Guy Taylor - The Magna Carta Man of the UK

[littleFred]

Like most things that once seemed like a good idea but turn out not to be, I expect WeRe cheque-books will eventually appear on ebay.

[littleFred]

Guy Taylor wins in court against a judge!

Well, a "grand jury" in south Wales has found that a judge has a case to answer for "misconduct in public office". This verdict will be given to a magistrates' court.

What will happen then? At a guess, the magistrate will say, "Huh? What am I supposed to do with this?"

Of course, private individuals can lay information alleging a criminal offence at a magistrates' court, and proceed with a private prosecution. At any stage, the Crown Prosecution Service can take over the case, and may decide to discontinue it.

[grixit]

Like most things that once seemed like a good idea but turn out not to be, I expect WeRe cheque-books will eventually appear on ebay.

I'm sure you can buy blue chip stamps and czarist war bonds on ebay too.

[vampireLOREN]

Guy Taylor wins in court against a judge!

Well, a "grand jury" in south Wales has found that a judge has a case to answer for "misconduct in public office". This verdict will be given to a magistrates' court.

What will happen then? At a guess, the magistrate will say, "Huh? What am I supposed to do with this?"

Of course, private individuals can lay information alleging a criminal offence at a magistrates' court, and proceed with a private prosecution. At any stage, the Crown Prosecution Service can take over the case, and may decide to discontinue it.

These raving furshlegginer people have too much time on the hands. Look at Leroy the Welsh Grand Juror ......what a cretin. Guy Taylor has the look of a man who sees an opportunity.
Do any of these people work? they are always available.

[PeanutGallery]

I do wonder what the difference is between a kangaroo court and a citizens grand jury?

[wanglepin]

I do wonder what the difference is between a kangaroo court and a citizens grand jury?

Not much in it I guess only a Citizens Grand Jury takes it show on the road. You know, like a travelling circus full of clowns.

[longdog]

I suspect a court of kangaroos, wallabies and assorted other marsupials would make more sense.

[notorial dissent]

I do wonder what the difference is between a kangaroo court and a citizens grand jury?

Rhetorical questions again, I take it? The kangaroo court generally has better manners and really knows what its intention is?? They also don't have delusions about what they're there for?

[rumpelstilzchen]

Does anybody know what happened with Guy Taylor's "real" court case? The one where he wrote on GOOF back in October:

Hi all . Just a brief update - yesterday we attended Hereford Magistrates Court to lay a private Criminal Prosecution against the director (and Bailiff) of UK Evict for their unlawful action of forcibly removing me from Bodenham Manor in April. We have been attempting to get this prosecution through for some time and yesterday we were finally successful. We have more charges to follow involving the fake writ that was used to facilitate this crime. I will be doing a you tube video later today with full details. Thanks to all who have supported us in this - Guy

Did anthing ever come of this?

[littleFred]

In a recent video, when asked about his action against the bailiffs, Guy said something to the effect of, "Nothing came of it. The CPS took it over and dropped it."

[notorial dissent]

In a recent video, when asked about his action against the bailiffs, Guy said something to the effect of, "Nothing came of it. The CPS took it over and dropped it."

Well, imagine that, and a flaming great surprise to no one I am sure, except possibly him.

[littleFred]

Indeed. I would suppose that the CPS and the courts would want to stamp on corrupt bailiffs. It is in the public interest to prosecute corrupt bailiffs. Even if we assume that Guy is correct that the CPS and courts are corrupt, I'm sure they would want bailiffs to do as they are told. So I can only assume the CPS did not think there was a "realistic prospect of conviction".

[Normal Wisdom]

Does anybody know what happened with Guy Taylor's "real" court case? The one where he wrote on GOOF back in October:

Hi all . Just a brief update - yesterday we attended Hereford Magistrates Court to lay a private Criminal Prosecution against the director (and Bailiff) of UK Evict for their unlawful action of forcibly removing me from Bodenham Manor in April. We have been attempting to get this prosecution through for some time and yesterday we were finally successful. We have more charges to follow involving the fake writ that was used to facilitate this crime. I will be doing a you tube video later today with full details. Thanks to all who have supported us in this - Guy

Did anthing ever come of this?

It was my understanding that the CPS took it over and dropped the case too, but I was told a while ago that this is incorrect. I'm far from certain that my contact has got it right but I understand that Guy has another court case in June.
I don't know exactly what the cause of action is but as far as I can see it, he has to prove that the original eviction from Bodenham Manor was unlawful. In that case he could not be guilty of trespass when he re-entered it last summer. He would then potentially have a case against bailiffs etc.

Of course he still has the underlying issue that he claims that he was swindled out of about £900k by the bank and that he has receipts to prove that he made the loan repayments at his local branch in cash. All this would be interesting enough but a bit like Tom Crawford's endowment mortgage, the main issue has been somewhat sidelined by his insistence that the court or rather the people pretending that they are a court are perpetrating another fraud on him and everyone else using fraudulent documents.

[littleFred]

He would then potentially have a case against bailiffs etc.

Not against the bailiffs, I think.

If the courts give the bailiffs a warrant, they should do what it says. Their job isn't to evaluate whether the court was correct to issue the warrant. If Guy had every right to be there and wasn't trespassing, he still wouldn't have a case against the bailiffs. (That's my understanding. I'm open to being corrected, but I don't see how bailiffs can be expected to re-try the case.)

If Guy wins a case that says the property was his when he "trespassed", and perhaps even still is his, then I suppose the courts would unwind the various processes that have occurred, such as the property sale to the developer, putting Guy back in the position he was in before he was evicted.

[Hercule Parrot]

If Guy wins a case that says the property was his when he "trespassed", and perhaps even still is his, then I suppose the courts would unwind the various processes that have occurred, such as the property sale to the developer, putting Guy back in the position he was in before he was evicted.

He would have to win that case in a very senior case, if the outcome was to reverse various previous judgements. Appeal or Supreme Court, I would guess. And he won't last 5 minutes with the exceptional forensic talent at that level.

[littleFred]

Indeed. I would love to hear them doing battle with the highly unexceptional Mr Ebert. In theory, Guy has lost nothing by the eviction and sale as the sale price went towards paying his debts.

I don't know anything about property law or Guy's argument, but he seems to rely on technicalities raised by the two Michaels and Mr E. I fear these are doomed, and Guy is merely increasing his costs.

[vampireLOREN]

Indeed. I would love to hear them doing battle with the highly unexceptional Mr Ebert. In theory, Guy has lost nothing by the eviction and sale as the sale price went towards paying his debts.

I don't know anything about property law or Guy's argument, but he seems to rely on technicalities raised by the two Michaels and Mr E. I fear these are doomed, and Guy is merely increasing his costs.

As with the unfortunate and rather foolish Ken recently evicted, Tom Crawford and others there is always the missing portion to their stories, something not ringing true.
I don't know what lies behind this??? greed maybe ....a genuine desire to right a wrong?
Tom apparently had some history of arrears, you would need to know them to get the truth.
What a strange bunch.

[Normal Wisdom]

He would then potentially have a case against bailiffs etc.

Not against the bailiffs, I think.

If the courts give the bailiffs a warrant, they should do what it says. Their job isn't to evaluate whether the court was correct to issue the warrant. If Guy had every right to be there and wasn't trespassing, he still wouldn't have a case against the bailiffs. (That's my understanding. I'm open to being corrected, but I don't see how bailiffs can be expected to re-try the case.)

If Guy wins a case that says the property was his when he "trespassed", and perhaps even still is his, then I suppose the courts would unwind the various processes that have occurred, such as the property sale to the developer, putting Guy back in the position he was in before he was evicted.

Sorry, I should have made it clear I was looking at it from Guy's perspective. I am sure you're right about the bailiffs but as far as Guy is concerned everyone is guilty except him. I think his case is that the eviction was the result of a conspiracy by a group of bankers, court officials, judges and bailiffs to defraud him of his property. The usual allegation seems to be that they hire a court room and hold a fake court session to issue the "warrant". In his reasoning that is why the judge won't sign the warrant because he knows it's fraud and then he is personally liable. Quite why a judge would be worried about this when he part of a major fraud enterprise is still beyond me.

[PeanutGallery]

So Guy's belief is that the courts are corrupt and out to get him in a massive conspiracy involving the Judges and to prove this he's going to argue his case in one of the courts that he thinks are corrupt and out to get him in front of one of the Judges he's already convinced is corrupt.

At least when he loses he can blame it on the courts being corrupt and out to get him and not on his inability to understand very simple things.

[littleFred]

... I was looking at it from Guy's perspective. I am sure you're right about the bailiffs but as far as Guy is concerned everyone is guilty except him.

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes. I think a major misunderstanding of SovCits is to think of "everyone else" as the same. In particular they conflate police, CPS, courts and bailiffs. When a court delivers a verdict they don't like, it is all a conspiracy of corruption. SovCits have a vague sense that courts are in charge, hence Peter and his ilk creating their own courts that are "superior" to the conventional ones. SovCits decide what the roles and responsibilities should be, and complain when these bodies act outside the SovCit fantasies.

Banks, councils and anyone else gets thrown into the mix until the SovCit has no idea who he is complaining about or why.