civil matter", if an enforcement officer is prevented from executing a Warrant enacting a Court Order then that constitutes a breach of the peace which is a criminal offence under the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. It is therefore legitimate for the Police to intervene to prevent such a breach. It also worth noting that Section 99, Schedule 7, paragraph5 of the Courts Act 2003 states: "It is the duty of every constable, at the request of - a) an enforcement agent or b) a person acting under the enforcement agent's authority, to assist the enforcement agent or that person in the execution of a writ."

It seems that a good many followers of the pseudo-legal BS pedalled by Guy and his chums had their eyes opened by the blatant lies of the Tom Crawford case, the Hampstead SRA allegations and the ongoing fraud of WeRe Bank. Consequently the world of "lawful rebellion" has been on reduced power of late. Guy is apparently still providing legal advice although given his record in court (as so accurately portrayed in this link: )it's hard to believe that he anyone thinks he has a shred of real knowledge or credibility. He is also due back in court on 21st September in a case involving Npower. I assume this relates to the charge of "abstracting" (stealing) electricity which began in 2011. Guy has also appeared on the odd YouTube "radio station" video where he claims to have been busy launching lots of private prosecutions. I've not heard anything recently in regard to his attempts to prove that he still owns Bodenham Manor but no doubt there is some court action in the pipeline somewhere. So to answer the question, I'm afraid Guy's "case" will never be resolved - this is what he does. No matter how spectacularly unsuccessful he is, his position in the world of "lawful rebellion" requires him to continue down this path. The only thing that might put a crimp in his activities is if he is served with a civil restraint order - declared a "vexatious litigant", as happened to his mentor Mr Ebert and has also recently happened to Tom Crawford after yet another farcical appearance at the Royal Courts of Justice.

No I agree. I wouldn't normally post without a link of some kind but this has come from a normally very reputable source.

I must admit, my understanding was that sentencing for the above had been set for August but I'm hearing from a pretty reliable source that Guy has been sentenced to: a 12 month community order: 150 hours of community work £1000 fine Restraining order not to go near Bodenham Manor or it's owner.

I understand that after a two day trial, Guy Taylor has been found guilty of trespass at Bodenham Manor. No word on sentence yet but according to some of his supporters on the "Get Out of Debt Free" website the conviction is a good thing because he now has them right where he wants them and they will have to produce the evidence. It's not entirely clear why evidence would need to be produced after the conviction but I'm sure Guy has a trick up his sleeve. After all he was one of the legal experts that told Tom Crawford that despite the actual words in the judgement saying the opposite, he had actually won his court hearing. That was a few weeks before Tom was evicted.

You're welcome. For what it's worth, I agree about the endowment mortgages. I too was caught by the problem of the endowment policy not generating enough funds to pay off the loan but was fortunate that I could afford to make up the difference. In time, Tom may have suffered the shortfall problem too but of course it never got to this point because he simply stopped paying the endowment policy premiums anyway so rather than the policy under performing there simply was no policy. It seems likely that Tom will continue to take advice from Guy and co. and as Guy has done, try to launch various court actions to prosecute police, bailiffs, recover the property etc. I also would not put it past them to try to reoccupy the house as Guy did with Bodenham Manor. No doubt that will all be just as successful as Guy has been. What Tom seems to fails to realise is that his actions have and will continue to incur significant costs for the lender which will be recovered from the proceeds of the sale of the house along with the loan capital that he still owes. There is a real possibility that there will be insufficient equity in the house to actually cover the total meaning that even after the house is sold, Tom will still owe money without any means to pay it.

The truth of Tom's case was revealed at the recent hearing of his request to appeal against the Order of Possession in which the judge denied him permission to appeal. Tom took out an endowment mortgage is 1988. In 1991 he (or rather his wife) ceased paying the monthly premium for the endowment policy that was intended to repay the original capital sum. After about 12 months, the policy provider (Royal London) cancelled the policy and paid the proceeds accrued to date (about £178) into Tom's mortgage account with the Bradford & Bingley Building Society. It has never been satisfactorily explained why the premiums were stopped. The vast bulk of what Tom owes is the original capital sum. Everything subsequent to this is a web of misunderstandings, misdirection and downright lies by Tom and the team of "experts" (including Guy Taylor) that gathered around him. They even tried to pretend that the result of the hearing (see link below) was a resounding win and that those of us that thought otherwise were either unable to understand the special legal language in which it was written or were "trolls and shills" shamelessly defending the corrupt banking system in the face of overwhelming evidence. The only overwhelming evidence that I have seen is that Tom's team of experts; Guy Taylor, Gedalhaju Ebert, Michael Waugh etc have all been evicted from their properties and that anyone who has listened to their bullshit (Cleveland Rhoden, Michael Grant-Sinclair, Paula Jayne Campbell, Glynis Craggs and now Tom Crawford to name only some) have suffered the same fate. One might think that this would give them pause for thought but no, in between his futile attempts to recover Bodenham Manor, Guy Taylor makes a habit (and a nice living?) speaking to groups of gullible people and enticing them down the path that has already caused so many people so much misery. Tom is just one more victim of this pernicious nonsense. Part of me thinks that they deserve all they get but a larger part of me thinks that that it is Guy Taylor and co who really deserve to be sorted out for playing silly games with other people's lives. https://infotomb.com/dn1qw.pdf

Any news on Guy's court action?

The full judgement of Tom Crawford's hearing is now available on line. Remember this is the case where Guy Taylor was quite happy to support Tom in saying that the case had clearly been won. See if you agree with him. https://infotomb.com/cixyk

As I wrote about 10 days ago. Tom Crawford (supported by Guy Taylor) has appeared in court in Nottingham for a hearing of their application to appeal against the Order of Possession on Tom's house which was issued last year. There were precious few facts that emerged from the hearing. Tom continued to allege various types of fraud and malpractice by Bradford & Bingley. On the other hand B&B simply alleged that Tom has ceased to pay the premiums on the Life Assurance policy that supported his endowment mortgage. Judgement on the case was reserved primarily because the judge feared an outbreak of disorder in and outside the court. The final judgement was delivered in court today. There were two issues to be heard. Could Tom Crawford submit an appeal "out of time"? The judge granted that application. Could Tom submit an appeal based on the information he submitted to the court? The judge refused that application which means that he rejected all Tom's allegations about fraud etc. The judge ruled that the Order of Possession still stands and the Warrant for Possession (which allows Tom to be evicted) and which had been suspended pending the hearing could go ahead. In a masterclass of self deception and misunderstanding bordering on stupidity that characterises the "freeman / common law" followers. Guy and Tom have spun this result as a great victory. I give you two polar opposite versions of the result: http://www.nottinghampost.com/Judge-refuses-Tom-Crawford-s-battle-bailiffs/story-26501928-detail/story.html I have to say, if this is an example of Guy's understanding of the law then it may be some time before he sees the inside of Bodenham Manor again.

I meant to add that the rumour is that B&B want to come to an arrangement so that Mr Crawford can stay in his house. I assume that might be some kind of equity release scheme. If that's true then let's hope that he is sensible enough to take the offer.

I am sure that you are correct albeit that he seems to have been the author of his own problems. It has never been clear what happened to the endowment policy that was supposed to pay off the capital sum he borrowed. Mr Crawford claims that B&B "lost" the policy but has always resisted answering any questions on whether he continued to pay the premiums on it or indeed ever started. Now, it seems that he purposely decided to stop paying the premium. Perhaps he did not understand what it was. He also accuses B&B of changing the mortgage to a repayment type without his permission. Again there's not too many details on this but it would at least have solved the problem of the missing endowment policy. However Mr Crawford is happy to admit that he forced B&B to change it back so he was only paying them interest. He still made no provision to repay the capital sum and allowed this situation to continue for 13 years until the capital sum was almost due to be repaid. I have thought all along that he never understood the nature of the mortgage he had taken out, never looked at the annual statements and ignored any and all advice from B&B. As far as he was concerned he was paying money to B&B and that would mean after 25 years he would own his house. B&B might have failed in their duty of care to explain the situation better but Mr Crawford also had a responsibility. I would feel sympathy for him if he had not spend the last 12 months travelling round the country encouraging other people in the ludicrous "freeman" ideas that he has espoused alongside the factual details of his personal case. As I indicated previously those ideas land people in severe difficulty and sometimes even their own eviction.

Although there has been no substantive progress in Guy Taylor's case regarding Bodenham Manor he has not been inactive. The case of Tom Crawford was mentioned here about three months ago because Guy Taylor is one of the Mr Crawford's leading supporters and advisers. As you can see above the case really revolves around the non-existence of an endowment policy to repay the capital sum he borrowed to buy his bungalow. I said before that I thought Mr Crawford might have a case against the bank if he stuck to the issues over the endowment policy rather than sought to rely on the dubious legitimacy of the usual 'freeman" arguments around bank fraud and faulty documentation and court process. Mr Crawford was in court yesterday to appeal the Order of Possession that was granted last year in respect of his bungalow in Nottingham. The judgement has been reserved i.e the judge will take some time to consider the evidence and appropriate law and communicate his decision later. However , it has emerged that the bank gave evidence that Mr Crawford actually stopped paying the premium on his endowment policy which explains why, despite paying the interest on the loan for the whole of the loan period, there was no money to repay the capital sum and he still owes the £43,000 that he borrowed. In March, Guy also attended the attempted eviction of Glynis Craggs in County Durham to lend his support to blocking the bailiffs by force of numbers although the eviction was subsequently completed last week. Ms Craggs eviction was a perfect case study of how the "freemen on the land" tactics can have catastrophic consequences. Ms Craggs and her partner had remortgaged the property that she had lived in for 26 years but unfortunately were struggling to make the repayments. In January 2014 she wrote to the mortgage company asking for information on the power of attorney contained in the original terms and conditions of the loan. This may seem like a rather innocent if obscure question but it is in fact step one of the process recommended by "The White Rabbit Trust" in determining that the mortgage should be considered void. Presumably Ms Craggs hoped that the mortgage would be cancelled but she would retain the house. It's not clear what reply was received but Ms Craggs was dissatisfied with it and this allowed her to move on to step two of the process which was to declare herself "in dispute" with the mortgage company which meant that she could suspend her repayments until the dispute was resolved. Unsurprisingly the mortgage lender didn't agree and notified her that they intended to start possession proceedings. They secured a Possession Order in July 2014 and since then there have been two attempts at eviction only frustrated by force of numbers of "supporters", various appearances in court where her claims were consistently dismissed and ultimately an unceremonious eviction. A sad and totally unnecessary saga resulting purely from believing freeman theory.

Nope - I got mixed up with the hearing of another "freeman" which is in March and in any case my point still stands.

deleted ...

Had a look at the field McConnell interview videos too. Really not worth the bother. We already have more than enough MH370, MH17, 9/11 etc etc etc conspiracy theorists. Although the Abel Danger website does have some of the more verifiable lunacy on the internet there is nothing really new.

I can think of better things to do with 4 hours than to watch these videos (root canal work or kidney dialysis spring to mind) so to précis the main issue as I understand it: Wikipedia describes the function of a Grand Jury as "... a legal body that is empowered to conduct official proceedings to investigate potential criminal conduct and to determine whether criminal charges should be brought. A grand jury may compel the production of documents and may compel the sworn testimony of witnesses to appear before it. A grand jury is separate from the courts, which do not preside over its functioning. (In the UK:) "The grand jury's functions were gradually made redundant by the development of committal proceedings in magistrates' courts from 1848 onward ... In 1933 the grand jury ceased to function in England, under the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933[12] and was entirely abolished in 1948, when a clause from 1933 saving grand juries for offences relating to officials abroad was repealed by the Criminal Justice Act 1948." However, "The British Constitution Group" and "UK Column" have unilaterally decided that the system should be reinstated and convened four such "people's" juries as a main focus of their annual conference held last weekend in Telford: http://www.britishconstitutiongroup.com/conference/spring-conference-2015 . Presumably the membership of these juries were drawn from the conference participants and thus we can be sure of their impartiality. It's also worth bearing in mind that only the person making the claim submits evidence (there is no defence evidence presented). The aim is simply to say whether there is sufficient evidence that the case should go forward. The principal case considered was entitled " The Institutions of The State that should be protecting children were not doing so". A page on the British Constitution Group website explains the purpose of the case and the actions to be taken when the jury passed the case. http://www.britishconstitutiongroup.com/article/spring-conference-2015-grand-jury Of course the fact that the page was put up before the jury was convened shouldn't be taken as it being a forgone conclusion that the jury would pass the case. In the event the jury did pass the case. ​One of the other cases considered was Guy Taylor's never-ending claim that he has been defrauded by Barclay's Bank, wrongfully evicted from Bodenham Manor, assaulted by bailiffs etc etc etc. Bearing in mind that Guy has already initiated private prosecutions, has been to court on numerous occasions and is due back in court in a few days time, a Grand Jury hearing seems somewhat superfluous. In fact (and apparently without a tinge of irony) the jury returned a verdict of "ignoramus" which effectively means the the claim was not proven. However, before anyone jumps to the conclusion that this signals the end to Guy's campaign, the verdict was a technical one and not based on the evidence that Guy submitted. It appears that while the jury of 12 was being sworn-in, one of the prospective jurors remembered that earlier he had been talking to Guy about the case and this might not support the required veneer of impartiality. Fortunately as swearing-in wasn't complete, a replacement juror was found. However, some 15 minutes after they started deliberating, a row broke out amongst the jurors about what they were trying to achieve and the standard of evidence required. As a result another juror recused himself / decided to withdraw / stormed off and the jury, rendered inquorate, was thus unable to proceed to a verdict. Perhaps the first occasion where a manufactured show trial resulted in a mis-trial.

Obviously, deciding at what point a line of enquiry or complaint becomes vexatious depends on a judgement call and where you are standing in the process. So there does need to be a some controls if the enquiry / complaints process is not to be abused by any party. When I dealt with FOI requests I had to refer any enquiry that I felt to be vexatious to our Head of Public Relations (and believe me they didn't just accept my opinion). In general I think the safeguard is an appeal to the Information Commissioners Office. I had one repeat enquiry come from the House of Lords which caused a bit of a stir - he didn't know what he was talking about either! I don't expect a knockout and I don't think I'm even sparring with the likes of Cambo and Dippy Hippy - we're just exchanging ideas. I don't think that either of them are telling other boxers that they have a foolproof way to win The problem I have with some others is that they enter the ring believing that only they understand the Marquis of Queensbury rules, the "referee" is biased, the judges have been bribed and the fight isn't really sanctioned by the BBBC. In the unlikely event that they win; they have overcome the corrupt system, if as usually happens, their opponent wins it is because the system is corrupt. Unfortunately, they don't know when to stay down so they keep receiving the same beating again and again without ever questioning whether they might just not have the tools to do the job.

I agree with the principle of the FOI Act but also understand Sir Ian Blair's regret which I think stems from it's practical effect. Until fairly recently I worked in an organisation covered by the Act and my wife still does. Both of us were in roles that required us to respond to FOI requests. In my experience, many of the requests were either impossible to answer due to lack of information or the time it would take to collate it, some sought opinions rather than information, some were political issues to which our organisation didn't know the answer and others we could not answer because it would reveal commercial information to our competitors or other organisations. I would say that the number we could answer in a straightforward way were in the minority and even then I often sensed the requester did not really understand what he was asking and would misinterpret the response. There were many occasions where I was able to follow up our response by seeing it related on some website or other. Requests we were unable to meet were frequently characterised as us having something to hide and answers we did provide were often used out of context or misinterpreted. And I did have my share of people that ultimately we had to classify as vexatious simply because they would take "no" or even our answer, for an answer. As I said on another thread, there is of course a risk that the vexatious complainant process can be used to stifle genuine enquiries but I think we also have to allow that increasingly people are inclined to see conspiracy and corruption behind every issue and will not accept any answer that doesn't confirm it.

Have you ever had a "cold caller" knock on your door? What would you think if, after you politely declined the opportunity to receive a quote for double glazing, the salesman came back for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th .... 100th time with the same offer? On perhaps the third occasion you might be inclined to say "Look I've told you I'm not interested" but the salesman replies "But I still want to give you a quote so the issue remains unresolved". You and I might say that the salesman was being vexatious. He would say that you're unreasonably denying him the opportunity to make a living. We have to allow the possibility that local authorities, housing associations, the legal system etc sometimes encounter individuals that, to put it bluntly, "will not take no for an answer." Should these individuals be able to pursue their issue in perpetuity simply because they haven't received the result that they want? What if this means the council, authority etc have to use resources that could be used elsewhere? I think there has to be a point at which the authority calls a halt. And yes, I realise that this poses a risk that the authority could use this process to avoid answering difficult questions. I have looked at the two or three other threads where the term vexatious has cropped up but obviously not knowing the details it is hard to comment on the validity. However, I have to say that the one where the issue underlying the inappropriate language was that repeated complaints had been made about a department on an issue for which they had no responsibility and had not been involved seemed, on the face of it, pretty reasonable. I don't know if there is an increasing use of the vexatious complaints policy and if there is, to what extent this illustrates an increasing lack of openness by authorities, and /or an increasing level of spurious complaints. My recent experience of the "freeman movement" makes me inclined to believe the latter is definitely a factor. In terms of vexatious litigants it is interesting that there are only around 200 Civil Proceeding Orders in existence (which prevent someone launching a civil action in court without permission in advance from the High Court) only 15 of which were granted within the last 10 years. That doesn't seem like an explosion in denial of access to justice. In cases of a vexatious litigant we also have to bear in mind that litigation doesn't happen in a vacuum. There is a defendant and often this is another organisation or member of the public that is continually hauled into court with the associated costs, inconvenience and potential damage to reputation while the claimant seeks to achieve the result he wants. This was true of the case of Mr Ebert. If you are interested, I have attached a transcript of the hearing for the CPO. This is part two of the hearing (links to the first part and the subsequent appeal are at the bottom of the linked page). It is still a very long and extremely complex judgement but if you start at paragraph 20 you get the feel of the situation. Personally I think Mr Ebert had had "his day in court". http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/vexatiouslitigant/vex_lit_queens_bench_ebert_2.html