Mark Pytellek

Mark Andrew Borleis is also known as Mark Andrew Pytellek.

In 2006 he claimed Magistrate White owed him 6.5 million for rejecting his defence and upholding the states traffic laws.

The Courier Mail: “Australian separatist Mark Andrew Pytellek held over courtroom brawl“:

Mark Pytellek has been running paid workshops teaching sovereign citizen concepts under variations of the name “Solutions Empowerment” for at least a decade. These workshops, according to a manual distributed at a 2009 workshop, teach attendees to use pseudo-legal documents to refuse to pay taxes or stop banks from repossessing property.

Among many other victims, he coached Paul and Christopher Rana to their inevitable failure in 2008, as seen in Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v Rana [2008] FCA 374:

“Paul Rana gave evidence at the plea hearing on his own behalf. He was asked to explain the bizarre documents which he filed on 19 October 2006. He explained that his son, Christopher, had received an unsolicited email about the way Paul Rana could defend himself in these proceedings.

Christopher Rana attended a weekend course for the purpose. A person called Mark Borleis [aka Ptyellek] convinced Christopher and Paul Rana that this was the proper legal path to undertake. In further answers in cross-examination concerning the documents filed on 19 November 2007, it was clear that Paul Rana understood their meaning, even though he accepted that he was following advice from the wrong people and that the documents were the wrong thing to do.”

Despite a track record of consistent failures, Mark Pytellek had been granted power of attorney over the affairs of Michael John Hammer, and appeared for him in several of his failed cases, including In the matter of St George Bank – A Division of Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] NSWSC 2052 and St George Bank v Hammer (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 953 (at 28):

“Mr Pytellek tendered a Notice to Admit Facts filed and served on 19th March 2015 and the bank’s notice disputing the facts. The “facts” sought to be admitted are a mishmash of the circumstances I have just recounted, and conclusions of mixed fact and law which the borrower sees as the foundation of his case. They do not bear recitation, and in any event, the bank disputed each and all of them.”

In 2011 Mark Borlais adopted OPCA “travelling” concepts which led to incidents with the police. When Borleis appeared in Borleis v Wacol Correctional Centre [2011] QSC 232 he argued the “Strawman” duality and that he should be released because criminal litigation only applies to his other half. He also argued the Magna Carta prohibits pre-trial detention. Borleis also explained that there were no outstanding charges because those had been withdrawn or settled as a result of negotiations with the Crown. All these arguments were rejected and habeus corpus was denied.

“Mr Borleis, who was brought to Court from the prison today, was allowed to make some submissions himself. He submitted that the Magistrate had no authority to deal with him. He seemed to distinguish between himself as a man in two different capacities and suggested that the law did not bind him in one of those two capacities. This rather esoteric and spiritual argument does not find any reflection in any provision of our law.

He also asserted that there is no entitlement under our law for anyone to be kept in custody prior to their conviction for an offence. That, again, is not the state of affairs under our law. A Magistrate is empowered to remand accused persons in custody until their trial. It seems clear that that is what has happened in this case. Appeals to Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights do not alter that situation. Nothing in either of those pieces of legislation is capable of affecting the operation of subsequent legislation which confers on Magistrates the power to remand in custody.

Finally, Mr Borleis submitted that the Magistrate lacked power because the charges which were before the Court had already been disposed of. By that he did not mean that they had been heard and determined in Court but rather that they had been withdrawn or settled as a result of negotiations between him and those who brought the charges. That is, no doubt, a matter which the Magistrates Court can deal with but I do not see at the moment how it could possibly be the fact that there was a compromise of a criminal or quasi criminal charge. Either the charge is withdrawn or it is not. In any event, there is nothing before me to suggest that the warrant which the Magistrate issued was in any way imperfect or that those who are carrying out the instructions in the warrant, that is to say the General Manager of the Brisbane Correctional Centre and his staff are detaining Mr Borleis wrongfully.”

The same year in his other name in Pytellek v Evans [2011] QSC 210 he filed a habeus corpus application directed to an old age centre demanding release of his mother, Florida Borleis, pursuant to the Magna Carta. Florida Borleis had been diagnosed as having “high level dementia” and lacked capacity. Pytellek was not involved in the process that had led to Florida Borleis’ being housed at the centre. Habeus corpus was denied because Florida Borleis presence in the centre was the result of a valid contract, and was not an unlawful detention.

Solutions Empowerment charges users $199.00 annually for access to advice on sovereign rights and vaccinations, as well as legal and financial matters. The website’s homepage video boasts an increase of over 50,000 members during the COVID-19 pandemic

A website dedicated to Mark’s victims has surfaced online, called “Mark Pytellek’s Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument” which is worth a read. Mark Pytellek is under investigation by Queensland Police Service Financial and Cyber Crime Group (FCCG) for criminal fraud. (Published 15 April 2019)

Following the COVID-19 outbreak in early 2020, Mark Pytellek was mentioned in relation to an alleged scam involving Solutions Empowerment, where people are charged to add their name to a foisted unilateral contract that demands politicians follow the constituent’s “will” and agree to be financially and criminally liable for any damage caused by a vaccine.

In 2021, thousands were named and shamed in a Tasmanian government list containing over 4300 people with 23,635 unpaid fines. Mark Pytellek’s name appeared on the list, owing $317. Not to worry, it’s only his all-capitals “strawman” that owes the money, not him.