Guy Taylor - The Magna Carta Man of the UK

[Bungle]

But I suppose he'll gladly pay the court costs

The IP in charge of his open-ended bankruptcy may feel differently....

He knows.

[mac]

Who knows?

[Bungle]

Who knows?

His bankruptcy trustee.

[getoutofdebtfools]

Who knows?

His bankruptcy trustee.

What does that mean for him then in real terms?

[Pox]

Just a reminder - Guy Taylor Hereford court 10 and 11 Dec.

[mac]

Anyone going to watch & listen?
Here's a question, his father is buried in the grounds of Bodenham Manor, will he be allowed to tend to his grave, I guess he's turning in his grave anyway knowing Guy has lost everything he worked for

[PeanutGallery]

It's doubtful that he would be allowed to tend or visit the grave. In fact if Guy tried to make it an issue, the simplest resolution would be to exhume Pa Taylor and have Guy find another plot of land to stick him in (potentially Guy might argue that not allowing him access to his fathers burial spot is a breach of his rights under the Human Rights Act). The costs of exhumation would likely be significantly lower than having a lawyer argue the toss in court - even if they are going up against a numpty like Guy. Plus it would come with the added bonus of removing the last Taylor from the manor.

[notorial dissent]

Actually, I'd think the new owners would insist on the removal of the body for a variety of reasons.

[mac]

The next couple of days are going to be exciting......or not


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfUnQMB ... e=youtu.be

[mac]

Will Tom be coming to support him

[YiamCross]

Well I met Guy Taylor for the first time yesterday when he turned up at the HIgh Court as Craig's McKenzie friend and with a request to be joined with Tom, Craig Amanda and Haining in my claim against them. Funny, he's a lot shorter in real life than he appears on YouTube.

Why does he want to be joined with them? Seems more than a little odd for a freeman on the land to go to court to actively seek joinder does it not?

A good question and one which the judge could not understand either. From what I can make of his rather rambling attempt at an argument he takes objection to my having used his picture as my Facebook profile picture. The judge suggested that he negotiate with me to ask if I would stop using it.

Sadly Mr Taylor was as ignorant of the facts in this matter as he appears to be generally since I replaced it weeks ago with a rather grumpy chap wearing a santa hat and expressing my feelings about xmas generally with the middle digit of his left hand. Funniest of all is that Haining in the rag tag bundle of screenshots he gave me as his "evidence" showed the new profile picture in every one of my Facebook comments he rehproduced. You couldn't make it up.

While were waiting outside the court to go back in after lunch Bradley Knight was making some suggestions as to what I should say to the judge when Guy Taylor came over and rather agressively demanded I remove his picture from my Facebook profile to which Bradley responded with a request to "go away". When Guy continued to press his provocative attempts to goad us a security guard came along and moved him along.

Interesting note, I have been to the Rolls building on a number of occasions now and this is the first time I have seen a security guard positioned outside a court. No one I know of made any contact with the court to request a security presence so I can only assume the courts know exactly who they are dealing with.

In the afternoon session there were two security guards at the back of the court and they remained outside after our hearing. Which was a good thing as Team Crawford behaved as expected and as they have consistently demonstrated on all of their videos, like bullies in a playground trying to provoke a reaction. I was too busy laughing to have reacted even if I'd had any inclination to.

I offered no objection to Guy Taylor being joined with them but the judge didn't see any reason why he should be. So, if Guy wants to be joined with the rest of the gang he must make an application in writing through the normal channels by 4pm Friday with reasons and evidence and his request will be considered.

He's got a busy week this week, then.

[midjit-gems]

I've been reading on Facebook the various posts regarding what happened. Is it true the judge had to tell them to "only speak when spoken to" because of their constant interruptions? Also please tell me Amanda didn't really drop them all in it when she showed the judge she had got the full evidence bundle that they had all been denying they'd seen??? Surely she isn't that thick?

So are we to assume that the injunction that was granted previously has been upheld?

[Jeffrey]

What the hell IS Bradley Knight anyways?

[YiamCross]

As best as I can recall that comment was aimed firmly at Guy Taylor after the judge told him to speak only to the judge when asked to and not to shout across the court. Very amateur mistake for someone as learned in the courts and law as Guy Taylor make.

At some point I recall the judge telling one of them, I think it was Tom, that this was not a TV reality show and asking him to stick to the matter in hand and produce some evidence to substantiate his claims.

I felt the judge was very very fair and forgiving of us all when we failed to address him correctly or stand and sit at the right times. I continue to be impressed by the sympathetic treatment of LiPs by the courts even when some of them have no excuse for their bad behaviour considering how many times they have appeared in courts around the country.

Amanda did indeed admit to having my bundle for around 2 weeks.

As to the injunction being extended, I'm not clear on exactly what the judge ordered. All of Team Crawford agreed to an undertaking to abide by the terms of the injunction and the judge made it very clear on a number of occasions that a breach of the undertaking, bearing mind my order contained a penal notice, could attract a similar penalty including a custodial sentence. He went so far as to state that they should not expect to get off lightly if they were found to be in contempt of the order. To the best of my belief the order of the 17th has ended but they are bound by the undertaking they have given which to all intents and purposes has the same effect.

Since they are seeking an injunction against me in similar terms I too am bound by similar conditions until such time as they have made a formal application to the court and a decision has been made as to whether they have sufficient evidence to proceed with their claim. I have no problem with that since I have not ever, nor would I, attempt to perpetrate or incite others to commit any violent acts against anyone.

The judge did make clear the difference between the expression of robust opinion and acts which could be construed as harassment or incitement and so as far as I know I'm not, and nor are they, barred from commenting on the facts of the case nor the expression of opinions on the character and conduct of the other parties. I shall continue my policy of refraining from gratuitous abuse, though I reserve the right to respond in kind to anything they might want to say about me except where I consider they have crossed the line and breached the order in which case I shall simply report the matter to the court.

[YiamCross]

What the hell IS Bradley Knight anyways?

Homo sapiens of the male gender.

[PeanutGallery]

Yiam, I would actually counsel you to refrain from commenting on the proceedings until the matter is resolved, while it is of interest to those of us here, we do know that they look in on us and read these threads. Putting anything on here about how they behaved in court or who said what or the like could backfire. Lawyers always tell clients not to make any comments about litigation in process, because it can have a negative affect on the case.

The best option, which isn't always the one our emotions allow us, is to remain silent, document everything and let them dig their own graves.

In regard to their litigation against you, they would be on very questionable ground, you haven't posted or published any information on any of them as far as I can tell that was not from the public domain. What you have posted seems to be opinion. My advice (and remember lay person here) would be that if they do present a case, get the court moved to one local to you (defendants right to do so), when you do get the grounds have a look to see if they actually have any prospects of success and if not make a motion to strike. If you'd like me to help then shoot me a pm and I'd be quite happy to lend my untrained eye to it and give my completely unqualified opinion.

[Chaos]

penal notice

is that a post-it note on their privates reminding them not to be bad?

[YiamCross]

Yiam, I would actually counsel you to refrain from commenting on the proceedings until the matter is resolved, .. If you'd like me to help then shoot me a pm and I'd be quite happy to lend my untrained eye to it and give my completely unqualified opinion.

Thanks for the advice and the offer of help, I appreciate it.

The hearing is a matter of public record, anyone who wished to attend could have seen and heard what I've reported here as it was an open court and those who couldn't are able to obtain a copy of the transcript which will contain these details and more and there's no restriction on publishing them. I have been careful to report only the facts of what happened which, since I was there to witness events, I feel fully qualified to do. I shan't speculate on what I or they may or may not do in the future nor on what the courts may say or do or any conclusion they may reach.

Shame Burnaby isn't here, he'd make a much better job of producing an accurate account of proceedings than I can.

I could have gone further and provided more detail of what was said but I don't want to stray into territory which could be considered prejudicial or open to interpretation as contempt of court. Obviously if you have any specific concerns about what I've said based on your knowledge and experience I'd be grateful for your comments.

[Burnaby49]

Shame Burnaby isn't here, he'd make a much better job of producing an accurate account of proceedings than I can.

I wouldn't be too sure about that given my inability to make a lot of sense of a court hearing I attended today. The defendant himself told me that I was too dense to understand it;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10834#p217552

[mufc1959]

Did Bones get a mention in court?