Norman v Heers (Trustee) [2016] FCA 821

I don't think I'll comment on Norman v Heers (Trustee) [2016] FCA 821, it is either self explanatory or incomprehensible: "I am of sound mind, i.e. this affidavit and the facts herein are the product of knowledge and creative-expression by its creator. My name constitutes property. My name is owned by my master in accordance … Continue reading Norman v Heers (Trustee) [2016] FCA 821

Summerland Credit Union Ltd v Lamberton; Summerland Credit Union Ltd v Jonathan [2014] NSWSC 547

In Summerland Credit Union Ltd v Lamberton; Summerland Credit Union Ltd v Jonathan [2014] NSWSC 547 the defendants resisted foreclosure of their properties, signing their names with trademark symbols: "I, Jonathan©"TM" am no aware of any documents relating to case number 13/372819 being lawfully served on Debra Ann Lamberton©"TM" in Adelaide or at her tenanted address … Continue reading Summerland Credit Union Ltd v Lamberton; Summerland Credit Union Ltd v Jonathan [2014] NSWSC 547

National Australia Bank Limited v Norman [2012] VSC 14

In National Australia Bank Limited v Norman [2012] VSC 14 the court noted: "The counterclaim was comprised of random, almost incomprehensible, statements, propositions, quotations, argument and references to other material that appeared to have been lifted from other documents and randomly pasted into the pleading.  Passages were quoted from Magna Carta and the Bible." The defendants argued that … Continue reading National Australia Bank Limited v Norman [2012] VSC 14

Westpac Banking Corporation v Mason [2011] NSWSC 1241

In Westpac Banking Corporation v Mason [2011] NSWSC 1241 the defendants attempted to avoid foreclosure arguing that securitizing a loan is misleading, deceptive, and unconscionable conduct, and that the bank could not enforce the loan agreement, as it had: "...already received a financial benefit for its "equitable interests" in the loan agreement and mortgage; that it … Continue reading Westpac Banking Corporation v Mason [2011] NSWSC 1241

Puglia v RHG Mortgage Corporation Ltd [2013] WASCA 143

In Puglia v RHG Mortgage Corporation Ltd [2013] WASCA 143 the court rejected the securitization argument contended by the appellants,  alleging that: "the respondent had 'sold' the mortgage and failed to disclose this, and the applicants had not received any consideration from the respondent, and that is why the applicants 'have to be paid by bill … Continue reading Puglia v RHG Mortgage Corporation Ltd [2013] WASCA 143

RHG Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Astolfi [2011] NSWSC 1526

In RHG Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Astolfi [2011] NSWSC 1526 the respondent resisted an attempt to foreclose on her property, arguing that the mortgage could not be enforced because it had been securitized. The court struck out the pleadings responding that the right to enforce the mortgage flows from the mortgage agreement itself. "A similar matter … Continue reading RHG Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Astolfi [2011] NSWSC 1526

Westpac Banking Corporation v McLean [2012] WASC 182

In Westpac Banking Corporation v McLean, [2012] WASC 182 the respondent resisted foreclosure of her property, arguing it had been “securitized” and could not be enforced. The court rejected this defence because the loan had never been securitized, and concluded on the basis of prior jurisprudence that even if the mortgage had been securitized that was … Continue reading Westpac Banking Corporation v McLean [2012] WASC 182

Hou v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] VSCA 57

Summary judgments were made regarding a mortgage recovery, and as there was no appearance by the defendants, reasons were not pronounced in court and subsequently a request was made for reasons for appeal, which were given in Westpac Banking Corporation v Qin Qin Hou and Savvas Kanakaridis [2014] VSC 330 and Westpac Banking Corporation v … Continue reading Hou v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] VSCA 57

Vaughan v HSBC Bank Australia Limited [2009] FCA 1007

In Vaughan v HSBC Bank Australia Limited [2009] FCA 1007 the applicant invoked what he described as a ‘Private Administration Process’ through a series of documents, one which apparently recorded a then current indebtedness of the applicant to the Bank of $504,597.23 and attached a birth certificate as payment. The Bank did not engage in the … Continue reading Vaughan v HSBC Bank Australia Limited [2009] FCA 1007

St George Bank v Hammer (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 953

The defendant applied to have a foreclosure proceeding transferred to Federal Court, but the application for an adjournment was rejected in St. George Bank v Hammer [2015] NSWSC 957. After a transfer under the Financial Sector (Business Transfer and Group Restructure) Act, all the assets and liabilities of St George Bank became assets and liabilities … Continue reading St George Bank v Hammer (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 953

Szita v Capital Finance Australia Limited (2004) FCA 477

Szita v Capital Finance Australia Limited (2004) FCA 477 The appellant claimed that by sending to Capital a document call a “certified promissory note” specifying an amount of $116,375.95, Mr Szita has discharged any liability to Capital. The Court concluded that Mr Szita’s claim is manifestly hopeless, wholly untenable, incapable of constituting tender of payment, … Continue reading Szita v Capital Finance Australia Limited (2004) FCA 477

Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Grahame [2020] VSC 86

In Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Grahame [2020] VSC 86, the defendant sought to draw a legal distinction between herself (whom she refers to as the living person, ‘Heather Jean Grahame’ on the one hand, and the named defendant in the proceeding, whom she refers to as the corporate entity ‘HEATHER JEAN GRAHAME’ (in capital … Continue reading Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Limited v Grahame [2020] VSC 86

Making money out of thin air

OPCA litigants have employed a number of what may be called "money for nothing" schemes that purport to provide a mechanism by which the OPCA litigant can obtain unconventional benefits. These are the proverbial caves of hidden treasure. OPCA gurus who advance these concepts claim that, with the correct combination of documents, one can open … Continue reading Making money out of thin air

Mark Pytellek

Mark Andrew Borleis 1 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. Mark Pytellek has been running paid workshops teaching sovereign citizen concepts under variations of the name "Solutions Empowerment" 2 for at least a decade. … Continue reading Mark Pytellek