Fraudulent banks, utility companies and corrupt courts

[Stilton Cheesewright]

Oh..I didn't imply that sorry.

I have merely enjoyed the conversation that has taken place on this thread!

There you are "Freeman Ideology" more reading!

No worries - my misunderstanding.

[megilleland]

Tom Crawford's situation highlighted on Russia Today. Great support from the public.

 

Latest Guy Taylor video with information. Not sure if this has been posted in this form

[Stilton Cheesewright]

 

Tom Crawford's situation highlighted on Russia Today. Great support from the public.

 

Latest Guy Taylor video with information. Not sure if this has been posted in this form

 

 

I guess that's the end of our previous discussion then. 

 

Tell me, when you post these videos do you ever check the accuracy of what is shown or simply accept them without question? For example, if I was posting a video making allegations of a high level criminal conspiracy in the UK judiciary I would want to be sure that the evidence stood up to simple scrutiny.  There are some "facts" in the Guy Taylor video that don't seem to meet this standard e.g.

 

Guy says that court documents must be sealed with a stamp that actually embosses the paper. He doesn't explain where this is laid down but he quotes a lot of Civil Procedure Rules elsewhere. With regard to seals, CPR 2.6.2 says:

The court may place the seal on the document –

(a) by hand; or

(b) by printing a facsimile of the seal on the document whether electronically or otherwise.

 

Guy says that "We want to examine our court files. We are entitled to do this under CPR5.4.2 which states that upon application, on request, access to the file shall be granted within 48 hours. So we know once we've put that request across the table in the court, they are supposed to give us access to the court file within 48 hours. Very often they don't give you access to the file. That's when you know something is wrong" 

But CPR 5.4.2 doesn't say that. It actually says: "Any person who pays the prescribed fee may, during office hours, search any available register of claims."  That is not an individual case file.

 

Despite that courts often do allow access to the case file. Guy says that we should look at the application form that initiated the claim explaining "on that application form I should expect to see a court seal".

However CPR 2.6.1 simply says

The court must seal the following documents on issue –

(a) the claim form; and

(b) any other document which a rule or practice direction requires it to seal.

 

One of the slides used in the video shows excerpts from a letter that Guy sent to the court in his own case. It says ...

CPR r.5.4.2 Supply of documents to parties including new parties - The documents should be supplied within 48 hours after a written request for them is received

CPR r5.4(1) Supply of documents from Court records - any party to proceedings may be supplied from the records of the court with a copy of any document relating to those proceedings (including documents filed before the claim was commenced).

But as I showed above CPR 5.4.2 actually says  "Any person who pays the prescribed fee may, during office hours, search any available register of claims." Nothing about supply of documents to parties and CPR 5.4.1 says "A court or court office may keep a publicly accessible register of claims which have been issued out of that court or court office". Nothing to do with supply of documents from court records.

 

Now I suspected that Guy may simply have misquoted the references (kind of a big mistake when it's supporting a court case) so I looked at the rest of CPR Part 5 to see if I could find the exact words that Guy quotes. I couldn't but I'll let you have a go ..  http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part05#5.4   In fact the only reference I could find to documents being supplied within 48 hours was in Practice Direction 5a (an adjunct to CPR Part 5) Para 3.1 which says ...

"Where a party is joined to existing proceedings, the party joined shall be entitled to require the party joining him to supply, without charge, copies of all statements of case, written evidence and any documents appended or exhibited to them which have been served in the proceedings by or upon the joining party which relate to any issues between the joining party and the party joined, and copies of all orders made in those proceedings. The documents must be supplied within 48 hours after a written request for them is received."

I don't think we have to concern ourselves too much with what this means except that clearly it has no bearing on supply of documents from Court records.

 

I don't know about you but it rather undermines my confidence in the claims made in the video to see such fundamental errors of fact. We should of course bear in mind that much of the legal advice that is supplied to Guy comes from the infamous "Mr Ebert" whose own history in the courts makes fascinating and entertaining reading.

[Cambo]

This is fascinating stuff. I gather from what your saying mr cheesewright you feels as if Guy Taylor's case,in short is based on nothing but a wing & pray? If so he's got no hope of winning this in the long run?…But if by some miraculous good fortune in that he is telling the truth, that the bank is responsible for some underhand dealings? That he goes on to prove his case & win? It could send shock waves through the whole legal system & be the biggest upset since Bradford beat Chelsea in the FA cup!!

It will be interesting to see how this one pans out,could be years before we get a final verdict but one thing we can be more certain on,is someone is going to be picking up a rather large legal bill @ the end of it all?!

[megilleland]

I guess that's the end of our previous discussion then. 

 

Tell me, when you post these videos do you ever check the accuracy of what is shown or simply accept them without question? For example, if I was posting a video making allegations of a high level criminal conspiracy in the UK judiciary I would want to be sure that the evidence stood up to simple scrutiny.  There are some "facts" in the Guy Taylor video that don't seem to meet this standard e.g.

 

Afraid not Stilton. Life continues to inform, shock and amuse. Thanks for the links. I will delve into them at my earliest convenience.

 

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it". (George Bernard Shaw 1856-1950). I think this could apply to either of us regarding this topic. 

 

I came across Guy Taylor as I deliver his post in Herefordshire. We have had several discussions which originally stemmed from a council tax demand which automatically added on a court charge which I believed was illegal. I drew this to the attention of our county councillor who made some inquiries following my visit to the local magistrate's court and it was forgotten by the council. Previously back in the 70s we managed to remove the managing agent in a co-ownership housing scheme who was fiddling the books and not passing on money to the tenants, but kept it himself. Much cleverer people than I took the initiative in these matters and in doing so I learnt not to take things at face value. As an individual in today's divided society one is reminded of one's place and not to upsurt authority. After all this is how it has been done for ages - Poor people pay taxes, rich people make laws. 

 

In my 60's now, I have attended the local magistrates court when Guy Taylor has appeared and if the CPS had a case they could of squashed Guy Taylor years ago, but the whole judicial system seems to be losing its creditability. I give him the benefit of the doubt until he is proved wrong. I thought I had an inquiring mind when it came to detail, but your approach beats mine - slightly overwelming. I must try and see it from your point of view, which is of course the opposite to what I do, when watching alternative media ie UK Column.

[Stilton Cheesewright]

This is fascinating stuff. I gather from what your saying mr cheesewright you feels as if Guy Taylor's case,in short is based on nothing but a wing & pray? If so he's got no hope of winning this in the long run?…But if by some miraculous good fortune in that he is telling the truth, that the bank is responsible for some underhand dealings? That he goes on to prove his case & win? It could send shock waves through the whole legal system & be the biggest upset since Bradford beat Chelsea in the FA cup!!

It will be interesting to see how this one pans out,could be years before we get a final verdict but one thing we can be more certain on,is someone is going to be picking up a rather large legal bill @ the end of it all?!

I am glad you find it interesting. It's certainly provided me with hours of entertainment since I retired six months ago. As in many of these cases, there are issues specific to Guy Taylor that I don't know if he has abandoned yet as well as more more generic claims about the judicial and banking systems. If the specific issues were proved true then it would be significant but not catastrophic. However, if either of the wider claims were found to be true it would potentially cause the collapse of the judicial system in the UK or even the whole UK and world economy. A short explanation of all three claims in order of the impact they would have if found to be true:

 

Guy Taylor's Case (as I understand it)

In 2007, Guy inherited his father's property portfolio worth £4 million. He decided to do the necessary legal work himself to save the cost of a solicitor and took out a loan of £824,000 from the bank. He made the repayments for the first year but subsequently discovered that the loan had been repaid with money from another loan of £904,000 taken out in his name in April 2008 but which he knew nothing about. He also claims that, again without his knowledge, a bank account had been opened in his name in Bristol. The bank claimed that he had not made any repayments on the loan since 2008. Guy said he had made payments in cash and had receipts to prove it. Nevertheless, the bank initiated proceedings to take possession of property to cover the money owed on the loan. Guy defended this but lost and in April last year was evicted from Bodenham Manor which was then sold to a new owner by the bank. Guy reoccupied BM and ejected the new owner. Guy was again removed from BM and charged with trespass. At least part of Guy's defence is that he is the victim of a fraud by the bank; therefore the possession order and eviction was unlawful; he is still the rightful owner and thus cannot be guilty of trespass. 

 

Repossession Fraud

As you have seen above, Guy devotes a lot of time to his interpretation of Civil Procedure Rules and what he believes are errors and omissions in the court documentation and processes which underpin evictions. However, his claim is not simply that the court administration is slapdash but that the lack of seals and signatures etc. as he deems them necessary is evidence of a conspiracy by a group of individuals from the judiciary, court administration and banks acting under cover of the legal system to produce fake documentation to enable them to take possession of people's houses so that they can be sold for the personal gain of the conspirators. 

 

Money Creation Fraud

Many years ago, as part of my professional qualification, I studied economics. It was not my favourite subject especially the topic of "types and sources of money" which made my head hurt. So I have avoiding studying this issue in depth but in simple terms the theory is that banks don't only loan money from their reserves but that money for loans is "created out of thin air". According to "freemen" (for want of a better term) such as Guy and Tom, it is then fraudulent to demand interest on this money and some believe that even the "loan" itself does not have to be repaid. It gets terribly complicated and even those who support the theory don't always agree on the details. As in so many of these theories there is an element of truth although those in the mainstream would not agree on the interpretation that means that all money is "free". I can scarcely comprehend what would happen if this was ever proved. I have attached a couple of articles (both coincidentally from the Guardian which explains both sides of the theory.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/18/truth-money-iou-bank-of-england-austerity

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/18/freeman-land-strategy-bullet-debt

[Stilton Cheesewright]

 ... I learnt not to take things at face value. ...

 

In my 60's now, I have attended the local magistrates court when Guy Taylor has appeared and if the CPS had a case they could of squashed Guy Taylor years ago, but the whole judicial system seems to be losing its creditability. I give him the benefit of the doubt until he is proved wrong. I thought I had an inquiring mind when it came to detail, but your approach beats mine - slightly overwelming. I must try and see it from your point of view, which is of course the opposite to what I do, when watching alternative media ie UK Column.

 

 

I'm all for critical thinking but my complaint about "freemen" is that for the vast majority, their skepticism is only ever one way and lacks any discernment. To be honest their approach seems to boil down to a rather childish "nobody can tell me what to do". Most seem prepared to embrace any anti-establishment viewpoint without question, irrespective of how fantastical or demonstrably untrue it is, simply because it supports their anti-authority agenda. I've seen it described as a "libertarian -anarchist" viewpoint although I very much doubt that most freeman could articulate what such a world would look like.

 

I don't agree with your comment about the CPS "squashing" Guy years ago. The criminal prosecution only began last summer after Guy re-entered Bodenham Manor. In my view, the fact that Guy has had so many opportunities in court is evidence that the judicial system has offered him a fair hearing.

 

With regard to Guy's case, notwithstanding the possibility that his trespass charge is thrown out on a technicality, it seems to me to hinge on him proving that the original possession order should not have been granted. In order to do that he has to prove that he didn't owe the money and that probably means proving that he did actually make the cash payments he claims or that one of the fraud claims I explained above are true.

 

One of Guy's main "legal advisors" is a Mr Ebert who went through a very similar experience about 15 years ago. His business failed, he was made bankrupt and the bank possessed his house to pay off the debt. Having exhausted all opportunities to appeal the decisions, he initiated probably well in excess of a hundred private civil and criminal prosecutions alleging corruption involving the bank, judiciary, estate agents, members of parliament and pretty much anybody else you can think of. Unsuccessful in every case,  the Attorney General ultimately sought and received an order classifying him as a "vexatious litigant" preventing him raising any further actions without permission in advance from the High Court. Eventually he was also banned from physically entering The Royal Courts of Justice. It's not hard to imagine that Guy may be heading down the same road.

[dippyhippy]

This is why I love Hereford Voice!

 

Here we have a subject, which I don't know an awful lot about! However, reading back through this thread in its entirety, I have learnt so much. Megilleland and Stilton Cheesewright in particular have made some brilliant contributions. I have read links supporting both sides of the argument, and now feel I have gained a tad more knowledge than I had before!

 

It's this balance of views and perspectives which makes Hereford Voice so different to other forums. And it's a great thing that we can take the time to understand another differing opinion.

 

I truly wish that more folks would grab the bull by the horns and jump in with a comment, observation or opinion!

 

C'mon all you readers and viewers of these pages......get yourselves involved!

[dippyhippy]

Blimey Stilton!

 

There's that word...."vexatious" again! This has cropped up several times recently on various threads!

 

Is it me, or does this seem to be becoming quite a common way now of stopping folks in their tracks?

 

Whether issues with local authorities, housing associations or the legal system....it would appear that to label a person "vexatious" prevents them - rightly or wrongly-from pursuing them putting right a wrong.

 

I'm not sure I think this is always the best way of dealing with a situation.

 

Surely if an issue remains unresolved....potentially the issue (and it could be a whopper of an issue!) still remains!

[Cambo]

Yes dippy it's like watching two heavyweights of information going toe to toe having exchanging blow for blow with no quarter given!…two fine keyboard warriors who are both still standing having made equally valid & good points to the debate!!!

I look forward to them both keeping us up to date with there differing of opinions on this fascinating & intriguing case as the final outcome could be a historic one?!

[Stilton Cheesewright]

Blimey Stilton!

 

There's that word...."vexatious" again! This has cropped up several times recently on various threads!

 

Is it me, or does this seem to be becoming quite a common way now of stopping folks in their tracks?

 

Whether issues with local authorities, housing associations or the legal system....it would appear that to label a person "vexatious" prevents them - rightly or wrongly-from pursuing them putting right a wrong.

 

I'm not sure I think this is always the best way of dealing with a situation.

 

Surely if an issue remains unresolved....potentially the issue (and it could be a whopper of an issue!) still remains!

 

Have you ever had a "cold caller" knock on your door? What would you think if, after you politely declined the opportunity to receive a quote for double glazing, the salesman came back for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th .... 100th time with the same offer? On perhaps the third occasion you might be inclined to say "Look I've told you I'm not interested" but the salesman replies "But I still want to give you a quote so the issue remains unresolved".  You and I might say that the salesman was being vexatious. He would say that you're unreasonably denying him the opportunity to make a living.

 

We have to allow the possibility that local authorities, housing associations, the legal system etc sometimes encounter individuals that, to put it bluntly, "will not take no for an answer." Should these individuals be able to pursue their issue in perpetuity simply because they haven't received the result that they want? What if this means the council, authority etc have to use resources that could be used elsewhere?  I think there has to be a point at which the authority calls a halt. And yes, I realise that this poses a risk that the authority could use this process to avoid answering difficult questions.

 

I have looked at the two or three other threads where the term vexatious has cropped up but obviously not knowing the details it is hard to comment on the validity. However, I have to say that the one where the issue underlying the inappropriate language was that repeated complaints had been made about a department on an issue for which they had no responsibility and had not been involved seemed, on the face of it, pretty reasonable.

 

I don't know if there is an increasing use of the vexatious complaints policy and if there is, to what extent this illustrates an increasing lack of openness by authorities, and /or an increasing level of spurious complaints. My recent experience of the "freeman movement" makes me inclined to believe the latter is definitely a factor. In terms of vexatious litigants it is interesting that there are only around 200 Civil Proceeding Orders in existence (which prevent someone launching a civil action in court without permission in advance from the High Court) only 15 of which were granted within the last 10 years. That doesn't seem like an explosion in denial of access to justice.

 

In cases of a vexatious litigant we also have to bear in mind that litigation doesn't happen in a vacuum. There is a defendant and often this is another organisation or member of the public that is continually hauled into court with the associated costs, inconvenience and potential damage to reputation while the claimant seeks to achieve the result he wants.

 

This was true of the case of Mr Ebert. If you are interested, I have attached a transcript of the hearing for the CPO. This is part two of the hearing (links to the first part and the subsequent appeal are at the bottom of the linked page). It is still a very long and extremely complex judgement but if you start at paragraph 20 you get the feel of the situation. Personally I think Mr Ebert had had "his day in court".

 

http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/vexatiouslitigant/vex_lit_queens_bench_ebert_2.html

[dippyhippy]

Hi Stilton!

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post, it's a really interesting point isn't it? There is definitely a divide between those who genuinely have a need to have information, and they are genuinely encountering obstacles being put in their way.To my mind, there needs to be - and there may already be - some safeguards put in place to ensure that those seeking truth can get to it, and those seeking to be a nuisance are stopped in their tracks. Some independent monitor perhaps? Who both sides can turn to. I don't know! But discussing this can only be a good thing!

 

I completely agree that in these cash strapped times, resources need to be used where they are most needed, and the time and money spent dealing with requests etc.must be a consideration.However, there are occasions where it seems this route is being sought more to protect guilty parties, and that will never sit comfortably with me!

 

I will definitely take the time to look at the link you have provided, as I am keen to learn more!

 

On a related note, I see a new thread has been started about this specific subject......long may these great debates continue!

[dippyhippy]

Good grief!

 

I've just noticed that my post above is slightly jumbled.....and therefore, I am appearing even more dotty than usual!

 

It should read.....

 

There is definitely a divide between those who genuinely have a need for information, and genuinely have obstacles placed in their way, and those who are abusing the system.

 

Apologies for my random thought processes!

[greenknight]

Ah damn I popped out for a drink and popcorn..what round is this? I can't see there being a knockout blow here..I'm down for a points decision!

[Stilton Cheesewright]

Hi Stilton!

 

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my post, it's a really interesting point isn't it? There is definitely a divide between those who genuinely have a need to have information, and they are genuinely encountering obstacles being put in their way.To my mind, there needs to be - and there may already be - some safeguards put in place to ensure that those seeking truth can get to it, and those seeking to be a nuisance are stopped in their tracks. Some independent monitor perhaps? Who both sides can turn to. I don't know! But discussing this can only be a good thing!

 

I completely agree that in these cash strapped times, resources need to be used where they are most needed, and the time and money spent dealing with requests etc.must be a consideration.However, there are occasions where it seems this route is being sought more to protect guilty parties, and that will never sit comfortably with me!

 

I will definitely take the time to look at the link you have provided, as I am keen to learn more!

 

On a related note, I see a new thread has been started about this specific subject......long may these great debates continue!

Obviously, deciding at what point a line of enquiry or complaint becomes vexatious depends on a judgement call and where you are standing in the process. So there does need to be a some controls if the enquiry / complaints process is not to be abused by any party. When I dealt with FOI requests I had to refer any enquiry that I felt to be vexatious to our Head of Public Relations (and believe me they didn't just accept my opinion).  In general I think the safeguard is an appeal to the Information Commissioners Office. I had one repeat enquiry come from the House of Lords which caused a bit of a stir - he didn't know what he was talking about either!

 

Ah damn I popped out for a drink and popcorn..what round is this? I can't see there being a knockout blow here..I'm down for a points decision!

 

I don't expect a knockout and I don't think I'm even sparring with the likes of Cambo and Dippy Hippy - we're just exchanging ideas. I don't think that either of them are telling other boxers that they have a foolproof way to win

 

The problem I have with some others is that they enter the ring believing that only they understand the Marquis of Queensbury rules, the "referee" is biased, the judges have been bribed and the fight isn't really sanctioned by the BBBC.

 

In the unlikely event that they win; they have overcome the corrupt system, if as usually happens, their opponent wins it is because the system is corrupt.

 

Unfortunately, they don't know when to stay down so they keep receiving the same beating again and again without ever questioning whether they might just not have the tools to do the job.

[Roger]

The new trial date is 8th and 9th February, although the 9th and 10th was mentioned. Guy Taylor recounts the days proceedings here on UK Column today or view in the archives here.

 

 

These dates' have passed. Did anything happen? 

[megilleland]

I've been told it has been adjourned till June, although not confirmed.

[Roger]

I've been told it has been adjourned till June, although not confirmed.

 

Ridiculous .... What's the delay this time? Paperwork? You can almost guarantee it will be adjourned next time as well ....

[megilleland]

More nuisance phone calls?

Monday 16 February 2015 - Mark Leftly

 

BT poised to land bailiff contract to collect billions in unpaid fines

 

The Justice Secretary believes that big business would be more effective than the courts at reducing the level of outstanding fines

 

BT is expected to land a much-criticised Ministry of Justice semi-privatisation deal that would see the telephony giant turn bailiff.

 

Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, believes that big business would be more effective than the courts at reducing the level of outstanding fines, which was around £2bn when the competition to find a private-sector provider was launched two years ago.

 

At a time when the Coalition has been trying to balance the UK’s books, ministers have also ended up writing off hundreds of millions of pounds in fines in recent years.

 

County court bailiffs repossessed 41,195 properties on behalf of landlords in the 12 months to September The Public and Commercial Services union fear private bailiffs will not have the interests of victims at heart The process of selecting a winner has been heavily delayed and might not be completed before the general election, but it is thought that BT is close to being confirmed as the preferred bidder. Initially valued at around £675m, the deal was lucrative enough to attract a host of big names: the FTSE-100 outsourcing empire Capita, the computing giant IBM and the French IT group Atos are thought to have been in the running at various points.

 

Critics fear that sensitive information held by the courts, such as addresses, will have to be passed to the private sector in order for their bailiffs to do their jobs properly. Victims of crime who are owed compensation could also see their personal information passed to debt collectors.

 

There are also concerns that the industry is too lightly regulated; in 2013, the Citizens Advice Bureaux reported that it had received 25,000 complaints about bailiffs’ behaviour. However, the Government did introduce some tough rules last year, such as stopping bailiffs from entering homes when only children are present.

 

Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services union, told The Independent: “We do not believe private bailiffs will have the best interests of victims at heart when they’re chasing payments. History shows that trying to bolt the profit motive on to very sensitive areas of the public sector, like the justice system with electronic tagging, is a recipe for disaster.â€

 

An industry source suggested that the contract award might have been delayed as this might be seen as “one privatisation too far†ahead of what is shaping up to be a tight general election. The MoJ recently handed control of about 70 per cent of the probation service to the private sector, which has angered campaigners who believe justice should not be “for saleâ€.

 

A spokesman for HM Courts & Tribunals Service said: “The commercial process to seek an external provider for compliance and enforcement services formally commenced in July 2013. The final bids were submitted in January 2015. It is anticipated that the contract will be awarded later in the year.â€

 

BT declined to comment.

[megilleland]

The British Constitution Group and UK Column have held their conference at Telford this weekend. There are two videos which were quickly released regarding the General Election and reintroducing the Grand Jury system. The flow is a bit jerky with some sound problems and I think the host Alex Gee, dominating the proceedings, can be a turn off.

 

However some interesting points made by the audience, especially their reaction to Nigel Farge and UKIP. It would worthwhile his office looking at  this. Guy Taylor features in Grand Jury video. The American Field McConnell was in attendance to give the US take on things which are affecting them now and will be seen in the UK in the coming years.

 

General Election Conference Special starts at 2:10

 

The People’s Grand Jury Conference Special starts at 2:55

 

Field McConnell Interview at the Park Inn part 1, Telford at the British Constitution Group and UK Column Conference 

 

Field McConnell Interview at the Park Inn part 2, Telford at the British Constitution Group and UK Column Conference 

 

Field McConnell Interview at the Park Inn part 3, Telford at the British Constitution Group and UK Column Conference 

[Stilton Cheesewright]

I can think of better things to do with 4 hours than to watch these videos (root canal work or kidney dialysis spring to mind) so to précis the main issue as I understand it:

 

Wikipedia describes the function of a Grand Jury as "... a legal body that is empowered to conduct official proceedings to investigate potential criminal conduct and to determine whether criminal charges should be brought. A grand jury may compel the production of documents and may compel the sworn testimony of witnesses to appear before it. A grand jury is separate from the courts, which do not preside over its functioning.  (In the UK:) "The grand jury's functions were gradually made redundant by the development of committal proceedings in magistrates' courts from 1848 onward ... In 1933 the grand jury ceased to function in England, under the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1933^[12] and was entirely abolished in 1948, when a clause from 1933 saving grand juries for offences relating to officials abroad was repealed by the Criminal Justice Act 1948."

 

However, "The British Constitution Group" and "UK Column" have unilaterally decided that the system should be reinstated and convened four such "people's" juries as a main focus of their annual conference held last weekend in Telford:   http://www.britishconstitutiongroup.com/conference/spring-conference-2015 .

 

Presumably the membership of these juries were drawn from the conference participants and thus we can be sure of their impartiality.  It's also worth bearing in mind that only the person making the claim submits evidence (there is no defence evidence presented). The aim is simply to say whether there is sufficient evidence that the case should go forward.

 

The principal case considered was entitled " The Institutions of The State that should be protecting children were not doing so". A page on the British Constitution Group website explains the purpose of the case and the actions to be taken when the jury passed the case.  http://www.britishconstitutiongroup.com/article/spring-conference-2015-grand-jury 

Of course the fact that the page was put up before the jury was convened shouldn't be taken as it being a forgone conclusion that the jury would pass the case. In the event the jury did pass the case.

 

​One of the other cases considered was Guy Taylor's never-ending claim that he has been defrauded by Barclay's Bank, wrongfully evicted from Bodenham Manor, assaulted by bailiffs etc etc etc.  Bearing in mind that Guy has already initiated private prosecutions, has been to court on numerous occasions and is due back in court in a few days time, a Grand Jury hearing seems somewhat superfluous. In fact (and apparently without a tinge of irony) the jury returned a verdict of "ignoramus" which effectively means the the claim was not proven.  However, before anyone jumps to the conclusion that this signals the end to Guy's campaign, the verdict was a technical one and not based on the evidence that Guy submitted.

 

It appears that while the jury of 12 was being sworn-in, one of the prospective jurors remembered that earlier he had been talking to Guy about the case and this might not support the required veneer of impartiality. Fortunately as swearing-in wasn't complete, a replacement juror was found. However, some 15 minutes after they started deliberating, a row broke out amongst the jurors about what they were trying to achieve and the standard of evidence required. As a result another juror recused himself / decided to withdraw / stormed off and the jury, rendered inquorate, was thus unable to proceed to a verdict. Perhaps the first occasion where a manufactured show trial resulted in a mis-trial.

[megilleland]

Stilton it is good to get your take on the conference. What date and which court is Guy Taylor appearing in next? I have a couple of hours to kill and would like to pop along.

[Stilton Cheesewright]

Had a look at the field McConnell interview videos too. Really not worth the bother. We already have more than enough MH370, MH17, 9/11 etc etc etc conspiracy theorists.  Although the Abel Danger website does have some of the more verifiable lunacy on the internet there is nothing really new.

[Stilton Cheesewright]

deleted ...

[Stilton Cheesewright]

Stilton it is good to get your take on the conference. What date and which court is Guy Taylor appearing in next? I have a couple of hours to kill and would like to pop along.

 

 

I've been told it has been adjourned till June, although not confirmed.

[megilleland]

That's why I asked you as I had been told his next appearance would be in June. It's March this month and June is 3 months away, a bit longer than a couple of days. Do you have a date?

[Stilton Cheesewright]

That's why I asked you as I had been told his next appearance would be in June. It's March this month and June is 3 months away, a bit longer than a couple of days. Do you have a date?

 

Nope - I got mixed up with the hearing of another "freeman" which is in March and in any case my point still stands.

[Stilton Cheesewright]

If you are talking about the Tom Crawford non-eviction then you must be joking. There was copious coverage in the mainstream media. I think we know why Russia Today is so keen to report any incident of anti-authority action in the UK.

 

As for the case, many people have been swept along in the emotion of the case of a pensioner with cancer without stopping to ask some fundamental questions. For example, he says that he first found out that there was a problem with his endowment mortgage in 2000 (in some reports he says 1998). Undoubtably this would have been that the proceeds of his endowment would not cover the loan. What did he do about it?  It looks like he did nothing.

 

Later he may well have had a case of negligence against the bank if they did indeed lose the details of the endowment policy (although he doesn't seem to have any either) and indeed he did try to take Bradford & Bingley to court. Unfortunately, rather than seek to prove the existence of the endowment policy he turned for help to various "Freeman on the land" and "Lawful rebellion" advocates who steered him down the path of alleging that since Bradford & Bingley had not proved that they "owned" the money that they lent him, their request for interest amounted to bank fraud. Mr Crawford has become increasingly embroiled in these lunatic theories and indeed is now a keen advocate. In doing so he has lost sight of the real issue and put his home at risk.

 

Guy Taylor is indeed very comfortable dealing with his allegations of fraudulent eviction documents. However, as yet his assertions are simply the untested theories of a group of people who have spectacularly failed to achieve any success in court and most of which have been evicted in the past.

 

Although there has been no substantive progress in Guy Taylor's case regarding Bodenham Manor he has not been inactive. The case of Tom Crawford was mentioned here about three months ago because Guy Taylor is one of the Mr Crawford's leading supporters and advisers. As you can see above the case really revolves around the non-existence of an endowment policy to repay the capital sum he borrowed to buy his bungalow.  I said before that I thought Mr Crawford might have a case against the bank if he stuck to the issues over the endowment policy rather than sought to rely on the dubious legitimacy of the usual 'freeman" arguments around bank fraud and faulty documentation and court process.

 

Mr Crawford was in court yesterday to appeal the Order of Possession that was granted last year in respect of his bungalow in Nottingham. The judgement has been reserved i.e the judge will take some time to consider the evidence and appropriate law and communicate his decision later. However , it has emerged that the bank gave evidence that Mr Crawford actually stopped paying the premium on his endowment policy which explains why, despite paying the interest on the loan for the whole of the loan period, there was no money to repay the capital sum and he still owes the £43,000 that he borrowed.

 

In March, Guy also attended the attempted eviction of Glynis Craggs in County Durham to lend his support to blocking the bailiffs by force of numbers although the eviction was subsequently completed last week. Ms Craggs eviction was a perfect case study of how the "freemen on the land" tactics can have catastrophic consequences. Ms Craggs and her partner had remortgaged the property that she had lived in for 26 years but unfortunately were struggling to make the repayments. In January 2014 she wrote to the mortgage company asking for information on the power of attorney contained in the original terms and conditions of the loan. This may seem like a rather innocent if obscure question but it is in fact step one of the process recommended by "The White Rabbit Trust" in determining that the mortgage should be considered void. Presumably Ms Craggs hoped that the mortgage would be cancelled but she would retain the house. It's not clear what reply was received but Ms Craggs was dissatisfied with it and this allowed her to move on to step two of the process which was to declare herself "in dispute" with the mortgage company which meant that she could suspend her repayments until the dispute was resolved. Unsurprisingly the mortgage lender didn't agree and notified her that they intended to start possession proceedings. They secured a Possession Order in July 2014 and since then there have been two attempts at eviction only frustrated by force of numbers of "supporters", various appearances in court where her claims were consistently dismissed and ultimately an unceremonious eviction. A sad and totally unnecessary saga resulting purely from believing freeman theory.

[Pete Boggs]

It's not a pleasant thing to read about people losing their homes. All the more so when those people have been given dud advice and false hope by tinfoil hat wearers.  In Mr Crawford's case one wonders whether he might have had a claim for misselling and would perhaps have been better advised if he'd gone to his local CAB or Law Centre.

[Stilton Cheesewright]

It's not a pleasant thing to read about people losing their homes. All the more so when those people have been given dud advice and false hope by tinfoil hat wearers.  In Mr Crawford's case one wonders whether he might have had a claim for misselling and would perhaps have been better advised if he'd gone to his local CAB or Law Centre.

I am sure that you are correct albeit that he seems to have been the author of his own problems. It has never been clear what happened to the endowment policy that was supposed to pay off the capital sum he borrowed. Mr Crawford claims that B&B "lost" the policy but has always resisted answering any questions on whether he continued to pay the premiums on it or indeed ever started. Now, it seems that he purposely decided to stop paying the premium. Perhaps he did not understand what it was. 

 

He also accuses B&B of changing the mortgage to a repayment type without his permission. Again there's not too many details on this but it would at least have solved the problem of the missing endowment policy. However Mr Crawford is happy to admit that he forced B&B to change it back so he was only paying them interest. He still made no provision to repay the capital sum and allowed this situation to continue for 13 years until the capital sum was almost due to be repaid.

 

I have thought all along that he never understood the nature of the mortgage he had taken out, never looked at the annual statements and ignored any and all advice from B&B. As far as he was concerned he was paying money to B&B and that would mean after 25 years he would own his house. B&B might have failed in their duty of care to explain the situation better but Mr Crawford also had a responsibility.

 

I would feel sympathy for him if he had not spend the last 12 months travelling round the country encouraging other people in the ludicrous "freeman" ideas that he has espoused alongside the factual details of his personal case. As I indicated previously those ideas land people in severe difficulty and sometimes even their own eviction.