getoutofdebtfools wrote:Glad to see he lost as expected.
He only lost in the sense that he didn't win.
Quite clearly he's exposed the corruption of the so called courts and so called judges and in that sense it's a huge victory!!!!BOOM!!!!11!!
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
Clearly off his game that day, a whole 2 mins 53 seconds until he used the word "fraud".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
The court heard he had taken out an £824,000 loan from Barclays in 2007 but later found out a £904,000 loan had been substituted for the earlier one, with Taylor saying the signature on the second loan was forged.
How the fuck does that argument make sense to Guy? He thinks the 2007 loan disappeared magically so he doesn't have to repay it and the "new loan" that is nearly for the same amount is fake and also doesn't have to be repaid?
Hell it looks like it's probably the same loan but the amount increased due to interest or other fees that the bank wouldn't need Guy's permission to add on.
Taylor is obviously lying. When the second loan was taken out there would have been many letters sent to Taylor at his home address. He can't claim to have known nothing about the second loan. IIRC Taylor claims it was the bank manager who took out the bogus loan but he forgets that even if that was the case the original loan would have been paid off.
BHF wrote: It shows your mentality to think someone would make the effort to post something on the internet that was untrue.
Except when you are a FMOTL, if you know the law like Guy Does, you must know that once a valid loan is tainted by fraud, it is no longer valid. Therefore, ipso facto, the fraud of the bank by issuing the second note canceled out the first, and now through the magic of latin, all debts are extinguished. I know there is some latin phrase they like to use to support this point, and if it is LAtin, it must be the law.
The Hardest Thing in the World to Understand is Income Taxes -Albert Einstein
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose - As sung by Janis Joplin (and others) Written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster.
rumpelstilzchen wrote:Taylor is obviously lying. When the second loan was taken out there would have been many letters sent to Taylor at his home address. He can't claim to have known nothing about the second loan. IIRC Taylor claims it was the bank manager who took out the bogus loan but he forgets that even if that was the case the original loan would have been paid off.
all these grifters claim to know nothing about their finances and are the only people on the planet that never ever gets anything in the mail from their financial institutions. and then never question it until they are hauled into court.
NYGman wrote:Except when you are a FMOTL, if you know the law like Guy Does, you must know that once a valid loan is tainted by fraud, it is no longer valid. Therefore, ipso facto, the fraud of the bank by issuing the second note canceled out the first, and now through the magic of latin, all debts are extinguished. I know there is some latin phrase they like to use to support this point, and if it is LAtin, it must be the law.
Well I'm sure Guy also believes that because the money was 'created' when the loan was taken out (and lets not get into this again, because Gregg can only tell us how it works so many times before he suffers an aneurysm brought on by the stress of the stupid), that he doesn't need to pay it back because it was him what created it so it should have been his anyway.
Guy strikes me as being one of those fellows who always has a reason as to why it's not his round.
Guy is a fore real and for sure idiot, how someone that stupid manages to dress and feed himself is a mystery. He is the living embodiment of the old adage, "you can't fix stupid".
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Being Bankrupted, how is he paying the fees for all these failed appeals??
He'll be using the fee exemption - if you're on benefits or low income you're exempt from paying Court Fee's, that's why so many of them are happy to start proceedings as it doesn't actually cost anything. Unless like Tom Crawford your claims are dismissed as being 'without merit', then of course you're liable for the other sides costs !