Guy Taylor - The Magna Carta Man of the UK

[PeanutGallery]

Previously I've mentioned Guy Taylor, certainly if you follow the shenanigans of Hannah Shotbolt, Mark "Ceylon" Haines et al you will have come across his name. Guy is one of the major players in the UK Freeman scene. He's also gotten himself into some reasonably serious financial trouble through following woo and talking himself into trouble.

Now I don't know much about Guy's history, certainly he's been in prison a couple of times (he is very open about this, during the '80's he admits he was a naughty boy in a scheme that involved counterfeit dollars and was sentenced to five years prison for this) and claims to have served time with at least two different solicitors. We also know that his Dad did quite well for himself because one of the properties Guy's dad managed to acquire owned was the now-infamous Bodenham Manor.

Guy admits to following the teachings of one Robert Menard, the befezzed and befuddled Canuck who made quite a name for himself in the Canadian freeman world by actually being taken seriously enough to get on the television. I can only imagine it was an especially slow news day in Canada-land.

When Guy's father died he needed to take out a loan to cover the death duties of his fathers estate. The amount of this loan was £900,000. Now Guy claims that the bank manager, who he believes gets a commission based on the amount of money he loans out, then fraudulently took out a second loan used that to pay off the first loan and because Guy didn't take out the second loan he no longer needed to make any payments on the first loan it having been paid off. Of course I would trust that Guy is giving a completely honest account and wouldn't make any comment that he is an admitted and convicted fraudster.

Of course the courts didn't quite agree with this interpretation and instead allowed the banks to repossess the rather lovely Bodenham manor (so lovely that when Guy's dad passed on he was buried there, a fact that Guy abuses to assert his claim on the property (admittedly this problem could be solved by giving Guy a shovel and asking him to take his Dad with him when he leaves)). It was then sold at auction for £300,000. Guy didn't waste time filing appeals or mounting up the paperwork, instead he had a plan. Guy's plan was a simple one. He returned to the manor with a mob and the required video cameras. They then effectively turfed out the new owner (who was apparently living on-site in a caravan while renovating the actual manor) and then took 'lawful possession' of the manor and searched through the belongings of the new owner.

It was triumphed as quite a victory for the Freeman types in the UK. Much was said of the heroes and heroines of Bodenham who had risen up to restore common law. Unfortunately for them, the nemesis of the Freeman, the very antithesis of common law was about to rear it's ugly head in the form of the police enforcing an act of Parliament.

You see the thing Guy hadn't worked out was, that legally he was no longer the owner of the property, he had no more right to be there than I would have (well less actually he'd already been asked to leave by the new owner on a visit he made before his attempt to regain the family seat). Over in the UK we have a new act of Parliament, which made squatting (to take up residence in a property without the owners consent) in a residential building (like a great big manor house) a crime.

The police to their credit knew better than to charge in once the mob had assembled and waited. Then en-masse, in part because they likely didn't know how many people had remained in the manor house, they came and arrested Guy. He and a man called David Carey have both been charged with the offence of squatting in a residential building.

Now you'd think this would be the end of it. But as we have seen, all too many times before, these Freemen just don't know when to give up. Since Guy's arrest, his being charged (and while not yet convicted) he is now planning to return to the court to show that the manor really is his (it isn't).

[Normal Wisdom]

Sounds like the first of Guy Taylor's next batch of planned court appearances took place today. The following was posted on GOODF and the Rainbow Ark (Paula Campbell's) Facebook page. It will be interesting to see just how much of a victory this really was.

"Update on Guy Taylor's Court hearing this morning at Hereford Magistrates..
Another good day, the judge has now set CRIMINAL charges against the bailiffs who "took" the Manor, so ipso facto the whole case concerning the Manor must now be fraudulent,, so this is now two sets of bailiffs charged,, next will be the police who aided them.."

[ArthurWankspittle]

Couple of immediate problems there, if they were in a Magistrates Court they weren't in front of a judge. Judges (nor Magistrates) AFAIK don't bring criminal charges against anyone.

[Normal Wisdom]

To clarify the triumphant messages from his supporters, it appears that Guy Taylor has initiated private criminal proceedings against the bailiffs who took possession of Bodenham Manor alleging assault. This has to come before a magistrate although there is no indication that he has to make any judgement on the strength of the case at this stage i.e. (from http://thejusticegap.com/2012/06/privat ... l’s-right/):

"In order to bring a private prosecution, you can seek the advice of a lawyer who will tell you whether there is sufficient evidence to launch a private prosecution. If there is insufficient evidence available, you or your lawyer can utilise the services of a private investigator to obtain further evidence if necessary. It is, again, important to speak to a reputable investigator to ensure the evidence is not illegally obtained. Once the evidence has been reviewed, and charges decided upon, a prosecution is commenced by ‘laying an information’ at a Magistrates Court. The ‘information’ provides details of the offence alleged and the relevant legislation which creates the offence. The Magistrates court will then issue a summons, which is served on the accused, along with the date on which they must attend court for their first appearance to face the charges.

I assume that GT has dispensed with advice from the "corrupt" legal profession and he and his advisors have decided there is sufficient evidence to proceed. It appears that the magistrate has issued a summons as requested. However, GT should beware ...

"The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has the right to take over any private prosecution (under section 6(2) of the Prosecution of Offences Act) and either continue with the prosecution or discontinue it. However, the CPS is only likely to discontinue the case where there isn’t sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction or the CPS do not deem the prosecution to be in the public interest. For example, a prosecution is not in the public interest if it is likely to damage the interests of justice and if it is vexatious or malicious. It is therefore very important that prior to commencing a private prosecution, the advice of a lawyer is sought, particularly the advice of an experienced criminal prosecutor. The Prosecutor should have experience in prosecutions and be familiar with the Code for Crown Prosecutors test applied by the CPS, to ensure that the case meets the Code test and to avoid the possibility that the CPS may discontinue the prosecution in the future."

[PeanutGallery]

As shocking as it may seem Guy may have been doing things correctly in going to the magistrates to get a summons issued for his private prosecution. This is just laying an information at the court to get the summons issued. It’s a simple, basic procedure and starts the ball rolling. The magistrates haven’t considered the merits of the case or prospects of conviction or what evidence is available. You cannot start a private prosecution by any other means so following this process is at least correct.

Now without seeing the evidence relating to this allegation of assault we cannot say how strong or weak a case Guy may or may not have. It is possible that his private prosecution might succeed. However I suspect that an application will be made to the CPS either by the bailiff or his solicitor for the CPS to take charge, they will then apply the evidentiary test (does the case have a reasonable prospect of success) the public interest test and if Guy’s claim fails they will stop the prosecution. While I can’t comment on the evidence or really debate the public interest aspect (without knowing what actual evidence there is of what happened it would be wild speculation), I can comment on the fact that it would seem, to a lay observer, that Guy’s actions regarding this property can be described as unreasonable and vexatious. Based purely on his arrest for reoccupying the property and his protracted legal battles involving everyone associated with the repossession it would not be an uphill struggle to paint Guy as having a malicious or vexatious reason behind this prosecution. This would also be a strong reason for the CPS to stop the prosecution (although if the evidence was strongly in Guy’s favour, it would be highly contentious (Of course even if the evidence wasn’t in Guy’s favour (or actually existing) it wouldn’t stop those fine folks at GOODF from considering it contentious anyway)).

[PeanutGallery]

Guy has a new video up - well sort of it was produced and is being hosted by Mark "Ceylon" Laining and was from an event where Guy, Tom Crawford and Wesley Ahmed gave a talk on the various Freeman concepts to a bunch of gullible idiots. My general feeling on this event is that the knowledge and explanations being passed on are like asking a blind man to watch a silent movie and then give a talk on the plot.

Guy doesn't say anything he hasn't said before, although he does confirm that his plans involving Bodenham Manor are that if his latest lawful scheme (either the private prosecution or a hearing Guy has somehow contrived at court to determine who owns the manor I am not sure) falls foul he will go back and retake possession. Because if it wound up getting you arrested the first time, it's sure to work right after you've lost at court.

Guy's video is here for those with an interest in this stupidity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyaU3rl5ZDQ

In the third part video, Guy confirms that they have been given some tools by Mr Ebert. Who has apparently given Guy and Tom some documents that grab the banks by the balls. That would be the same Mr Ebert mentioned elsewhere on this very forum viewtopic.php?f=47&t=10214&p=177022&hilit=Ebert#p177022. Guy, Tom et al may think they are taking advice from someone with a 100% track record, although they seem unaware that the record is one of failure.

This video is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9yhb8uezDA

[Normal Wisdom]

Bit of an update on Guy Taylor's attempt to recover ownership of Bodenham Manor.

As we recall GT was evicted from Bodenham Manor in April and the property sold by the bank to settle outstanding debts. It's no great surprise that GT considers this was the result of fraud (isn't everything?) and thus he reoccupied the property, "evicting" the new owner and was subsequently arrested and charged with trespass.

His defence to the charge is that since the original eviction was the result of fraud, he is still the legal owner and thus not guilty. The magistrates adjourned proceeding for 42 days (later extended until today) to allow the CPS to provide proof of ownership.

Separately, GT has taken out a private prosecution against the bailiffs that carried out the original eviction in April. This is on the basis that because the warrant for eviction was fraudulent they committed assault when they carried him out of the premises. The director of the bailiff company (UK Evict) has been summoned to Hereford Magistrates Court on 19th November to answer those charges.

I would be amazed if GT can prove his fraud allegations so he should be found guilty of trespass and the private prosecution should fail but I'm not counting any chickens. In any case it is safe to believe that this will not be the end of the matter.

Edit for typos.

[Normal Wisdom]

Update to the update:

A chaotic day at Hereford Magistrates Court on 7th November where everyone turned up to see the proof of ownership from the new owners of Bodenham Manor (and thereby landing a significant blow to Guy Taylor's claims of fraud etc). Everyone but the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) who were supposed to be bringing the proof that is.

I hope that incompetence by the authorities isn't going to give GT an opportunity to claim another "success".

[Hercule Parrot]

It would be a very bad idea to allow this charlatan to get away with a home invasion by mob. Others will feel emboldened. But I wouldn't be surprised if CPS do bungle this and end up discontinuing the prosecution. They were not especially organised and professional before the budget cuts, and now they seem to be in constant disarray.

Do you happen to know what date the hearing was adjourned to, Normal?

[Normal Wisdom]

According to what I found, Guy Taylor is turning up at Hereford Magistrates today but I don't know whether this is because he knows that his case will be heard.

The CPS sought an extension to the original 42 days set by the magistrate because the lead prosecutor was on holiday. This application was made at Worcester magistrates court so it's possible that they went there on Friday instead of Hereford. Of course GT and his supporters are spinning it as delaying tactics because the CPS know they don't have a leg to stand on.

I guess a complicating issue is also that they are making a criminal prosecution (for squatting) on the back of a decision about a civil case (a possession order). One would think that all they need to do is to produce the possession order to justify the squatting charge. GT's case is that the possession order was fraudulent i.e. he is defending a criminal charge by saying that the preceding civil action was wrong but whether the magistrates will want to rule on this at the same time is a moot point.

[PeanutGallery]

I wouldn't think that would be a complicating issue, the rules of precedence would make it unlikely that the magistrates would overturn the possession order (as their is a procedure in place to challenge these and Guy Taylor has likely exhausted this (or become time-barred) which is why he's clutching at the Sovrun straw). The magistrates shouldn't view it as being a complicated matter at all.

Since the magistrates can't rule on the decision that the possession order was fraudulent they must accept it as having been valid. A lesser court cannot overturn a decision of a higher court (which was explained to me as being a key part of the common law system - the real one not the Sovrun's imagined version).

Guy may attempt to argue that the two types of court, criminal and civil, have different standards of proof but that isn't relevant here because the two courts are being asked to decide very different questions. Guy is hoping that the magistrates will answer a question that the court won't be asking of them and that has already been answered at the appropriate venue.

[Hercule Parrot]

I agree with Peanut. The legal advisor should make it clear to the bench that it is not within their jurisdiction to question or rehear matters which were dealt with in superior courts (they shouldn't need to be told).

GT will probably then defend on the grounds of s144(1)(b) - requiring that "the person knows or ought to know that he or she is a trespasser" (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/201 ... 44/enacted). He will assert an honest belief that he was not a trespasser, by virtue of being the lawful owner of the building.

This is where magistrates can be wonderfully pragmatic, and just say "we don't believe that you honestly held that belief". Or they can be persuaded that an element of reasonable doubt exists, and acquit. We must hope for a stout-hearted bench, or this tactic will proliferate.

[PeanutGallery]

Thank you for your comments Hercule and welcome to Quatloos, it's nice to have another UK member on here, fighting against the wave of Sovrun lunacy.

Guy isn't challenging the ownership of the manor in any venue that would be appropriate and his tactics (both the seizure and the private prosecution) will not lead to his restoration as the owner. That matter has been dealt with and concluded and any question in regard to the validity of the documents must be dealt with by the higher courts.

What the magistrates should look at is if Guy ought to know that he or she is a trespasser. I don't think we need much from the bench, beyond a simple examination of what Guy did or did not know.

Certainly Guy knew that he had been evicted from the manor, that their had been a possession hearing. Guy had doubtless tried to fight this in the courts and had failed. Guy also knew that the property was auctioned off (by Barnard Marcus IIRC) and had passed into new ownership. Guy knew that the new owner was resident at the property, he had previously gone to the new owner in order to advise them of his 'claim'. Guy knew that on that occasion he had been told to '**** off' asked to depart. On that occasion Guy had ****ed off departed when asked. This history is taken from a description of the events given by Guy Taylor over several YouTube videos.

I don't see how their can be any argument that Guy ought not to have known he was trespassing, when he had previously been told he was and had left the property on that occasion. This should be an easy win for the CPS.

Anyway I must be off for now, I have to prepare for a rather interesting mediation session tomorrow to try and settle a Judicial Review claim before it gets a LOT more expensive.

[Fmotlgroupie]

The "I was too stupid to know it was wrong" has caused a bit of mischief in the US (eg the Cheek defence) and in Canada (it took a decade and three trials to convict Jack Klundert for red-handed tax evasion). Hopefully the English courts will be less credulous.

[Normal Wisdom]

"I was too stupid to know" definitely won't be Guy Taylor's defence. There are numerous videos of him lecturing police, court officials etc. and his approach is that "my team of experts and I know way more about the law than any of you and most people in the legal profession. The few that know that they are committing fraud keep their names out of any documentation so I cannot sue them or issue a commercial lien".

[PeanutGallery]

Of course Guy isn't only complaining about losing his manor to the courts. He also seems to think it's an act of terrorism. What does someone do when confronted with terrorism, well you contact the security services. In a new upload to YouTube Guy Taylor has accused MI5 of paedophilia, terrorising ants, not listening to his bullshit and being uncooperative.

That's right Guy has now taken his Sovrun arguments to MI5 (the UK's domestic security service) and raised his concerns there. The phone operator doesn't seem to fall for Guy's protestations that he needs someone to come round and talk to them about this terrorism they've been subjected too and suggests that if they are being threatened they should go to the police. To the credit of whoever answers the phone at the spookhouse he seems used to dealing with people like Guy (and probably has encountered much crazier).

The video ends with Ceylon announcing that they are on their way to the station and promises a part 2.

Of course Guy and Ceylon may have misspelled the word "Anti" and not actually meant that MI5 are terrorising our friends in the family Formicidae.

[grixit]

Thing is, british officials have already dealt with the Raving Monster Looney Party.

[Normal Wisdom]

Having repetitively paraded their idiot theories before the police, various courts etc. without success what is the sovs obvious conclusion?

a) We might be wrong

b) We are the victims of domestic terrorism which should be dealt with by UK security services

Cue the call to MI5 ....

I can't help noticing that for a group gathered from all over the country the room seems rather empty. It also grinds my gears that yet again the strings are clearly being pulled "off camera" by our dear friend Ceylon. He seems to specialise in these "grand gestures".

[Hercule Parrot]

"I was too stupid to know" definitely won't be Guy Taylor's defence. There are numerous videos of him lecturing police, court officials etc. and his approach is that "my team of experts and I know way more about the law than any of you...

Which demonstrates his sincere belief that he had not been lawfully evicted/repo'd, and he was not therefore a trespasser.

However I agree that the Mags should consider 'ought to know' as entirely proven, and convict upon that basis.

[PeanutGallery]

It seems that Guy's first attempt to prosecute the bailiff for his alleged assault has failed, at least that is what Guy told that bastion of news the UkColumn. The CPS have basically taken charge of the prosecution and decided to discontinue it due to what I can only speculate is the complete lack of merit of his case against the bailiff. Of course Guy views this as an admission that he was right and that they are running scared. Guy is undaunted by this and plans to pursue a stronger charge related to his belief that the warrant for possession was fraudulent. At face value this action seems to have identical prospects of success as his earlier charge.

Guy then goes on to talk about the CPS and his view that the original eviction was false. He points to a refusal by a Judge at Hereford court to allow access to the files to the Police. This refusal is fuelling his belief that a conspiracy exists.

Guy then talks about his phone call to MI5 and the later visit to the police station. Guy of course describes the group has being a jury and went to report the crime. He doesn't say more about it and is waiting on the GOOFers to take it further (presumably with a charge of wasting police time).

Finally Guy talks about the patron saint of Uk Sov's Mr Ebert and how he has been fighting a battle against eviction for the past year and decides that he and a couple of hundred mates plan to turn up to prevent Mr Eberts eviction by asking to see the documents, then staging an arrest when the documents turn out to be fraudulent. Guy is of course already convinced that the documents would be fraudulent, presumably because they haven't been thrice turned widdershins.