Guy Taylor - The Magna Carta Man of the UK

[Normal Wisdom]

Thanks for the update Peanut. I had assumed that Guy's call to MI5 was prompted by failure in court but I hadn't seen any confirmation.

One wonders what Mr Ebert can have done to get himself evicted again. Apparently the crowd of supporters turning up at Mr Ebert's flat tomorrow is to ensure that they are not "intimidated" by a couple of bailiffs although on GOODF they are bemoaning the possibility that the bailiffs might sneakily turn up unannounced on another day as they did at Cleveland Rhoden's place recently.

I assume that an eviction can take place "on or after" the notified date so it would be a good strategy to cause the brethren to incur the cost of travelling on the specified day and then not turn up for another week or so.

Edit: although it appears that his private prosecution against the bailiff has been dismissed by the CPS, there is still the question of the initial charge of trespass. GT is insistent that the CPS has not produced the proof of ownership from the new owner that the judge requested and he is turning up at Hereford Magistrates Court on 3rd December assuming that the case will be dismissed.

[PeanutGallery]

Mr Ebert may not necessarily have done anything wrong to be evicted. If he is in rental accommodation he may be being evicted under Section 21 of the Housing Act which is a non fault action. Essentially it allows a landlord to repossess the property from a tenant without their being some breach from the tenant. Reasons why a landlord may take this action can include having a plan to sell the property (tenanted properties sell for less as the market for them is smaller). Section 8 is generally used when the tenant is in some way at fault, of course a landlord is welcome to make an application to the court using whichever route they wish and there is nothing in law that would prevent them from running both strands at the same time (such that the Section 21 is a backup if the Section 8 fails). Generally it is more beneficial for the tenant to be evicted under Section 21, as the council can't find them intentionally homeless and as such shirk the responsibility of rehousing them. However this information is superfluous, we simply don't have enough information on the whys of Mr Ebert's pending eviction to comment on whether he has done anything wrong.

In regard to the bailiffs turning up "on or after" it's not really something I am that familiar with, I would assume that they would have some flexibility in regard to time but perhaps not in regard to date. It's also worth noting that county court bailiffs are often dealing with a backlog of appointments and are required to notify the tenant of the date they intend to turn up (so that the tenant can arrange to have any furniture or other possessions removed).

In regard to the question of the trespass charge it would seem, based on Guy's account, that the CPS has prepared a somewhat comprehensive bundle. Guy's claim that the original court order was fraudulent is based on the Judge refusing to authorise the release of the court records. It would seem that Guy hasn't actually had sight of the disputed records and is basing his belief on a premise that if it were all above board they would let him see them.

Guy goes on and on about the courts being corrupt and commercial and no longer a place of justice while at the same time maintaining a belief that he will triumph. Of course by extolling this belief Guy is setting up for the moment of failure at which time his supporters will doubtless crow that Guy only lost because the system couldn't let him win and will doubtless take this failure to mean that Guy remains the rightful lord of Bodenham.

[Normal Wisdom]

It appears that the private prosecution mounted by Guy Taylor following his most recent removal from Bodenham Manor has not been taken over by the CPS and dropped (yet). GT has convinced the judge that he has additional evidence that has not been handed to the CPS and therefore there is a further hearing scheduled for 3rd December.

[PeanutGallery]

Well Guy had his hearing as the local rag the Hereford Times has reported.

Choice highlights include:

• Guy threatens to arrest the prosecutors (but who'd prosecute them)
• Prosecutors are clowns (Guy is not coulrophobic...yet)
• Guy tries to summon a Judge to court (Because Guy wants to be the Judge of that)
• Part of Guy is happy to go to trial (which part we don't know, likely not his brain)

Of course his application, which was to try and dismiss the charge of trespassing as an abuse of process was dismissed by the Judge and it looks like Guys had another great victory failure in court. Of course this hasn't stopped Guy from bringing another motion this time in a claim to do with Section 97 of the Magistrates Court Act (likely the summoning of the Judge to court). The date for that hearing is set as January 14th, while Guy's trespassing charge is scheduled for February.

[wanglepin]

Hello everyone. I am wanglepin an ex member of Goofers since yesterday ( banned no reason given, it may have had something to do with me re-posting the writ 66 from the deleted embarrassing thread that was taken down?) and other freeman forums.
They certainly do not like holes knocked in their crack pot ideas or in their contradictory statements full of lies, do they?
Here is the very unbalanced Guy Taylor in full denial of what happened at the Ebert Dr Cohen household
Notice he doesn't even mention that in his own case (yesterday) that:

District Judge Cadbury dismissed grounds for abuse of process and told Mr Taylor that he would be found not guilty at trial if the evidence did not support the case against him. He also set a date for a hearing on January 14 in relation to a new motion being brought by Mr Taylor under section 97 of the Magistrates Court Act.

http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/11642 ... _at_court/
Taylor's response to his sycophantic followers was;

yes, so it is getting very interesting now

It certainly is Mr T.

2:35 on wards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... s3CDHMIzek

[littleFred]

Good to see you here, wanglepin. Sorry you were chucked out of GOODF, but I was surprised you lasted as long as you did.

One of your links is broken: http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/11642 ... _at_court/

[Pottapaug1938]

Sites like GOODF are extremely intolerant of even the slightest hint of heresy. As I have said elsewhere, my family member who went by the name of Bobbinville was banned from another wackadooster site simply for being a "Quatlude", even though Bobbinville avoided arguing anything while on that site and merely offered a neutrally helpful comment from time to time. If I tried to post on any of them as Pottapaug1938, I would be lucky to get my first comment in before the ban came my way. In contrast, people from those sites who post here have to work hard, and break the rules loudly and repeatedly, to get moderated here, let alone banned.

[wanglepin]

One of your links is broken:

this should be ok.

http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/11642 ... _at_court/

Or just punch in Hereford times Guy Taylor

[wanglepin]

Double post. Sorry.

[Hercule Parrot]

Hello everyone. I am wanglepin an ex member of Goofers since yesterday ( banned no reason given, it may have had something to do with me re-posting the writ 66 from the deleted embarrassing thread that was taken down?) and other freeman forums.

Heh, we were watching you dodging through the flak like a plucky Wellington bomber over Hamburg. Your expulsion was inevitable, to prevent cognitive dissonance.

Welcome to Quatloos, where the truth may be spoken.

[PeanutGallery]

Guy has now released footage of the police action, which was likely disclosed to him as part of the rules of evidence.

It's a rather unique view of the eviction, being that it comes from the Police and not a jumped up heckler shouting about fraud. The video is available here.

[littleFred]

An Irish inernet radio show, Vin Sunday with Guy Taylor, 8 December 2014, has been released. It is nearly three hours long. Most of the program is mutual back-scratching, with a phone-in at the end. But we also get Guy's story, as related by Guy, and this interests me. It seems to explain how Guy got to where he currently is. I've rearranged his material into chronological order.

Prior to 2007, Guy's father owned property worth £4m. He owned this outright, with no debts. The property included a functional pub, another pub with eleven flats but burnt-out, and a mini industrial estate. He employed a solicitor (costing £30k per year), an accountant, etc.

In 2007, Guy's father died. Guy inherited the property. He decided to save money on the solicitor, and do legal work himself. He took out a loan for £824,000, intending to sell a property for £900,000. This would pay off the loan and death duties (aka inheritance tax).

[Woah, Hang on right there. Paying back a loan of £824,000 with £900,000 wouldn't leave much change: £76,000. So how much was the inheritance tax? I would expect 40% of £4m, perhaps with the first £650,000 tax-free. So the tax would be £1.34m or more. Normally, tax has to be paid before the inheritance can be claimed. The taxman would accept that Guy probably didn't have that cash to hand, so might have allowed him to sell some property first. Or he could borrow the money, pay the tax, and then the properties would be his.]

For the first year, Guy made the payments on the loan. Then he discovered the loan had been paid off, from another loan taken out in his name in April 2008 for £904,000, which he knew nothing about. He still had £250,000 in cash from the first loan, so he wouldn't have taken out another one. [This new loan for £904k, which was £80k more than the original, where did the extra £80k go? Guy doesn't comment on this.]

There was also an extra bank account. Someone opened a bank account in Guy's name, in Bristol. He doesn't say if the account was in credit or debit.

Okay. The only problem so far seems to be that the bank claimed Guy owed 10% more than he thought he did. But then the real problems started.

Barclays Bank said Guy hadn't paid since 2008, and they would start seizing properties. But Guy claims he had been paying (in cash) and had receipts to prove it. Guy sent Barclays a "notorial instrument" charging them with £100m based on the fraud against him, with "implied admission absent response". In other words, if you don't rebut this you accept it as true. The bank tried to auction off 3 properties, total value £1.6m: the running pub, the mini-industrial estate and the burnt-out pub, now bulldozed by Guy. They advertised through estate agents. Guy sent notorial instruments and commercial liens to the estate agents; they pulled out. The bank had appointed a receiver. Guy chased the receiver and locksmith etc from the mini-industrial estate.

[Woah, hang on. A receiver? Where did that come from? Was the bank claiming Guy was bankrupt?]

From then on, Guy tried to stop the bank from selling "his" property. Bodenham Manor was sold, but Guy's position is that it remains his. Guy is currently charged with trespass with intent to live there. His defence is that BM is his property, and that the CPS can't prove otherwise.

I speculate that Guy's problems started when he decided to sack the solicitor and do the legal stuff himself. I suspect he didn't understand what he was doing and didn't have a handle on the business and the paperwork.

Despite his experience, Guy seems to misunderstand legal processes. He thinks that court decisions and orders are made on paper. If they are not on paper, and signed and sealed, they are invalid. He thinks a stamp cannot be a seal. He thinks the court order is a piece of paper. That isn't my understanding.

I don't know when Guy stopped paying off his £824k loan, but it seems certain that at some time he did stop paying. So, as expected, the bank is getting its money back by selling the properties it has a charge on. Guy claims that there was never a charge on Bodenham Manor, and taking it from him was entirely illegal. I think Guy is mistaken.

I'm not a lawyer, and hold no brief for them, but I know my limits. Lawyers aren't cheap, but not using a lawyer can be more expensive.

Another word of advice for Guy: banks make mistakes. All institutions do, just as flesh-and-blood people do. When that happens, it's important to sit down and figure out what mistakes have occurred, and how to sort it out. Mistakes are often merely misunderstandings. Claiming £100m for fraud was probably counter-productive.

[grixit]

I'm guessing there's no point in asking if, when he let his father's lawyer go, whether he required the lawyer to give him a final report on whatever plans and research had been done recently. Like say, the feasibility of rebuilding the defunct pub and lodging as a tourist hotel or maybe a strip mall. Or any usage projection for the empty part of the land. Or even the possibility of trading some of it to the government as a park in exchange for a tax writeoff. He doesn't seem like the kind of person to think of such things.

[littleFred]

I see no evidence that Guy was ever an astute businessman. He may have been. Now he is too far down the rabbit-hole to believe anything a solicitor or banker tells him.

Re-reading my post above, a possible explanation is:

1. The account number of his £824,000 loan changed. These things do happen.

2. Guy didn't notice this. His cash payments went into a closed account.

3. So no payments went into his loan account, which swelled over the course of a year by 10%.

4. The bank notices this, and probably starts with polite letters to Guy.

5. Guy is certain he has made the payments, so he ignores the polite letters.

6. When the bank letters become more assertive, Guy sees the "new" loan account and accuses the bank of fraud, and everything goes pear-shaped.

This doesn't explain the Bristol bank account.

[ArthurWankspittle]

[Woah, Hang on right there. Paying back a loan of £824,000 with £900,000 wouldn't leave much change: £76,000. So how much was the inheritance tax? I would expect 40% of £4m, perhaps with the first £650,000 tax-free. So the tax would be £1.34m or more. Normally, tax has to be paid before the inheritance can be claimed. The taxman would accept that Guy probably didn't have that cash to hand, so might have allowed him to sell some property first. Or he could borrow the money, pay the tax, and then the properties would be his.]

Just to back up what has been said above, a very similar scenario played out with an acquaintance of mine. The sudden death of father left them with ~£4m worth of property and a ~£1+m tax bill. They could either re-mortgage the lot and pay the tax man or sell off parts. Either way the tax man would do a deal but IIRC they paid interest on the outstanding tax. This guy's figures don't stack up.

Now I've said that I wonder if part of the estate was in a limited company which would change the figures and also allow the possibility of the company being made bankrupt hence the mention of a receiver.

[Burnaby49]

Canada, happily, doesn't have an inheritance tax. We did until 1972 then scrapped it. I've never seen the logic of an inheritance tax apart from a straight greedy cash grab by governments. Why should the government get a pile of money when I die when the money and assets I bequeath to my kids has already been fully taxed before becoming part of my estate?

What happens in Canada is that, when I die, I'm deemed to have cashed out or sold all of my investments the moment immediately preceding my death at fair market value (but, significantly, not in anticipation of death. If my last moments are spent in a frantic attempt by medics to save me from a massive heart attack that is not factored into the CRA's equation). So, if I own stocks or an investment property (which I do, I have a rental apartment), they are deemed to be sold at my date of death. This covers all of my accrued tax liabilities. After these are paid off the remainder of my estate goes to my beneficiaries tax free.

I have a similar dispute with the American tax system and their gift tax. Again, we had one but now we don't. If I want to give my kids a pile of money to help them buy a home in Vancouver (and I did, necessary here) why should the government tax this when it comes from money that has already been taxed? The governments justifies this, and inheritance tax, on theoretical crap about sharing the wealth but it is just a way of extracting the maximum taxes they can from the populace.

[Normal Wisdom]

It seems that Bodenham Manor was used for commercial ventures by Guy's father - excerpt from a history of Bodenham Manor ...

"The Estate was bought by the Taylor family in 1987 and established a role in community life with function rooms, bars, rifle range, go-cart racing, paintball, restaurant and a gentleman’s club. Sadly the beauty of the land surrounding the manor escaped Ray Taylor who valued industry above nature and he granted the dumping of waste metals, tyres and other miscellaneous rubble in numerous sites on the hill side grounds.

The Manor passed to Ray’s son, Guy Taylor in 2005 and all trade and activities ceased as Guy struggled with the loss of his Dad and with the unexpected burdens that inheritance had brought to his door. The Manor was subsequently placed into the Raymond Taylor Family Foundation Trust."

Although it says that trade and activities ceased in 2005, Bodenham Manor still appears on Tripadvisor as holiday apartments and a "Tipi Village" and at some point there seems to have been some kind of commune being formed there. As late as 2013 there were plans to develop the site http://buildingman.org/2013/03/23/boden ... ed-vision/ presumably until everyone was evicted.

One other point - Guy claims he made the repayments on a £900k loan in cash? WTF?

[littleFred]

I agree that inheritance tax is simply government greed. It used to be a tax on the rich but the allowances don't rise with inflation so it hits more people. Some UK politicians want a "mansion tax", a form of inheritance tax they get before we actually die.

I don't know how inheritance tax works when the deceased owns a company. I would think it would be valued, and that would be part of the estate, so taxed in the usual way. There might be business partners, reducing the amount that was owned by the deceased and thus the tax liability.

Guy was listed as a director of Sonas Developments Limited from 6 Feb 2008 to 5 April 2009.

Guy never mentioned a company. He probably wouldn't; it doesn't fit the myth of evil banks fraudulently taking over family houses and kicking them out on the streets.

[Burnaby49]

I don't know how inheritance tax works when the deceased owns a company. I would think it would be valued, and that would be part of the estate, so taxed in the usual way. There might be business partners, reducing the amount that was owned by the deceased and thus the tax liability.

Essentially what happens in Canada. If someone dies owning all or part of a company, public or private, the shares are deemed to have been sold immediately before death but, as we say, not in contemplation of death and the deceased pays taxes on any net income on these in his final return which runs from the beginning of his tax year until date of death. Same with other investments such as real estate. So these things need to be valued at death. Public shares are generally easy, exchange trading prices, except for the occasional issue of blockage or liquidity. The CRA has valuation and appraisal specialists to determine the value of private company shares, real estate, and such intangibles as patents and copyrights.

Since this is a deemed disposition the estate still holds these assets. Anything earned on them past the date of death but before distribution to the benefiaries such as interest or increases/decreases in investment value is taxed as earnings of the estate.

This system seems fair to me because there ar no extra taxes triggered by death. The deceased (actually his estate, the dead are difficult to deal with) only pays taxes he would have paid anyhow had he lived and disposed of the assets at his discretion.

[LaVidaRoja]

Doesn't that make any liability fairly easy to avoid? If there is no gift tax, you simply gift your assets to your heirs in such a manner and time that it cannot be said to be a transfer in contemplation of death. And what happens when you gift your personal residence but retain a life estate? That estate expires on your death, and the property has belonged to your heir, free of any transfer tax.