Quatloos!

I thought there was a thread here about This man but I can't find it anywhere.
Just to fill you all in there is about a half mile strip of the Edgware Rd in Colindale NW91QY that has a bus lane with a £100 FIXED PENALTY charge running. Our dear and special lawful Pat must have strayed into it .
So far this truly wonderful man has made at least 3 trips to the Royal Courts Of Justice once getting locked out complete with his band of followers. This is 40 minutes of Joy listening to him calling for justice.
https://youtu.be/EE0veZuu1MA
We are fortunate to have him.
ps I wonder what those who actually wrote Magna Carta would have made/done with him

I have several of his videos downloaded and often watch them when I come back from the pub and I'm not in the mood for Top Gear clips or Will Hay films... Pure entertainment.

PC: "NO!!!! YOU DON'T TELL ME I TELL YOU!!! I AM A COMMON LAW LAWYER AND YOU ARE A PUBLIC SERVANT SO YOU MUST DO WHAT I SAY"

Poor sod on the other end of the phone: "I'm ending this call now sir" in a tone that says "Go f**k yourself you nut-job".

vampireLOREN wrote:I thought there was a thread here about This man but I can't find it anywhere.

I think the retard was mentioned in a similar thread dedicated to a fellow retard. This guy is well gone down the Freetard path & it's going to end very badly for him. Pat is mentally deranged beyond repair. Ah well...all the more for our entertainment.

Sad, really. Previously he had a good and proper grievance against the UK Tax system, which wrongfully ruined him.

"Patrick Cullinane has fought a running battle with the Inland Revenue since the day he was accused of not paying income tax. And the taxman fought dirty - so dirty he lost his home and nearly lost his sanity. Now, a batch of confidential documents reveal fatal weaknesses in the Revenue's case. "
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2003/m ... msandfraud

I for one cannot see this poor soul as entertainment. It seems quite clear that his entry to the freeman movement was all due to his unjust hounding by the inland revenue. I'm all for laughing at those who chose their path through greed and stupidity but those who live have been ruined through no fault of their own deserve our sympathy and support even if we do not agree with their methods.

Hercule Parrot wrote:Sad, really. Previously he had a good and proper grievance against the UK Tax system, which wrongfully ruined him.

"Patrick Cullinane has fought a running battle with the Inland Revenue since the day he was accused of not paying income tax. And the taxman fought dirty - so dirty he lost his home and nearly lost his sanity. Now, a batch of confidential documents reveal fatal weaknesses in the Revenue's case. "
http://www.theguardian.com/money/2003/m ... msandfraud

One of my biggest grievances against these freetards sovcits and the simply insane, a la Crawford, is that they muddy up the waters with thier crazy conspiracy woo so much that the real injustices and corruption passes by unnoticed.

They cry wolf so loudly and ridiculously that when a real wolf enters the village no one takes any notice even when it takes one of them.

If only their enthusasm and energy could be focussed on real issues then perhaps some worthwhile change could be effected. A man can dream.

I watched a couple of the videos and read the Guardian article. I was struck by the similarity to Liz Watson - i.e. getting dragged through the Courts and losing all their wealth in one go has caused them to develop an obsessive and warped view of the system.

I wonder whether they were each basically ordinary people prior to their experiences.

#six wrote:I for one cannot see this poor soul as entertainment. It seems quite clear that his entry to the freeman movement was all due to his unjust hounding by the inland revenue. I'm all for laughing at those who chose their path through greed and stupidity but those who live have been ruined through no fault of their own deserve our sympathy and support even if we do not agree with their methods.

I would agree with this, to a certain extent, certainly you can and should feel sympathy for someone who has had their life ruined by some mistake or outside event that was out of their control. But that can only extend so far, and it's not necessarily the nature of the hardship they have faced but how they have reacted to it.

So while I feel sorry for the troubles Mr Cullinane has faced at the hand of the revenue, his choices following those and descent into Freemanism and Common Law Woo should be subject to natural criticism so as to prevent others from making the same mistake. While he may have been forced to the table holding the Freeman Kool-Aid he made the conscious choice to drink it and continues to preach it.

We can't and probably won't be able to prevent bad things from happening to people, but we should try to educate them on what good choices are available and warn about the risks associated with bad choices that we know will set them on the road to ruin.

Addict wrote:I watched a couple of the videos and read the Guardian article. I was struck by the similarity to Liz Watson - i.e. getting dragged through the Courts and losing all their wealth in one go has caused them to develop an obsessive and warped view of the system.

I wonder whether they were each basically ordinary people prior to their experiences.

Isn't that what happened to Egert as well, common theme - the greater the loss the greater the delusion that it's all someone else's fault

Hercule Parrot wrote:Previously he had a good and proper grievance against the UK Tax system, which wrongfully ruined him.

Well, possibly. One journalist thinks that. But the courts don't.

It could be that the journalist is correct, and the case has never been properly presented to courts, so they kept ruling against Patrick. It is also possible that the journalist is wrong.

littleFred wrote:

Hercule Parrot wrote:Previously he had a good and proper grievance against the UK Tax system, which wrongfully ruined him.

Well, possibly. One journalist thinks that. But the courts don't.

It could be that the journalist is correct, and the case has never been properly presented to courts, so they kept ruling against Patrick. It is also possible that the journalist is wrong.

Had to reread who posted that, looked like a pigpot post. I will say, while I am not sure if everything is correct, the rental income is certainly suspect, he did work at a time an in a industry that paid cash under the table, He had low income, but was able to buy a decent house and pay the mortgage. Perhaps we have a bit of both here. The rental income was very overstated, and probably unreliable, but chances are, he had other undeclared income, but that is only a guess. He is making just enough on the books, but receives undeclared tax free income to boost his earnings. They all did it back then, times have changed, but unless he was righteous, I think there is enough deceit on both sides. My opinion, and i can be totally wrong here

"Common Law Lawyer"? I guess you become one by readin' all them law books and figuring everything out for yourself, because you're smarter than all those fancy-pants elitist eggheads who go to fancy schools and agree to follow the orders of the corporate BAR, and don't have a scrap of good ol' common sense, and don't understand what makes Amurrica great.

PeanutGallery wrote:I would agree with this, to a certain extent, certainly you can and should feel sympathy for someone who has had their life ruined by some mistake or outside event that was out of their control. But that can only extend so far, and it's not necessarily the nature of the hardship they have faced but how they have reacted to it.

Agreed...

I have this half baked theory that a couple of hundred years ago many people didn't live long enough to have their lives turn to shit. They got married at 18, produced a handful of sprogs and then the woman died in childbirth or the man died in a war or fell off his trawler and got eaten by a halibut or something and life went on. These days you live long enough to grow to hate your one-true-love, working in a job you hate to pay the mortgage and all of the other crap that a long life expectancy brings.

There's a very good chance that the majority of us in the 21st century will live to see our lives collapse around us but the majority will eventually bounce back and start again. Some, sadly, will seek to blame others and that's where the freeman crap comes in. The reason your life is shit has nothing to do with you being an obnoxious arsehole or even the fact that shit happens.. It's THEIR fault. Just pick a 'they'.

longdog wrote:I have this half baked theory that a couple of hundred years ago many people didn't live long enough to have their lives turn to shit. They got married at 18, produced a handful of sprogs and then the woman died in childbirth or the man died in a war or fell off his trawler and got eaten by a halibut or something and life went on. These days you live long enough to grow to hate your one-true-love, working in a job you hate to pay the mortgage and all of the other crap that a long life expectancy brings.

Don't forget to include the fact that we live in an age and a country where all the people have the right to be asshats. In past times the average serf didn't need to imagine a conspiracy theory that the world was against him, because the general fact of the matter was, for the average serf the world was against him.

We wouldn't have had GOODF back when we had workhouses because that was where people who made the mistake of getting into serious debt wound up, trying to get out of debt in exchange for hard labour. While I imagine that people were still people and had the same motivations and desires (certainly any study of classical play texts will throw up some degrees of relevance with the modern world), those were tempered by a world and society that was fundamentally much harder to get by in.

You also have the issue of their being a lack of education among the lower classes, they might have had the same thoughts but due to them not knowing how to read or write couldn't readily communicate these ideas. I believe Burnaby theorised that the spread of these ideas was somewhat akin to a biological pathogen, I believe the mode of transmission for this is via the internet. We live in an age where we can instantly communicate with anyone in almost any country around the globe. This means that those harbouring certain misunderstandings on what common law is and how to deal with debts can spread them and once these ideas reach a critical point they will persist on their own. The woo is out of the bottle and every year I am sure we as a species contribute a good many idiots to keep it fuelled.

littleFred wrote:

Hercule Parrot wrote:Previously he had a good and proper grievance against the UK Tax system, which wrongfully ruined him.

Well, possibly. One journalist thinks that. But the courts don't.

It could be that the journalist is correct, and the case has never been properly presented to courts, so they kept ruling against Patrick. It is also possible that the journalist is wrong.

This is one of the most important and fundamental issues to understand about litigation. The job of the court is to hear the evidence, not to investigate and discover it.

If you don't prepare and present your case properly and lose because you missed something or didn't get the point over clearly or just plain forgot to present some important evidence then tough. You lost and it's your fault.

YiamCross wrote:This is one of the most important and fundamental issues to understand about litigation. The job of the court is to hear the evidence, not to investigate and discover it.

If you don't prepare and present your case properly and lose because you missed something or didn't get the point over clearly or just plain forgot to present some important evidence then tough. You lost and it's your fault.

Exactly what I think happened to Tom Crawford in one of his hearings. I recall watching one of his videos where he said he went to court and told them that he had "evidence to follow" and they just ignored him and decided right then and there without it. He seemed to think he could win in court without evidence if he promised that one day, some day, he'd get around to entering it.

Patrick Cullinane - Robbed by Jew Process June 2015 (Part I)
Patrick has put together a handy video montage of recent phone conversations. They include a 999 call to the police, demanding that they arrest bailiffs for, umm, for knocking on Patrick's door and looking at his car.

Then he phones the bailiffs, presumably later, demanding that they return the car they stole from him.

Unusually, the video includes a wide variety of photos, scanned documents, etc, with added captions. The captions are heavily anti-Jewish. Patrick rants at whoever he is talking to. In return, they show great patience.

Got to agree with littlefred and NYgman. Somewhere in the timeline there would have been a Tax Commission? Tribunal? hearing. In those days it was like a court with no appeal. What they said was it. The revenue would guess what someone was earning (double it and round it up maybe) and go to the tribunal with that figure. The taxpayer had to go along with figures and dispute it. Most of the time this system worked in that it got the taxpayer to come up with some figures and they'd argue from there. If you didn't show, and this happened to someone I know, the tribunal just decided on what was in front of it. Taxman say he is owed X, taxpayer says nothing as they aren't there, decision is taxpayer owed X, end, no appeal, no comeback.

Damn draconian. Even the evil Canada Revenue Agency does not have recourse to a court of no appeal.

Canadian tax disputes must, by law, go to the Tax Court. Either side can appeal the decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. Next step from there is the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court is not a fan of the CRA. The SCC is actually releasing a decision on Friday in respect to a provision of the Income Tax Act that I'm eagerly awaiting.

Anyhow the CRA can, in the absence of any response from a taxpayer, make assumptions about income and expenses and assess on them. I've done it myself as an income tax auditor. We try to be reasonable but in the deliberate absence of information from the taxpayer it was obvious which way I was going to go if there was a subjective judgment call.

The theory is that if the taxpayer would not give the necessary information to us they had to provide it at their own appeal because, at the Tax Court, it is up to the taxpayer to demolish the CRA's assumptions. This is based on the common sense position that the taxpayer has the information to prove the CRA wrong. As the Federal Court of Appeal of Canada said in a case I was involved in;

[44] To sum up, the Minister was entitled, at the stage of confirmation of the initial assessment, to plead new facts as assumptions of fact. The initial onus of proof was on the respondent to demolish these assumptions, especially because all relevant evidence was in the hands of the respondent and, if the onus were to be on the appellant, the appellant would be facing the daunting, if not impossible, task of proving a negative, i.e. that the seismic data was not bought by the five predecessors of the respondent, and subsequently used by them and the respondent, for exploration purposes.

In other words if the respondent (taxpayer) has the information then give it to the court. This makes very practical sense. If taxpayers, who control their own information, just refuse to provide it to the CRA then we couldn't do audits. If the CRA could not smoke them out by making assumptions it would not be able to audit taxpayers (I won't discuss whether that is a good or bad thing). So the law has a reverse onus of proof on tax matters. Unlike criminal law where the Crown has to prove a defendant guilty, in civil tax law the taxpayer has to prove the CRA wrong.

littleFred wrote:Unusually, the video includes a wide variety of photos, scanned documents, etc, with added captions. The captions are heavily anti-Jewish. Patrick rants at whoever he is talking to. In return, they show great patience.

If I understand correctly Mr Cullinane used to work in the film industry, if so the long anti-semetic rants may go some way to explaining why he is no longer considered employable in that sector. Not only are their a considerable number of Jewish people working at high levels in that industry, but it's also considered very liberal and accepting of people from diverse lifestyles.