Guy Taylor - The Magna Carta Man of the UK

[PeanutGallery]

I doubt you are maligning Guy. Nobody is forcing him to believe Mr Ebert or to continue to claim that he knows more about law than all the Judges in England and Wales.

Burnaby if we are going to speak about national sports and the length of time they take to play. I once went to watch a match between the Vancouver Canadians and some American team at baseball. The match was scheduled for nine innings and I had plans that following the end of said contest we would retire to a local bar for food.

Unfortunately come the end of the ninth inning, neither team had managed to best one another. Now over in the civilised world we'd declare it a draw and send both teams on their way with the knowledge that neither had managed to best the other yet had also not been bested themselves. However such a concept was clearly anathema to our colonial cousins who had decided that their had to be a victor in this contest.

On the game was played. It is worth noting, at this point, that this draw was one borne of mediocrity, as neither side had played with sufficient skill to regularly send one of their players across the four little pads that would count as a run. So the game dragged on as we sat and watched a ball be thrown, a bat be swung and no good consequence came of it. Eventually after we had watched another entirely mediocre baseball contest, in which neither team managed to outplay the other, one team finally managed to get one player back to his home base. I forget which team emerged the victor as it had proved that memorable a contest.

Of course by dragging on for such a period my evening plans were in tatters as when we reached the bar they had run out of chicken wings. Cricket may drag on for a couple of days but at least it always ends on time.

[wanglepin]

[quote="littleFred"]Corruption in our Courts - Guy Taylor 30-01-14

I am no good at screenshots/grabs but taking a closer look at that video it can be seen to state.
from around the 19: onwards
24 September 2012 Suspended Mortgage Possession Order
And further down it can be read
10 June 2014 Warrant of Possession issued
Yet Brian Gerrish states there were no issued?

[PeanutGallery]

Good spot Wangle. However Guy and Brian are also correct about the document stating at the end that no judgements have been recorded or warrants issued on the final page.

Admittedly I'm scratching my head on this one. However it seems more likely to me that the document has been poorly drafted or that a clerk at the court has failed to correctly update those sections than evidence that the actual court process wasn't followed and that no Judgement has been made against Tom.

[wanglepin]

However it seems more likely to me that the document has been poorly drafted or that a clerk at the court has failed to correctly update those sections than evidence that the actual court process wasn't followed and that no Judgement has been made against Tom.

Well they do seem to appear to be (going by the video) photo copies?
They could have been re copied and the last section as related to us by Brian Gerrish may have been doctored? Speculation I know, but given that Taylor has somewhat of a record for forgery and given that he has a slight capacity to overlook and miss certain real and relevant points, it could simply be that Taylor and Gerrish didn't actually take the time to “forensically examine” that list of dates and items before posting it to the wider public as fact?
I have a feeling that the video may be taken down.

[Normal Wisdom]

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

I am no good at screenshots/grabs but taking a closer look at that video it can be seen to state.
from around the 19: onwards
24 September 2012 Suspended Mortgage Possession Order
And further down it can be read
10 June 2014 Warrant of Possession issued
Yet Brian Gerrish states there were no issued?

Good spot Wangle. However Guy and Brian are also correct about the document stating at the end that no judgements have been recorded or warrants issued on the final page.

Admittedly I'm scratching my head on this one. However it seems more likely to me that the document has been poorly drafted or that a clerk at the court has failed to correctly update those sections than evidence that the actual court process wasn't followed and that no Judgement has been made against Tom.

I think the other point to make on this issue is that Brian makes clear that they are only showing the first and last of a case management file that consists of several pages. Since the first page covers the period from August 2012 to June 2014 and the last page begins in December 2014, one can assume there has been substantial activity in the intervening 5 months. I don't know if this might explain the reason that orders and warrants weren't summarised on the final page even though they are clear listed on the first.

[wanglepin]

Admittedly I'm scratching my head on this one. However it seems more likely to me that the document has been poorly drafted or that a clerk at the court has failed to correctly update those sections than evidence that the actual court process wasn't followed and that no Judgement has been made against Tom.

If this was a failure by court officials etc,then I am amazed that Guy Taylor with all of his "forensic training" didn't jump on the chance to point that out to his viewers. I believe they simply didn't look at that list "forensically" before posting it. Or If they did spot those dates , they chose to ignore them. And this maybe have been the reason they scroll down at speed from top to bottom and only show the last part of that list in a separate slide?

[PeanutGallery]

On the contrary if it was a simple mistake or poor drafting when the document was conceived then Taylor pointing that out would detract from his cause. He wants to show that the court and bailiffs and everyone are trying to steal Toms home. If he were to posit that the document wasn't updated or is poorly drafted then that line of thought suggests that a Judgement could have lawfully been made against Tom for the repossession of the property.

Guy wants to avoid that line of thinking and he also doesn't want anyone else to consider that. Now I don't think the document is forged but I also don't think it says or rather intends to say quite what Guy and Brian claim that it does.

[Normal Wisdom]

I commented on a YouTube video in which Michael Grant-Sinclair explained the fraud behind his recent eviction (see Tom Crawford thread) and I think I mentioned Guy Taylor in relation to court seals. A chap has sent me two responses which I attach below. I have seen reference to the first issue before but obviously it's hard to comment and I don't really know what to make of the second comment. I believe Guy is back in court next week.

With regards to a constable stating a assumed fact could you answer this guy Taylor had a warrant of possession on bodenham manor declaring issued from Sheffield court many many defects on warrant hereford court fax number altered Barclays Bank of unknown address MP Christopher grayling witness wants nothing to do with it. So I produced document by hand at Sheffield court to clarify position the lady took it in the back office a district judge was called over ran ly and 5 minutes later she confirmed never issued appreciate your knowledge how that comes about to be a active warrant. No malice projected Mel

Hi I have seen guys commercial loans of 2007 to pay death duties of 300,000 pounds and if you check the bankcruptcy register because all guys revolves around a solicitor applying to bankcrupt guy and because he stood his ground as be tells me and others the fee being requested by the solicitor was not viable and then the court has been vixascious and placed a unlimited time on discharge. So you see it appears there are circles of government cartels who have and are acting in association with one another to commit fraud on a massive scale bodenham manor was supposedly bought for 305,000 pounds CASH but a court order of the bankcruptcy stated the official receivers name must be the proprietor before any title exchange and that was not carried out it changed title from guy Taylor to David Davies so contemp of court but no action by police so its a pit of snakes acting corruptly.

Edit : And more comments re. Guy Taylor:

You have the loan amounts correct 824 was at Bristol as an initial equitable loan charge to one pub 750 then 74 attached securitised the bank gave him a years holiday on payments as he had bills to settle after the lengthy probate according to guy this holiday was to be free. And then payments started the following period after said holiday the bank paid off the equitable loan and made out a commercial loan ( from the same branch Bristol and the same manager but acting in a different role commercial section) guys signature and date are not of his writing and he carried on paying monthly over the counter the payments Barclays equitable loan did not pass it on to Barclays commercial even though in same branch I myself realise what has happened relating to how the holiday period has been established but at the moment it's on who's say if this was free or to be recouped in the future. He does have full payment receipts showing monthly over counter he had very poor. Initial advice by his solicitors. Outcome the second loan was not authorised by guy Barclays decided it was in their interest to carry it out (which it was as it got more interest and commission ) if you do have contacts to resolve this then please reply and maybe it still can be sorted. He seems a fair man cheers mel in bolsover

[littleFred]

That looks like the usual mish-mash of badly-written confused and confusing junk.

The "Sheffield document" was a writ, not a warrant. It came from Hereford County Court, and I don't think anyone disputes that. It does also include the words, "Sent from the Sheffield Court by Certificate dated". I suspect those words appeared by copy-paste error, and they have no significance. But Guy claims this is evidence that the bailiffs had no court commands, or something.

[PeanutGallery]

I think it could well have been a typo, the court code for Hereford is 220 and Sheffield is 320: Link.

If the court relies on those codes to generate it's paperwork, which it seems that they do in the bulk centres, then it's entirely possible that 320 was entered rather than 220 and this error was not detected.

[Normal Wisdom]

Well, well, well. It appears that we've all been wrong about signatures and seals on warrants ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxBbvnEysQc&spfreload=10

[littleFred]

It's Chinese whispers at the moment; a bloke says someone told him that a police sergeant asked a bailiff if the warrant had a wet signature and seal.

A number of possibilities:

1. The bailiffs were acting without proper authority. If so, I hope they are firmly dealt with.
2. The sergeant is a GOOFer.
3. Someone told the police that warrants need a wet signature, and the police stupidly believed this.
4. Someone has misunderstood what happened.
5. Someone is lying about what happened.
6. GOOFers are right about the law and CPR and everyone else (including Acts of Parliament and the published CPR) are wrong.

I'm not a betting person, but I wouldn't put any money on (6).

[rumpelstilzchen]

6. GOOFers are right about the law and CPR and everyone else (including Acts of Parliament and the published CPR) are wrong.

I'm not a betting person, but I wouldn't put any money on (6).

Nor me. But, even if they are right and all warrants in the future come with a "wet signature" and a seal, I can guarantee it will not make any difference. The GOOFers have used that argument when attempting to halt house repossessions. Would it mean they would say the warrant is lawful and therefore the homeowner must leave the property? Of course not. Would they say a bailiff chasing council tax must be paid if the warrant has a signature and a seal? Nope. They would continue to say "it's all fraud".

[whitehat]

Hello all, This is my first post and I must be upfront and honest, I have an account on Getoutofdebtfree but please don't hold that against me.

I have been a member there for quite a while and have realized that misinformation is standard, what we think we know is very different to what is in fact realty.

If you don't want to pay money back to banks don't borrow in the first place and time spent moaning about issues is better spent learning a skill that will pay a living.

I know you guys are very well read and know your stuff, the only issue I have and its been reported in the papers is that banks create money and we just don't really understand how that is so.
My thoughts are over on GOODF we are our own worst enemy and rely heavily on others posting on YouTube this then (to them) become facts. Just because some random person posts a video don't make it reality. I changed my way of thinking when someone called Tim started to post on GOODF, instead of tapping into Tim's knowledge unfortunately he was banned (poor mistake from them).

Please excuse any grammar or spelling mistakes as unfortunately I found learning difficult, knowing this my skills lie elsewhere. I look forward to having a debate with you gentlemen and I hold you in high regards.

Sorry to hijack the tread.

[littleFred]

Welcome, whitehat.

Money is abstract. When we buy and sell things, payment is no longer made in rare stones or metals. Increasingly, we don't even use fancily-printed paper. We mostly use bits of plastic and hit a few buttons. But this is still money. The shopkeeper is happy to give me heaps of stuff in return for me briefly putting my plastic card in his reader. Behind the scenes, computers will do their magic and debit my account while crediting the shopkeeper's account.

If I want to buy more stuff than my account can pay for, I can talk to a bank and ask to borrow money. The bank may say, "Sure, so long as you promise to pay it back, plus a bit more."

It's like borrowing anything. If I borrow something, and promise to eventually give it back, I should do so. If I borrow with no intention of ever giving it back, that is theft. If enough people thieve from a bank, the bank goes bust.

But the GOOFy philosphy is different. To them, money has value (because they can use it to buy stuff, like houses) but then because it is abstract, is is suddenly valueless, so the bank never really lent them anything, so it doesn't need to be paid back. It always works in one direction: a true GOOFer is always happy to accept the value that money possesses, but when it comes to paying out, it suddenly has no value so doesn't need paying. Funny, that, isn't it?

GOOFers spout garbage to justify this position, but it is simply wrong, both philosophically and legally. This GOOFy garbage damages people, because people believe it and they lose their stuff, their homes and even their freedom because of it.

[Hercule Parrot]

If you don't want to pay money back to banks don't borrow in the first place and time spent moaning about issues is better spent learning a skill that will pay a living.

I know you guys are very well read and know your stuff, the only issue I have and its been reported in the papers is that banks create money and we just don't really understand how that is so.

Hello whitehat, welcome!

I am also not a financial wizard, I vaguely understand how the economy works but only from reading the papers. Obviously the Bank of England can print as much money as it wants, but more banknotes in circulation will lead to inflation.

High Street banks and mortgage lenders can't "create" money. If they lend me £100,000 to buy a house and I don't pay it back, then they have lost £100,000. If I try to keep the house and the £100,000 then I'm cheating on the promise I made. Simples!

That's the secret message of the GOOFys, really. They encourage people to think that they can keep the house but not pay back what they borrowed. That's like catnip for greedy or stupid people, and they get what they deserve. But it also attracts desperate people who face repossession, and it makes their problems far worse.

Anyhow - welcome to Quatloos. It's great to have another visitor from GOOFy, but make sure they don't find out you've been here....

[Jeffrey]

banks create money and we just don't really understand how

I don't know how this is some complex issue for people to understand, was the concept of fiat currency not taught to you guys in school? I think it was in 9th grade high school economics that the concept was explained, i.e. barter is clumsy because what if you want to trade a chicken for a cow but you need change for a cow so how do you barter a fraction of a cow, etc.

[littleFred]

We were discussing Guy's chances at court. Guy, you may recall, borrowed £824,000 and didn't pay it back but hoped to keep all his properties. Well, he had a chance to argue his case to a jury this weekend. Not just any old jury, either, but a Grand Jury.

Grand Juries don't decide guilt or otherwise, but merely whether there is a case to answer, so it's a very low threshold. The prosecution present the case, the bill of indictment. (Don't get excited, this is nothing to do with the Bills of Exchange Act.) The defendant doesn't give his side. A GJ is essentially answering the question: "Does the prosecution have a case that stacks up?" They answer either true bill or ignoramus (lit. we do not know). A verdict of true bill is then passed to on to an ordinary trial with a petit jury.

Anyhow, the UK did away with most GJs in 1933 and the remaining ones in 1948. The USA still has them. Wouldn't it be splendid if we brought them back?

The British Constitution Group and UK Column Spring Conference 2015 did exactly that. Not one, but four Grand Juries. One was about paedophilia, one was about Guy Taylor, and I don't know about the others.

The verdicts: three true bills, and one ignoramus for Guy. So the conference won't press for Guy's case to go to trial.

Are you shouting, "Fix! Stitch up! They would decide that, wouldn't they?"

Then you would be wrong. Guy was a prosecution witness, not the defendant, in a case of an undisclosed charge against an undisclosed defendant. At a guess, I would suppose his bank was indicted for committing fraud against Guy. So, couldn't Guy persuade a jury of like-minded people that the bank had a case to answer?

Well, it wasn't that simple. There have to be at least twelve jurors. They had exactly twelve. Then one recused himself because he had chatted with Guy. To regain quorum, they corralled another juror. 15 minutes later, another juror walked out. Apparently the jury had been arguing within itself, confused about the evidentiary standard. Some jurors thought they needed to find "guilty" or "not guilty". One stormed out, so they no longer had a quorum, and had to return ignoramus. So it was merely a procedural problem, there "was no problem with the evidence."

Guy wasn't disappointed. "It shows the validity of what we are doing."

Source: Doomwatch – variant 57 – The People’s Grand Jury Conference Special

[wanglepin]

Guy was a prosecution witness, not the defendant, in a case of an undisclosed charge against an undisclosed defendant.

Indeed, and this after all Guy Taylors “forensic training in court documents” and the many court appearences the Grand Jury returned a ignoramus ( we do not know) verdict.One would have expected by now that Guy Taylor would have been able to present his case in a simple unconfusing manner..
Maybe it was Guy Taylor`s presentation of the “evidence”, that confused them because it is simply full of lies and intentional deceit and contradictions as has been proved here and over on getoutfdebtfree. Members who pointed this out were banned or disappeared.

Just one example for you whitehat - of Guy Taylor’s and Brian Gerrish’s deceit I have pointed out on this thread.
from around the 19: onwards it can be clearly seen (using the pause button)
24 September 2012 Suspended Mortgage Possession Order
And further down it can be read
10 June 2014 Warrant of Possession issued
Yet Taylor & Brian Gerrish both state there were no orders or warrants ever issued in the case of Tom Crawford.?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6WkCBm ... 9428#t=409
Anyway, welcome to the forum whitehat, I hope you stick around.

[wanglepin]

Well, well, well. It appears that we've all been wrong about signatures and seals on warrants ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxBbvnEysQc&spfreload=10

What a load of old cobblers. That was the moron Mark Haining (Ceylon) doing the filming. I cannot see any video "evidence" of this tall story ever showing up anywhere and particularly not over GOOFER.This all sound familiar of something Haining has set up just so it enables him to put something up on his site. His sycophants just luv it..