John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Moderator: ArthurWankspittle

littleFred
Stern Faced Schoolmaster of Serious Discussion
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:12 am
Location: England, UK

John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby littleFred » Tue Jun 14, 2016 7:29 pm

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.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10487
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby notorial dissent » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:16 pm

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:
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
PeanutGallery
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1581
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:11 pm
Location: In a gallery, with Peanuts.

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby PeanutGallery » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:22 pm

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.
Warning may contain traces of nut

User avatar
#six
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 306
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 2:35 pm

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby #six » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:24 pm

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.

AndyK
Illuminatian Revenue Supremo Emeritus
Posts: 1298
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:13 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby AndyK » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:34 pm

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.
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders

mufc1959
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2015 3:47 pm
Location: Manchester by day, Slaithwaite by night

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby mufc1959 » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:34 pm

I loved the comment on the FB page saying it wasn't a real court seal because it wasn't embossed. Idiots.

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3473
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby grixit » Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:38 pm

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.
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4

User avatar
Gregg
Conde de Quatloo
Posts: 4314
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Der Dachshundbünker
Contact:

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby Gregg » Tue Jun 14, 2016 10:19 pm

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:
Supreme Commander of The Imperial Illuminati Air Force
Your concern is duly noted, filed, folded, stamped, sealed with wax and affixed with a thumbprint in red ink, forgotten, recalled, considered, reconsidered, appealed, denied and quietly ignored.

longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1667
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:53 am

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby longdog » Tue Jun 14, 2016 11:55 pm

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:
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2510
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby Jeffrey » Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:30 am

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.

Forsyth
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:36 pm

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby Forsyth » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:08 am

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 :-)

Forsyth
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 234
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2015 9:36 pm

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby Forsyth » Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:44 am

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 :-(

littleFred
Stern Faced Schoolmaster of Serious Discussion
Posts: 1363
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 8:12 am
Location: England, UK

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby littleFred » Wed Jun 15, 2016 6:46 am

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.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10487
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby notorial dissent » Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:01 am

You don't have to be a sovcit to be nuts, but there is a high correlation.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Bungle
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:26 pm

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby Bungle » Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:24 am

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!
TUCO said to me:
“I envy you for the job that you do in helping advise people. If I could choose an occupation, this is what I would like to do. Much of the advice that I pass onto people is heavily influenced by your posts”.

Bungle
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 411
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:26 pm

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby Bungle » Wed Jun 15, 2016 9:31 am

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!
TUCO said to me:
“I envy you for the job that you do in helping advise people. If I could choose an occupation, this is what I would like to do. Much of the advice that I pass onto people is heavily influenced by your posts”.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10487
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby notorial dissent » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:21 am

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.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

longdog
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 1667
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 9:53 am

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby longdog » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:30 am

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:
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?

User avatar
guilty
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 605
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2015 3:26 pm
Location: The Gem of God's Earth

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby guilty » Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:35 am

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.
"People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do."

houseoflard
Swabby
Swabby
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2016 12:02 pm

Re: John Paterson v. JOHN PATERSON

Postby houseoflard » Thu Jun 16, 2016 8:06 pm

#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.


Return to “United Kingdom”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: The Seventh String and 1 guest