Stilton Cheesewright

Guy did indeed appear at Hereford Crown Court this week. He was previously convicted of trespass at Bodenham Manor for which he was sentenced to: a 12 month community order: 150 hours of community work a £1000 fine a restraining order not to go near Bodenham Manor or it's owner. Unfortunately I could not attend the hearing personally so I am not entirely sure whether he sought to appeal the conviction or the sentence. Similarly I don't know the grounds for his appeal although he has long maintained that the original warrant used to evict him from the property was fraudulent and thus he could not be guilty of trespass. As I have previously observed any warrant in any case in which Guy has even a passing interest is, according to him, fraudulent. I am told that his appeal was rejected and he was to pay £650 towards the costs of the Crown Prosecution Service. He will now be subject to the original sentence which was suspended pending the appeal. He has talked for some time about mounting private prosecutions against the agency and or the individuals enforcing the warrant against him but this latest reverse plus the fact that since 2012 he has been an undischarged bankrupt makes such action unlikely. I also understand that Bodenham Manor has been resold in two lot i.e. the building and the land and that as reported above planning permission has been sought to demolish the building.

Well I am. The quote doesn't seem relevant. This isn't about civil disobedience or even a decision to consciously break the law. Guy et al claim that they are trying to ensure that the law is upheld. However their understanding of the law is so flawed that sometimes they end up breaking it. More to the point whenever their interpretation of law is tested, it fails. In such circumstances most reasonable and logical people might question whether their interpretation is correct but no, their excuse is that the courts are corrupted so that they cannot win. It's a nice circular argument that means that they can never be wrong. This underpins a lot of the "freeman" thinking - as if to admit even one failure risks their whole shaky house of cards tumbling down. The most obvious recent example of this is Guy's insistence that Tom has "won" his court hearing about the Possession Order on his house even in the face of the transcript of the hearing and judgment being publicly available and obviously showing completely the opposite. Personally I object to people like Guy etc giving desperate or gullible people false hope of success using their totally discredited methods, almost certainly costing them money and undoubtedly being a drain on public resources. I called him a time waster but he is arguably much worse.

Guy alleges that the court documents were not properly prepared or served in every case with which he becomes involved and to date without once coming close to proving it. The spectacular failure of his advice in Tom Crawford's case is merely the latest example. However since his understanding is based on the teachings of serial case loser Mr Ebert that is no surprise. Back in the real world he is just a serial time waster.

duplicated post deleted

This is primarily another example of Guy Taylor pretending that he has some expertise and understanding in the law which means that he or the people he is advising can wriggle out of their responsibilities (forensic legal consultant indeed!). Guy trots out his arrant nonsense about court seals and signatures and fraudulent documents at every possibly occasion. Unfortunately, most police are not trained in court processes and documentation etc. and can be easily bamboozled by someone who appears to know what they are talking about - even if what they are saying is self serving nonsense. At best all that Guy achieves is that proceedings are delayed. His mentor, Mr Ebert and one of his disciples, Tom Crawford have both managed to achieve "vexatious litigant" status and it can surely only be a better of time before this happens to Guy - or that he has another spell in prison. With regard to the involvement of police in a "civil matter", if an enforcement officer is prevented from executing a Warrant enacting a Court Order then that constitutes a breach of the peace which is a criminal offence under the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. It is therefore legitimate for the Police to intervene to prevent such a breach. It also worth noting that Section 99, Schedule 7, paragraph5 of the Courts Act 2003 states: "It is the duty of every constable, at the request of - a) an enforcement agent or b) a person acting under the enforcement agent's authority, to assist the enforcement agent or that person in the execution of a writ."

It seems that a good many followers of the pseudo-legal BS pedalled by Guy and his chums had their eyes opened by the blatant lies of the Tom Crawford case, the Hampstead SRA allegations and the ongoing fraud of WeRe Bank. Consequently the world of "lawful rebellion" has been on reduced power of late. Guy is apparently still providing legal advice although given his record in court (as so accurately portrayed in this link: )it's hard to believe that he anyone thinks he has a shred of real knowledge or credibility. He is also due back in court on 21st September in a case involving Npower. I assume this relates to the charge of "abstracting" (stealing) electricity which began in 2011. Guy has also appeared on the odd YouTube "radio station" video where he claims to have been busy launching lots of private prosecutions. I've not heard anything recently in regard to his attempts to prove that he still owns Bodenham Manor but no doubt there is some court action in the pipeline somewhere. So to answer the question, I'm afraid Guy's "case" will never be resolved - this is what he does. No matter how spectacularly unsuccessful he is, his position in the world of "lawful rebellion" requires him to continue down this path. The only thing that might put a crimp in his activities is if he is served with a civil restraint order - declared a "vexatious litigant", as happened to his mentor Mr Ebert and has also recently happened to Tom Crawford after yet another farcical appearance at the Royal Courts of Justice.

No I agree. I wouldn't normally post without a link of some kind but this has come from a normally very reputable source.

I must admit, my understanding was that sentencing for the above had been set for August but I'm hearing from a pretty reliable source that Guy has been sentenced to: a 12 month community order: 150 hours of community work £1000 fine Restraining order not to go near Bodenham Manor or it's owner.

I understand that after a two day trial, Guy Taylor has been found guilty of trespass at Bodenham Manor. No word on sentence yet but according to some of his supporters on the "Get Out of Debt Free" website the conviction is a good thing because he now has them right where he wants them and they will have to produce the evidence. It's not entirely clear why evidence would need to be produced after the conviction but I'm sure Guy has a trick up his sleeve. After all he was one of the legal experts that told Tom Crawford that despite the actual words in the judgement saying the opposite, he had actually won his court hearing. That was a few weeks before Tom was evicted.

You're welcome. For what it's worth, I agree about the endowment mortgages. I too was caught by the problem of the endowment policy not generating enough funds to pay off the loan but was fortunate that I could afford to make up the difference. In time, Tom may have suffered the shortfall problem too but of course it never got to this point because he simply stopped paying the endowment policy premiums anyway so rather than the policy under performing there simply was no policy. It seems likely that Tom will continue to take advice from Guy and co. and as Guy has done, try to launch various court actions to prosecute police, bailiffs, recover the property etc. I also would not put it past them to try to reoccupy the house as Guy did with Bodenham Manor. No doubt that will all be just as successful as Guy has been. What Tom seems to fails to realise is that his actions have and will continue to incur significant costs for the lender which will be recovered from the proceeds of the sale of the house along with the loan capital that he still owes. There is a real possibility that there will be insufficient equity in the house to actually cover the total meaning that even after the house is sold, Tom will still owe money without any means to pay it.

The truth of Tom's case was revealed at the recent hearing of his request to appeal against the Order of Possession in which the judge denied him permission to appeal. Tom took out an endowment mortgage is 1988. In 1991 he (or rather his wife) ceased paying the monthly premium for the endowment policy that was intended to repay the original capital sum. After about 12 months, the policy provider (Royal London) cancelled the policy and paid the proceeds accrued to date (about £178) into Tom's mortgage account with the Bradford & Bingley Building Society. It has never been satisfactorily explained why the premiums were stopped. The vast bulk of what Tom owes is the original capital sum. Everything subsequent to this is a web of misunderstandings, misdirection and downright lies by Tom and the team of "experts" (including Guy Taylor) that gathered around him. They even tried to pretend that the result of the hearing (see link below) was a resounding win and that those of us that thought otherwise were either unable to understand the special legal language in which it was written or were "trolls and shills" shamelessly defending the corrupt banking system in the face of overwhelming evidence. The only overwhelming evidence that I have seen is that Tom's team of experts; Guy Taylor, Gedalhaju Ebert, Michael Waugh etc have all been evicted from their properties and that anyone who has listened to their bullshit (Cleveland Rhoden, Michael Grant-Sinclair, Paula Jayne Campbell, Glynis Craggs and now Tom Crawford to name only some) have suffered the same fate. One might think that this would give them pause for thought but no, in between his futile attempts to recover Bodenham Manor, Guy Taylor makes a habit (and a nice living?) speaking to groups of gullible people and enticing them down the path that has already caused so many people so much misery. Tom is just one more victim of this pernicious nonsense. Part of me thinks that they deserve all they get but a larger part of me thinks that that it is Guy Taylor and co who really deserve to be sorted out for playing silly games with other people's lives. https://infotomb.com/dn1qw.pdf

Any news on Guy's court action?

The full judgement of Tom Crawford's hearing is now available on line. Remember this is the case where Guy Taylor was quite happy to support Tom in saying that the case had clearly been won. See if you agree with him. https://infotomb.com/cixyk

As I wrote about 10 days ago. Tom Crawford (supported by Guy Taylor) has appeared in court in Nottingham for a hearing of their application to appeal against the Order of Possession on Tom's house which was issued last year. There were precious few facts that emerged from the hearing. Tom continued to allege various types of fraud and malpractice by Bradford & Bingley. On the other hand B&B simply alleged that Tom has ceased to pay the premiums on the Life Assurance policy that supported his endowment mortgage. Judgement on the case was reserved primarily because the judge feared an outbreak of disorder in and outside the court. The final judgement was delivered in court today. There were two issues to be heard. Could Tom Crawford submit an appeal "out of time"? The judge granted that application. Could Tom submit an appeal based on the information he submitted to the court? The judge refused that application which means that he rejected all Tom's allegations about fraud etc. The judge ruled that the Order of Possession still stands and the Warrant for Possession (which allows Tom to be evicted) and which had been suspended pending the hearing could go ahead. In a masterclass of self deception and misunderstanding bordering on stupidity that characterises the "freeman / common law" followers. Guy and Tom have spun this result as a great victory. I give you two polar opposite versions of the result: http://www.nottinghampost.com/Judge-refuses-Tom-Crawford-s-battle-bailiffs/story-26501928-detail/story.html I have to say, if this is an example of Guy's understanding of the law then it may be some time before he sees the inside of Bodenham Manor again.

I meant to add that the rumour is that B&B want to come to an arrangement so that Mr Crawford can stay in his house. I assume that might be some kind of equity release scheme. If that's true then let's hope that he is sensible enough to take the offer.