Promissory Notes and Bills
Of Exchange are Mark
Pytellek’s flag ship. The Keystone of his portfolio. By all accounts, Mark Pytellek claims to be an expert on the subject of Promissory Notes and Bills Of Exchange.
So can you can use Mark Pytellek’s process of Promissory Notes and Bills Of Exchange?
Short answer: Yes you can, if you so choose... And if you want to be party to Fraud...
And if you want to ignore rulings by Supreme Court Judges... and follow in the footsteps of Mark Pytellek... And read what others have said about Mark Pytellek
And if you want to end up in bigger doo-doo...
And remember, Mark Pytellek will still make money from you, because he wants payment up front. And his head is not on the chopping block. But yours is...
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
As you continue reading, you'll discover the genius inside Mark Pytellek, that:
1) Mark Pytellek charges for his services, but is careful not to leave a paper trail
2) Mark Pytellek really doesn't know much about anything, because he has copied it from other people without understanding what he is doing.
3) Mark Pytellek doesn't know what amicus curiae" is or does.
4) Mark Pytellek doesn't understand the process of Promissory Notes and Bills Of Exchange.
5) Mark Pytellek has been told on more than two occasions that the basic concept and mechanism of this financial instrument appears to be totally misunderstood or misconceived … or some cynical ploy to avoid the debt.
6) This notion is a fantasy unconnected to the operation of the Act or any other legal principle
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION v SPROULE [2012] FMCA 1188
I [Judge Lloyd-Jones] stated that I would adjourn the matter until 2.15pm that afternoon and the parties indicated that was a suitable course for them.
On resumption, Mr Sproule stated that he sought to have Mr Andrews address the Court on his behalf.Mr Andrews indicated that he appeared as amicus curiae. This claim was also contained in Mr Sproule’s written submissions. Mr Andrews made no claim to be legally qualified and he did not appear to fully understand the function and role of amicus curiae. I stated that I would consider his appearance as that of a lay advocate.
Sproule attempted to use a bill of exchange to satisfy a debt to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).
Judge Lloyd-Jones rejected Mr Sproule’s argument that a bill of exchange with a face value of $1 could be used to satisfy his debt to the ATO, noting that:
...logic as to why the [Deputy Commissioner of Taxation] would accept that document is completely unexplained [32]
Judge Lloyd-Jones concluded (at [24]) that:
The basic concept and mechanism of this financial instrument appears to be totally misunderstood or misconceived … The use of a bill of exchange proposed by Mr Sproule is either a complete misunderstanding of the use of the instrument or some cynical ploy to avoid the debt.
In the absence of any logical explanation of how Mr Sproule intends to resolve his indebtedness to the ATO this whole approach for this form of settlement is misconceived and should be dismissed
= = = =
** Mr Andrews ... is, you've guessed it ... Mark Andrew Pytellek
** Mr Andrews ... is, you've guessed it ... Mark Andrew Pytellek
So, that took place in 2012. And Mark Pytellek, being a smart cookie, would have learned something about promissory notes, wouldn't you think?
Well, he shows up again, in 2016, with "his friend" Sonya Woods...Now, if she wasn't already in deep doo-doo before getting his "help" then she definitely was afterwards...
Woods v Australian Taxation Office & Ors [2016] QDC 198
The pleading further alleged a contract had been created on 23 November 2015, whereby it was said that the third defendant had agreed (as a “defaulting party”) to accept the promissory notes and pay the plaintiff $216,000 for some unspecified breach of the alleged contract. The pleading also alleged a second contract arose at the same time as the second promissory note, on the same day, to similar effect...
It is in this, somewhat mysterious, way that the apparent tax debt owed by the plaintiff is converted into a much larger debt owed by the third defendant to the plaintiff without any tax having been paid.
On 4 December 2015, correspondence was sent in reply by the ATO advising the plaintiff that payment by way of promissory note was not sufficient to discharge a tax debt, referring to Atkinson v Commissioner of Taxation [2015] FCAFC 18. In Atkinson, an attempt to mark up an ATO statement of account to convert it to a bill of exchange or similar was, unsurprisingly, unsuccessful. The similarities with the present case are consistent with a possible trend growing amongst a small subset of taxpayers seeking to avoid their liability; I am not aware of whether or how this may be publicised or organised.
Mr Evans was further assisted at the bar table by a Mark Andrew, also apparently not legally qualified; and
(d)neither Mr Evans or Mr Andrew were being paid*** for their assistance, and both described themselves as friends of the plaintiff.
In any case, the problems with the purported procedure may be more basic. The payment of an obligation by promissory note would normally be pursuant to an agreement of a contractual kind. There was nothing contractual about the relationship between the defendants and the plaintiff. The third defendant is the collector of tax, a statutory obligation. The essence of formation of a contract is, of course, offer and acceptance; a contractual obligation cannot be created unilaterally (and certainly not to supervene a statutory obligation to pay tax).
The plaintiff attempted to transform the ATO’s statement of account, and deliver it back to the ATO, so to discharge the plaintiff’s indebtedness by delivery of an alleged promissory note, which was redeemable for a very short time at the plaintiff’s premises. The plaintiff asserted that, as a result of the third defendant’s failure to redeem the alleged note at that time and place, the plaintiff’s indebtedness was discharged and the third defendant was liable to pay the plaintiff four times the original amount owed to the ATO plus interest.
This notion is a fantasy unconnected to the operation of the Act or any other legal principle, as is made clear by the aforementioned reasons of Justice Jagot in Atkinson. Similar endeavours have been dismissed in Sproule and Wilmink, supra, and attracted descriptions such as “cynical ploy” and “hopeless nonsense”.16
The pleading of the reliance on the promissory notes, paragraph 10, does not plead any facts that address the payment requirements of the regulations. It does not plead a payment and it does not plead a proper delivery of the promissory notes or any transfer of money pursuant thereto
= = = = = = =
** Mr Andrew ...
is, you've guessed it ... Mark
Andrew Pytellek. And, by the way, good luck in trying to get Mr Andrew
to appear in Court with you for less than $1000. It appears that a
condition of his attendence, is that you tell the Court that he is
there as a friend, and is not being paid...
On "FAKEBOOK" Freeman Delusion commented that "A mention the article should add, is one that is now 13 years old:
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."
[Source: ACCC v Rana [2008] FCA 374]
Mark Pytellek: Scammer or the Real Deal?
Do your own research...Or follow the advice of a Senior Detective with the Queensland Police Service ...
R U N ...
Run, far, far away from this man...
Mark Pytellek is T R O U B L E ...
Read what others have said about Mark Pytellek
Site built with Simple Responsive Template by Prowebdesign.ro