Stilton Cheesewright

I'm all for critical thinking but my complaint about "freemen" is that for the vast majority, their skepticism is only ever one way and lacks any discernment. To be honest their approach seems to boil down to a rather childish "nobody can tell me what to do". Most seem prepared to embrace any anti-establishment viewpoint without question, irrespective of how fantastical or demonstrably untrue it is, simply because it supports their anti-authority agenda. I've seen it described as a "libertarian -anarchist" viewpoint although I very much doubt that most freeman could articulate what such a world would look like. I don't agree with your comment about the CPS "squashing" Guy years ago. The criminal prosecution only began last summer after Guy re-entered Bodenham Manor. In my view, the fact that Guy has had so many opportunities in court is evidence that the judicial system has offered him a fair hearing. With regard to Guy's case, notwithstanding the possibility that his trespass charge is thrown out on a technicality, it seems to me to hinge on him proving that the original possession order should not have been granted. In order to do that he has to prove that he didn't owe the money and that probably means proving that he did actually make the cash payments he claims or that one of the fraud claims I explained above are true. One of Guy's main "legal advisors" is a Mr Ebert who went through a very similar experience about 15 years ago. His business failed, he was made bankrupt and the bank possessed his house to pay off the debt. Having exhausted all opportunities to appeal the decisions, he initiated probably well in excess of a hundred private civil and criminal prosecutions alleging corruption involving the bank, judiciary, estate agents, members of parliament and pretty much anybody else you can think of. Unsuccessful in every case, the Attorney General ultimately sought and received an order classifying him as a "vexatious litigant" preventing him raising any further actions without permission in advance from the High Court. Eventually he was also banned from physically entering The Royal Courts of Justice. It's not hard to imagine that Guy may be heading down the same road.

I am glad you find it interesting. It's certainly provided me with hours of entertainment since I retired six months ago. As in many of these cases, there are issues specific to Guy Taylor that I don't know if he has abandoned yet as well as more more generic claims about the judicial and banking systems. If the specific issues were proved true then it would be significant but not catastrophic. However, if either of the wider claims were found to be true it would potentially cause the collapse of the judicial system in the UK or even the whole UK and world economy. A short explanation of all three claims in order of the impact they would have if found to be true: Guy Taylor's Case (as I understand it) In 2007, Guy inherited his father's property portfolio worth £4 million. He decided to do the necessary legal work himself to save the cost of a solicitor and took out a loan of £824,000 from the bank. He made the repayments for the first year but subsequently discovered that the loan had been repaid with money from another loan of £904,000 taken out in his name in April 2008 but which he knew nothing about. He also claims that, again without his knowledge, a bank account had been opened in his name in Bristol. The bank claimed that he had not made any repayments on the loan since 2008. Guy said he had made payments in cash and had receipts to prove it. Nevertheless, the bank initiated proceedings to take possession of property to cover the money owed on the loan. Guy defended this but lost and in April last year was evicted from Bodenham Manor which was then sold to a new owner by the bank. Guy reoccupied BM and ejected the new owner. Guy was again removed from BM and charged with trespass. At least part of Guy's defence is that he is the victim of a fraud by the bank; therefore the possession order and eviction was unlawful; he is still the rightful owner and thus cannot be guilty of trespass. Repossession Fraud As you have seen above, Guy devotes a lot of time to his interpretation of Civil Procedure Rules and what he believes are errors and omissions in the court documentation and processes which underpin evictions. However, his claim is not simply that the court administration is slapdash but that the lack of seals and signatures etc. as he deems them necessary is evidence of a conspiracy by a group of individuals from the judiciary, court administration and banks acting under cover of the legal system to produce fake documentation to enable them to take possession of people's houses so that they can be sold for the personal gain of the conspirators. Money Creation Fraud Many years ago, as part of my professional qualification, I studied economics. It was not my favourite subject especially the topic of "types and sources of money" which made my head hurt. So I have avoiding studying this issue in depth but in simple terms the theory is that banks don't only loan money from their reserves but that money for loans is "created out of thin air". According to "freemen" (for want of a better term) such as Guy and Tom, it is then fraudulent to demand interest on this money and some believe that even the "loan" itself does not have to be repaid. It gets terribly complicated and even those who support the theory don't always agree on the details. As in so many of these theories there is an element of truth although those in the mainstream would not agree on the interpretation that means that all money is "free". I can scarcely comprehend what would happen if this was ever proved. I have attached a couple of articles (both coincidentally from the Guardian which explains both sides of the theory. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/18/freeman-land-strategy-bullet-debt

I guess that's the end of our previous discussion then. Tell me, when you post these videos do you ever check the accuracy of what is shown or simply accept them without question? For example, if I was posting a video making allegations of a high level criminal conspiracy in the UK judiciary I would want to be sure that the evidence stood up to simple scrutiny. There are some "facts" in the Guy Taylor video that don't seem to meet this standard e.g. Guy says that court documents must be sealed with a stamp that actually embosses the paper. He doesn't explain where this is laid down but he quotes a lot of Civil Procedure Rules elsewhere. With regard to seals, CPR 2.6.2 says: The court may place the seal on the document – (a) by hand; or (b) by printing a facsimile of the seal on the document whether electronically or otherwise. Guy says that "We want to examine our court files. We are entitled to do this under CPR5.4.2 which states that upon application, on request, access to the file shall be granted within 48 hours. So we know once we've put that request across the table in the court, they are supposed to give us access to the court file within 48 hours. Very often they don't give you access to the file. That's when you know something is wrong" But CPR 5.4.2 doesn't say that. It actually says: "Any person who pays the prescribed fee may, during office hours, search any available register of claims." That is not an individual case file. Despite that courts often do allow access to the case file. Guy says that we should look at the application form that initiated the claim explaining "on that application form I should expect to see a court seal". However CPR 2.6.1 simply says The court must seal the following documents on issue – (a) the claim form; and (b) any other document which a rule or practice direction requires it to seal. One of the slides used in the video shows excerpts from a letter that Guy sent to the court in his own case. It says ... CPR r.5.4.2 Supply of documents to parties including new parties - The documents should be supplied within 48 hours after a written request for them is received CPR r5.4(1) Supply of documents from Court records - any party to proceedings may be supplied from the records of the court with a copy of any document relating to those proceedings (including documents filed before the claim was commenced). But as I showed above CPR 5.4.2 actually says "Any person who pays the prescribed fee may, during office hours, search any available register of claims." Nothing about supply of documents to parties and CPR 5.4.1 says "A court or court office may keep a publicly accessible register of claims which have been issued out of that court or court office". Nothing to do with supply of documents from court records. Now I suspected that Guy may simply have misquoted the references (kind of a big mistake when it's supporting a court case) so I looked at the rest of CPR Part 5 to see if I could find the exact words that Guy quotes. I couldn't but I'll let you have a go .. http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part05#5.4 In fact the only reference I could find to documents being supplied within 48 hours was in Practice Direction 5a (an adjunct to CPR Part 5) Para 3.1 which says ... "Where a party is joined to existing proceedings, the party joined shall be entitled to require the party joining him to supply, without charge, copies of all statements of case, written evidence and any documents appended or exhibited to them which have been served in the proceedings by or upon the joining party which relate to any issues between the joining party and the party joined, and copies of all orders made in those proceedings. The documents must be supplied within 48 hours after a written request for them is received." I don't think we have to concern ourselves too much with what this means except that clearly it has no bearing on supply of documents from Court records. I don't know about you but it rather undermines my confidence in the claims made in the video to see such fundamental errors of fact. We should of course bear in mind that much of the legal advice that is supplied to Guy comes from the infamous "Mr Ebert" whose own history in the courts makes fascinating and entertaining reading.

No worries - my misunderstanding.

I'm sorry that you see my views as opposing a socialist position. In my case it would definitely not be correct. However, I don't think that my opposition to the "freeman" ideology has any political aspect or that socialism has anything to do with the ragbag of conspiracy theories, illogical ideas and often easily disproved "facts" that characterise it. In fact, its origins lay in white supremacism in the US, developed through anti-tax movements, libertarianism etc in the US and Canada before spreading to the UK, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land One of the most marked attributes of the "freeman" ideology across the world is it underlying anti-semitism, holocaust denial and anti-Jewish rhetoric. In fact, I saw a YouTube video posted on the channel of one of Tom and Guy's closest allies only today :

"Stilton Cheesewright", my chosen nom de plume is not a subliminal reference to the police and I have no connection with them. In fact I had forgotten the details of the character but as an occasional reader of Wodehouse simply liked the name. However, thank you for so amply demonstrating the thought process of the typical "freeman". Slightly paranoid and able to leap tall buildings with a single bound. See what you can make of the Superman reference. But to respond to your points ... Media coverage Both attempted evictions of Tom Crawford were extensively covered by the mainstream media which is how I learned of the case. As a simple Google search will prove, both events were reported by the BBC, ITV, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, Daily Express and Nottingham Post. Did I already have a negative attitude towards "Lawful Rebellion" & "Get Out of Debt Free"? Do I feel threatened by them? As I said, the mainstream media report of the first attempt to evict Tom Crawford was my introduction to the world of the "lawful rebellion", "GOODF" etc. The Daily Mail on line report had a link to Tom's first video, which linked to the "SriLankerC" Youtube channel etc. etc. So I had no pre-existing antipathy. I do now. My journey into this arcane world has evoked many emotions: hilarity at the craziness, incredulity that apparently mature adults can really believe such rubbish, despair at the inability to think logically and anger at the exploitation of the gullible and desperate and the waste of increasingly scarce court and police resources. I have never felt remotely threatened because ultimately they will achieve nothing of any consequence. Loan sharks and misselling by the banks I agree. Hopefully the loan sharks are starting to have their wings clipped (to mix metaphors) and the banks are paying through the nose for misselling PPI etc. Of course this doesn't detract from the harm that can be done by FoTL "gurus" whose ideas can land followers in greater debt, homeless and in some cases in prison. All sections of society threatened by of seizure of assets by government using its judicial administration on the instruction of banks / financial institutions It's remarkable how often this conspiracy by the establishment is visited on people who by accident or design have not paid their bills e.g. Tom Crawford, Guy Taylor, Paula Campbell, Cleveland Rhoden, Russ McGarry etc etc. So you think or know that any information offered by an alternative source or body is not worthy of consideration and attention I certainly wouldn't automatically say that no information offered by "freemen on the land", "sovereign citizens", "The Truth Movement" etc is worthy of consideration although I cannot immediately recall any that is. I definitely think some of the people who advance these ideas are worthy of attention although not necessarily in the way you believe. Of course you and Tom Crawford are free to believe whatever you wish however much trouble it lands you in but here are a few (amongst many) that you might want to think twice about: 1) Guy Taylor's assertion that the failure of courts to adhere to what he believes are the Civil Procedure Rules is evidence of a nationwide conspiracy that allows the judiciary to fraudulently possess and dispose of property for their own personal gain. 2) That your birth certificate creates a "legal person" or "strawman" whose existence is traded as a bond worth millions of pounds but which you can only access up to the age of 7. If you separate yourself from "the name" (by writing to the Queen etc.) you are able to avoid being bound by legislation, regulation etc and helpfully paying tax, obtaining various licences etc 3) That only common law applies to freemen. All law made by acts of parliament requires the consent of the individual. This is most often seen on YouTube videos as "freemen" refusing to acknowledge police at traffic stops, refusing to provide their details, declining to be arrested or seeking to apply their own fee schedule by "charging" the police thousands or even millions of pounds to step out of the car. 4) That most courts are simply places of business designed to make money for the government which operate under admiralty law. This is demonstrated by such court terms as "dock" and most memorably by Tom Crawford instancing the word insurance (in-shore-ance). 5) Chemtrails 6) That Nicola Tesla invented a machine that, in contravention to the laws of physics, produces more energy than is input thus producing free energy. That this has been suppressed by "the powers that be" but you can buy or download the plans off the internet to build your own machine. If it doesn't work it's because you have done it wrong. Alternatively you can participate in "crowd funding" the development of a machine (which never quite seems to be finished but just requires a bit more money). 7) The gas and electricity bills are paid to the owner of the meter in your house. Therefore, if you remove the gas meter and substitute it with one you have bought from e-Bay you become your own supplier and therefore can enjoy free gas and electricity. I could go on ...

I don't know Mr Crawford personally. I first became interested in his case when the media reported the frustration of the first eviction attempt by 200"strangers" last July. All that I know has been gleaned from the internet and mainly from the YouTube videos posted by Mr Crawford and his supporters (which includes Guy Taylor). This led me to take an interest in the wider "lawful rebellion" movement and the machinations of the "Get Out Of Debt Free" website. It's easy to dismiss these people as a bunch of cranks and chancers but unfortunately they also tempt people in desperate situations to believe there is an easy way out and that their problems are all somebody else's fault. This often results in their situation becoming significantly worse. Mr Crawford's is a case in point. In fact not only has he abandoned any attempt at a sensible solution, he has become a major advocate of the ridiculous theories. It's understandable that many people have a deep distrust of banks etc. However I'd like to think I can encourage people to think twice about the "information" offered by the "truth movement", "sovereign citizens", "freemen on the land" or whatever they wish to call themselves.

Not a lawyer although I am happy to take that as a compliment. The issue for me isn't one of representation, it's about taking some responsibility for your own situation and it isn't about morals it's about facts. I have many issues about what Mr Crawford says happened over a 13 year period and his apparent failure to understand or react to the obvious indications that things had gone seriously wrong. However, the central issue is that he contends that he took out an endowment mortgage (a loan and a separate endowment policy) in 1988 and at some point over the subsequent 18 years the endowment policy was "lost" by Bradford & Bingley. I am prepared to believe this happened as it's not unheard of and B&B have a poor record of competence. However, I struggle to believe that Mr Crawford apparently did not notice this happen, cannot say when it happened, has no proof that the endowment policy ever existed and no memory of the name of the life assurance company that supplied the policy. Any of this factual information would have been good evidence to support his case. However, when this came to a head at the end of his mortgage he did initiate court action against B&B. However, rather than challenge Bradford & Bingley by seeking to prove the existence of the endowment policy which might at least partially cover the money he owed, he chose to attempt to prove bank fraud on the basis that because B&B did not "own" the money that they gave him in 1988, it could not constitute a loan and therefore to charge him interest was fraud. Unsurprisingly this claim was dismissed by the judge as having no merit. He has continued to pursue this line to this day and in fact broadened it to include accusations of fraud and conspiracy amongst members of the judiciary etc. I think Mr Crawford may originally have had a case against B&B who I very much doubt are an innocent party in this sorry mess. Sadly he has, recklessly, thrown it away by pursuing a fantasy.

The likelihood is that the police felt (correctly) that the bailiffs were not authorised to use reasonable force to carry out the eviction because of a lack of a signature on the EX96 form. Of course you realise that subsequently the eviction was completed as ordered. I'm not sure how you determined my thoughts on duty of care. As I indicated previously, taking Mr Crawford's explanation of what happened at face value, he may well have had a legitimate claim against Bradford and Bingley for negligence. It's not clear what evidence he presented in the possession hearing but obviously it wasn't sufficient. His subsequent activities have unfortunately been influenced by "lawful rebellion" claptrap and the advice of amateur lawyers and consequently further and further away from any chance of successfully preventing his ultimate eviction. He must bear responsibility for this decision and indeed for his total "head in the sand" attitude to the original problem until it was almost too late.

If you are talking about the Tom Crawford non-eviction then you must be joking. There was copious coverage in the mainstream media. I think we know why Russia Today is so keen to report any incident of anti-authority action in the UK. As for the case, many people have been swept along in the emotion of the case of a pensioner with cancer without stopping to ask some fundamental questions. For example, he says that he first found out that there was a problem with his endowment mortgage in 2000 (in some reports he says 1998). Undoubtably this would have been that the proceeds of his endowment would not cover the loan. What did he do about it? It looks like he did nothing. Later he may well have had a case of negligence against the bank if they did indeed lose the details of the endowment policy (although he doesn't seem to have any either) and indeed he did try to take Bradford & Bingley to court. Unfortunately, rather than seek to prove the existence of the endowment policy he turned for help to various "Freeman on the land" and "Lawful rebellion" advocates who steered him down the path of alleging that since Bradford & Bingley had not proved that they "owned" the money that they lent him, their request for interest amounted to bank fraud. Mr Crawford has become increasingly embroiled in these lunatic theories and indeed is now a keen advocate. In doing so he has lost sight of the real issue and put his home at risk. Guy Taylor is indeed very comfortable dealing with his allegations of fraudulent eviction documents. However, as yet his assertions are simply the untested theories of a group of people who have spectacularly failed to achieve any success in court and most of which have been evicted in the past.

In 03.15 to 04.15 of the "UK Column" video you posted Mr Taylor says that Mark Poole of the CPS has reviewed Mr Taylor's private prosecution for assault against the director of the bailiff company "and decided drop it". The CPS has the power to do this if it considers that there is little chance of conviction or for example it considers the case to be malicious or vexatious. Later in the video Mr Taylor talks about a Mr Ebert who is also facing eviction from his current property. In many ways Mr Taylor's experiences mirror those of Mr Ebert who spent many years trying to prove that his bankruptcy and eviction from his previous property were the result of fraud and collusion by the judicial system etc. but without any success. Mr Ebert brought possibly more than a hundred private civil and criminal prosecutions to try to prove his point, to the extent that he was ultimately judged to be a "vexatious litigant" and banned in perpetuity from bringing any more prosecutions without the advance permission of the High Court. Mr Ebert is currently providing "forensic document analysis" to Mr Taylor and others to identify fraudulent documents and judicial process.

As I understand it, Mr Taylor was charged with trespass at Bodenham Manor after he was originally evicted in April, subsequently reoccupied it and was removed from the property again in August. The charge assumes that following the original eviction, he is no longer the owner of Bodenham Manor. Mr Taylor's defence is that the eviction was fraudulent and he is still the owner and thus he could not be guilty of trespass. The judge has ordered that the CPS provide evidence of ownership. Separately, Mr Taylor brought a private prosecution for assault against the bailiffs that evicted him from Bodenham Manor in August. The charge seemed to be based on the assertion that since the original eviction was fraudulent the bailiffs were acting unlawfully by removing him. However, as they are entitled to do, the CPS took over and discontinued the case. Essentially both cases hinge on the validity of the original and subsequent evictions. Given that the private prosecution has failed one must wonder about the remaining case.