Guy Taylor - The Magna Carta Man of the UK

[JamesVincent]

I have a feeling that 'knowing too much' may be a slight exaggeration.

I got turned down for a carpenter job a few years back which, considering that I actually am a carpenter, among other things, may seem kinda weird but this was the company's explanation. I was too experienced as a carpenter to be an apprentice or something simple like a framer but not experienced enough in how they did things to be a supervisor. I've also noticed a tendency in companies now to want to hire someone with no real experience so that they don't have to untrain any bad habits or to retrain someone with different experiences.

[KickahaOta]

I've never heard of a computer programmer being turned down for 'knowing too much'. Given that it's the sort of working activity that rewards an individual for their knowledge and the application of that knowledge to solve problems.

I have a feeling that 'knowing too much' may be a slight exaggeration.

At least in the US, 'you know too much' can indeed be a problem for particular positions.

Suppose I've worked for years at Company X on Product Q. I know a lot about the ins and outs of Product Q's code. Eventually I leave the company, for whatever reason, and start looking for new work.

Company Y develops a product that competes directly against Product Q, and does many of the same things as Product Q. One would think that my knowledge of Product Q would be a huge plus. But there's a big potential legal problem -- Company X could later sue Company Y for patent infringement (or in some cases for copyright infringement), and the fact that I could potentially have told Company Y all about the guts of Product Q could turn out to be a real problem for the defense.

Company Z develops a product that doesn't compete directly against Product Q, but instead interoperates with it -- say, some sort of fancy customized user interface for Product Q. There I would likely be a more highly prized candidate, because my experience with Product Q would bring many of the same benefits without nearly as many of the risks.

[Normal Wisdom]

Guy Taylor was back in court yesterday to further his defence against the charge of trespass at Bodenham Manor. He still seems to be basing the defence on the claim that his original eviction was the result of fraudulent documents and so he was and still is the owner of the Manor.

He was on UK Column News yesterday to explain what happened. Not too much information but of course it's all going terribly well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWk__kk0sUc

I can't help thinking he is being allowed to make a huge mountain out of a molehill that should be easily stomped upon.

[wanglepin]

Jesus, that man Taylor can be seriously tedious. There is a name for the thing he is suffering from, it just won't come to me at the moment. He must know by now (after all his forensic training, which has been as useful as a nipple on a balloon) that he doesn't stand a chance of getting his "stolen property" back.

[PeanutGallery]

I believe the word you are looking for Wanglepin is "Idiocy" compounded by delusions of intelligence. Guy is an idiot who thinks he is smart and is plainly nowhere near as smart as he thinks he is.

Take for example the courts refusal to allow him to summon the previous Judge, the court rejected this because the papers Guy submitted were not in the correct format, Guy thinks this is interesting as he plans to argue that the papers the court permitted in relation to the eviction were not in the correct format.

It is notable that Guy doesn't consider that he might not know what the correct format is, and therefore be mistaken about the validity of the eviction documents (which would be reasonable, given that he a) was unable to write a document in a format acceptable to the court; and b) has failed to recognise the validity of documents the courts accepted;) Guy instead thinks that because he can't write something to the satisfaction of a court somebody else couldn't either.

Guy is well on the way to becoming listed as a vexatious litigant, unfortunately until that happens the courts have a duty to entertain him. They cannot write off his argument until he has made it, if it is irrelevant or otherwise an abuse of the courts time they can take steps to prevent it from continuing. Even though I don't think Guy's arguments hold water I don't see any reason or any good in stopping him from making them, in fact I see the possibility for injustice in preventing an argument due to the court showing any form of prejudice. Of course after the argument has been made, if it was a waste or abuse of the courts time, then Guy should face the consequences of his folly.

[littleFred]

I struggle to see signs of common sense in Guy Taylor. Sorry, I mean Guy of the family Taylor.

At a hearing in 2011, he threatened to arrest the entire court for contempt of court (huh? can a court be guilty of contempt of itself?), if they didn't find in his favour.

He was told not to record proceedings. If he did so, that would be contempt of court.

How do I know this? Because he continued to record the proceedings, and published them on YouTube.

[Normal Wisdom]

I agree that he is entitled to his day in court but he seems to be having quite a few days without much being resolved. It surely cannot be very difficult for the CPS to prove that the original eviction was properly done although no doubt GT will still deny that he actually owed any money anyway.

[bmxninja357]

but how did he fare?

peace.
ninj

[Flying Daggers]

I just find it funny that the Manga Carta man, couldn't even spell Carta correctly when he set up his twitter account

https://twitter.com/magnacartman

Guy Taylor
@Magnacartman

Living on the frontline of lawful Rebellion. Exposing and prosecuting corporate criminals and helping the victims of crimes

[grixit]

Wasn't "Magna Cartman" the name of an episode of South Park? The one in which the town temporarily becomes a feudal monarchy?

[ArthurWankspittle]

"Respect mah authoritah!"


(OK I think that was a different episode....)

[wanglepin]

Court Seals & Court Stamps explained By Guy Taylor. This is worth a watch.
http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... MvhBjSsV8E

[Normal Wisdom]

Court Seals & Court Stamps explained By Guy Taylor. This is worth a watch

Yes, I watched it this afternoon, took a few notes and am just trying to digest it. My initial reaction is that assuming what he says about the appearance of the court documents is correct, what I might put down as the courts having a fairly slapdash approach to procedure is, to Guy and his pals clear evidence of a conspiracy of individuals within the court system to defraud people of their houses for their own personal gain (I think that is what he is alleging). The lack of a signature or embossed seal on a document seems somewhat slight evidence from which to project a web of corruption.

[PeanutGallery]

The reference to 'seal' is a misunderstanding on the part of Taylor. He's expecting a seal to be an impression made in wax (as they were back in medieval times) nowadays the courts use a stamp to make the impression in ink.

This has a number of benefits, because a wax seal isn't permanent (and traditionally was never intended to be such, it was a way of ensuring that only the intended recipient read the message after they broke the seal). Equally by using a stamp, to create a seal, the court creates a document that can be photocopied, as such a paper trail can be created, everyone can have a copy. Guy thinks that a rubber stamp can't be a seal, when the courts in practice have disagreed and the change has helped the courts move with the times and adapted to a system that allows for costs to be saved. If the courts had to put an embossed seal on each document or order they generated, and on each copy of that order, costs would be significantly higher.

Guy also places a great stock in a 'wet ink signature' this is again archaic, the courts allow for signatures to be made by electronic means (CPR Rule 5.3). The only provision is that the name of the signatory must also be printed clearly, again this helps to save on costs and helps to speed up the court process. It allows a Judge to work more efficiently.

As an example I recently received a copy of a court order from the Queens Bench division of High Court (unrelated to any Sovrun shenanigans) now the Queens Bench is considered the target court for Sovrun's it's stamped and doesn't have a wet ink signature. But even though it lacks these essential elements (according to Guy) that hasn't prevented litigation from continuing or made the decision any less financially detrimental to the government departments it concerns (in fact a conservative estimate is that this order will cost two government bodies somewhere in the region of 20-30k).

Guy thinks that because the courts aren't doing what he thinks they should be doing that the courts are wrong. He doesn't consider that he might be mistaken about what a 'seal' is or what a signature needs to be or that the court might have a different definition or have moved forward with the times.

Guy also takes the view that because he could write up his own copy of a court order and put his own stamp on it, that that must be what the bailiffs are doing. They aren't. But because Guy could do it, they must be doing it. Guy's complaints can best be described as tilting at windmills.

[littleFred]

Corruption in our Courts - Guy Taylor 30-01-14

Guy says:

We want to examine our court files. We are entitled to do this under CPR 5.4.2 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 there's something wrong.

No, CPR 5.4.2 doesn't say that. The entire 5.4 is:

(1) A court or court office may keep a publicly accessible register of claims which have been issued out of that court or court office.

(2) Any person who pays the prescribed fee may, during office hours, search any available register of claims.

(Practice Direction 5A contains details of available registers).

So he can pay a fee and search any available registers. Sadly for Guy, Practice Direction 5a section 4.2 clearly says:

4.2 No registers of claims are at present available for inspection in county courts or in district registries or other offices of the High Court.

So if Guy goes into a county court demanding his rights under "CPR 5.4.2" he can expect to get precisely nothing. CPR doesn't say what Guy claims it does. And it is very easy to see this is not a simple misunderstanding. CPR is clear but Guy claims it says something entirely different.

I ask myself: has Guy read CPR 5.4.2 and knowingly lies about it? Or has he skim-read the rules and decided they say what he wants them to say, so he now believes his version is the truth?

But court staff helpfully see beyond Guy's delusions, and dig out documents. So Guy says we should look for the application form that initiated the claim.

On that application for claim form I should expect to see a court seal.

No, Guy. The court seals documents on issue (see CPR 2.6). CPR has no requirements that they seal their own file copies.

Brian Gerrish, the UK Column presenter, summarises Guy's garbage with a slide on the video saying:

As Lay People Our Advice is...

To serve a request and notice upon the court applying CPR 5.4.2 which once applied access to the Court files shall be granted within 48 hours

Brian, that is bad advice. If you could be bothered to check Guy's statements, you would know this.


Brian clarifies the nature of the seal: "It must actually distort the paper." Wrong. CPR 2.6 says:

(2) 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.

I can't find anything in CPR or elsewhere that says defendants are entitled to know what fees the claimant paid, nor to see receipts, nor to have a claim dismissed on the grounds that no court fee was paid. I assume this is more junk that Guy has invented.


Another slide, quoting from a letter Guy wrote to a court about his case, 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 r.5.4(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).

Brian says, "You are quoting their own rules, so there's no wriggle room." Guy says, "Yes, that's right.

But it isn't. That text is a mish-mash from Practice direction 5a. The 48-hours is the time for a party to the proceedings to produce documents, not the court.


The Civil Procedure Rules are long, involved and tedious. So are the rules of football. If an amateur lies or is deluded about the offside rule it's not a big problem. If an amateur lies or is deluded about rules the courts should follow, and therefore claims the courts are fraudulent, people will follow this false trail wasting time, effort and money. Do as Guy does, follow his advice and, like him, you can lose your home!

As Brian says:

If we are going to do something about this, it requires a lot of people to become informed and empowered ...

I entirely agree. But we need to be correctly informed, not deluded or lied to.

[littleFred]

For the benefit of non-Brits, I should explain that the offside rule permits the batsman to catch the ball, provided he then passes it backwards (not forwards) to the wicket-keeper. It only applies when the cricket match is within 5 miles of Mornington Crescent. Well, that's what I heard on YouTube, so it must be true.

[PeanutGallery]

LittleFred while I must commend your insightful summary of the relevant cpr rules and ability to highlight just how wrong Guy and Brian are I do feel that you are going to find yourself up the sticky side of a crickety bat tree if you try to explain the offside rule to our colonial friends after all they can't even agree on the number of downs you should have in football.

[Burnaby49]

Please, keep away from the rules of cricket. I remember once when I was pubbing in Britain and an important match was on and was shown in all the pubs' TVs. That one game seemed to last a week. I'd go to a new town and the same game would still be on. This wasn't playoffs or a series of games in the final. It was a single game. Maybe they're playing it yet.

I'll take Irish hurling any time. That game is real pub entertainment, mayhem with a clock running.

[Normal Wisdom]

Thanks Peanut and littleFred, that's brilliant stuff about the seals and signatures. It's saved me a lot of internet searching and furrowed brows.

I guess we should bear in mind that Guy's source for a lot of this "information" is the redoubtable Mr Ebert.

Burnaby - only last year when in Nova Scotia I watched an international cricket match with my Canadian buddy. He appeared genuinely interested in understanding the rules. Unfortunately, I was about 20 minutes in and was just about to explain for the third time that the match can last 5 days and the result can still be a draw when he remembered that had to take the trash out. It took quite a while.

[littleFred]

True, I might be maligning Guy. Perhaps he is merely gullible enough to believe Mr Ebert who thinks that blatantly lying to a judge is a good idea.