Page 1 of 2

John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:29 pm
by littleFred
John Paterson announces on his FB page that he is suing himself for a billion pounds. However, his claim form actually says £10000000000.00 which (if I correctly count all those zeros) is ten billion.

When I say "himself", I see the defendant's name is actually "JOHN PATERSON". As this is handwritten, I don't know if the capitals are significant.

The claimant's full name is "Citizen Mr John Alexander Paterson".

Here is the first part of his claim:

Image

The claim continues, but makes no sense. Claims usually have some kind of logic behind them, but I can't see any here. Even if the claim made sense, and was true, why would JOHN need to pay John loadsamoney?

Answers on a postcard, please.

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:16 pm
by notorial dissent
Well, when it's all fantasy to begin with and you don't hvae it to start, what's a stray zero between friends??? I can't say for certain, but it looks like he is using the good old gold standard tried and true(well not really) sovcit freetard footl plan to put a lien against his own property, although usually they don't go through the extra step of actually going to court, mostly because the courts, here at least, uniformly toss them out on their hindermosts. Or maybe he's just new at it and got the steps wrong, not that it matters, he'll achieve ultimate fail soon enough either way. :haha:

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:22 pm
by PeanutGallery
So how exactly does John Paterson propose to enforce his perfectly reasonable and coherent claim inane ramblings on a legal form should he get a judgement.

He doesn't seem to have established damages, or even indicated what wrong he has suffered, plus I'm not actually sure you can sue yourself. Certainly it's a novel point.

A google turned up this case, showing that John Paterson isn't the first to sue himself, Lodi v Lodi takes that bit of cake.

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:24 pm
by #six
Ok. So he has spent money to launch a claim and get a summons sent to his own home?

At least he will be able to ignore it as the stamp is not embossed and there's no wet ink signature by a judge.

As for the claim itself... (With apologies to Eric Morcombe) it's got all the right words but not necessarily in the right order. What absolute gibberish.

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:34 pm
by AndyK
Wait for it.

As soon as the lien / judgement is perfected, he will invoice the government treasury to collect from the triple-dog-secret account funded by the collateralized birth certificate of JOHN PATTERSON.

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:34 pm
by mufc1959
I loved the comment on the FB page saying it wasn't a real court seal because it wasn't embossed. Idiots.

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:38 pm
by grixit
It may be the old trick of attempting to achieve a "prior claim" so no one else can take your assets. I remember some years back reading about how one person went to a bankruptcy hearing after doing this and when asked "are you the debtor" replied "no, i am the secured creditor". I didn't read the ending of it, but no doubt he is still in possession of his house and all the claims against him were dismissed.

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:19 pm
by Gregg
That would not work. Your lien against yourself would be an asset to be liquidated (at severe discount I imagine) by the other creditors.

point, set, match :Axe:

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:55 pm
by longdog
littleFred wrote:When I say "himself", I see the defendant's name is actually "JOHN PATERSON". As this is handwritten, I don't know if the capitals are significant.


I often wonder where I'd fit in when it comes to this whole capital letters thing.

Although I could read at an average seven year old level when I started infant's school at 4 3/4 and could write my own name and 'The cat sat on the mat' type stuff before that I have never been able to do joined-up-writing to the extent I don't really have a signature just a random squiggle and went through hell at my grammar school. I can write as fast as most people but IT'S ALL IN CAPITALS ALL THE TIME but perfectly legible.

Does this mean I am a STRAW MAN? :shrug:

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:30 am
by Jeffrey
I'm pretty sure I recently talked with a SovCit who tried to argue that cops printing their name in block letters in one part of a ticket and in cursive in another part of the ticket has some magic significance.

I was kinda surprised nobody had made a conspiracy theory about that before.

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:08 am
by Forsyth
longdog wrote:I can write as fast as most people but IT'S ALL IN CAPITALS ALL THE TIME but perfectly legible.

Does this mean I am a STRAW MAN? :shrug:

No, it means you're an engineer :-)

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:44 am
by Forsyth
littleFred wrote:Even if the claim made sense, and was true, why would JOHN need to pay John loadsamoney?

A little diversion on a matter which is about as close as you can sanely get to the above situation.

I once became aware of a case where someone had an insurance policy which covered them for public liability claims and also covered them, their spouse and their children for legal costs should they need to claim against other people.

One day one of the parents had an accident which resulted in an injury to one of their children. The accident was as a result of negligence and so the parent invoked the legal cover on the policy, on behalf of the child, to to make a claim against the negligent party - themselves. At the same time, they invoked the public liability cover to to deal with the other side of the claim.

I later learned that such claims are not as unusual as I thought, but with a strong incentive on the insurance company to avoid unnecessary costs they generally avoid court and hence receive little publicity.

I was reminded of this recently on taking out a policy which explicitly excluded the above situation :-(

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:46 am
by littleFred
Yes, I think John's theory is similar. John sues JOHN, and JOHN doesn't bother to defend, so John wins by default and the court orders JOHN to pay John squillions of quid. I don't know where John or JOHN thinks the money might come from.

Browsing through John's FB and YouTube channel, he has a fixation that someone somewhere is defrauding the British taxpayer of billions. He keeps trying to persuade the police, his MP or the BBC to do something, but he gets laughed at. He also spent 21 days in prison for "malicious broadcasting".

He doesn't like Jews, but I've seen few other classic symptoms of SovCittery.

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:01 am
by notorial dissent
You don't have to be a sovcit to be nuts, but there is a high correlation.

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:24 am
by Bungle
This was posted on FB this morning:



PROOF OF EU FRAUD. PROOF OF FRAUD BY MAGISTRATES, JUDGES, OFFICERS and others.

John Paterson threatened with restraining order by Senior Master Fontaine, so make sure you make this viral.

THERE IS NOTHING BIGGER THAN THIS. Get to work folks. HIT EM HARD!

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:31 am
by Bungle
Bungle wrote:This was posted on FB this morning:



PROOF OF EU FRAUD. PROOF OF FRAUD BY MAGISTRATES, JUDGES, OFFICERS and others.

John Paterson threatened with restraining order by Senior Master Fontaine, so make sure you make this viral.

THERE IS NOTHING BIGGER THAN THIS. Get to work folks. HIT EM HARD!


Paterson posted this an hour ago on a RCJ Facebook page:



John Paterson at Royal Courts of Justice.

1 hr · Westminster, United Kingdom ·

Please note, my other account John Paterson is BLOCKED!

What is it about Evidence of Referendum Fraud.. (and others) that we hold that "they" do not want you to know, and why did TWO Magistrates fail to turn-up at my appeal on 2nd June 2016.

I'm in London today, just got back from The Royal Courts of Justice to file stamp more documents.

TICK TOCK! - BIG DAY "29TH JUNE 2016" - Unless Master Fontaine is prepared to go ahead with his warning to gag me!

LMFAO! Just try it, Pal. Oh and BTW Tony Blair got MI6 to break into the courts to steal certain documents which would have been very embarrassing for him.... Unfortunately my lawyer has copies. Ha ha ha ha ha! Bring snacks and camera's. Should be a blast!

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:21 am
by notorial dissent
This guy sounds like he is more than a few fries short a happy meal. The everything is a conspiracy to prevent me from... is a dead giveaway.

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:30 am
by longdog
Forsyth wrote:
longdog wrote:I can write as fast as most people but IT'S ALL IN CAPITALS ALL THE TIME but perfectly legible.

Does this mean I am a STRAW MAN? :shrug:

No, it means you're an engineer :-)


That's spooky... I am :mrgreen:

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:35 am
by guilty
longdog wrote:
Forsyth wrote:
longdog wrote:I can write as fast as most people but IT'S ALL IN CAPITALS ALL THE TIME but perfectly legible.

Does this mean I am a STRAW MAN? :shrug:

No, it means you're an engineer :-)


That's spooky... I am :mrgreen:


And so am I. And I've been writing in capitals all my life.

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Posted: Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:06 pm
by houseoflard
#six wrote:Ok. So he has spent money to launch a claim and get a summons sent to his own home?


Actually he hasn't paid anything. By his own admission he's without assets or income and qualifies for a fee remission. So we're paying his court fee.

As a solicitor I saw quite a few lunatic claims in this vein. These people have nothing to waste but their time after all.