-
Do I Admit Or Deny To Being A Natural Person Capable of Being Sued?
Help please!
Working on my Intention to Defend & Counterclaim (in QLD).
We are being sued for unpaid rates.(Some backstory: I wrote them three notices of conditional acceptance asking them to provide evidence I was not a man, that my name appeared in the act, and that the act they claim has a royal assent and a proclamation date. I got generic replies in which they insisted they were legally permitted to demand rates/levies. I failed to go get a default judgment in a timely manner, however, and so their lawyers served us with a claim against us filed in the Magistrates Court for unpaid rates.)
Among their claims, they have claimed that my wife and I are natural persons capable of being sued.
My instinct is to deny this claim, or ask for further evidence or something, but in Mark’s webinar on the intention to defend documents, in his mortgage example he shared, they affirmed this claim. So I’m a little confused. I don’t want to mix jurisdictions and accidentally get myself locked up and psych-tested.
(Especially so if my wife also has to appear as 2nd defendant. The idea that they might try to take both of us and take our little ones away if I screw this up is very alarming.)
By affirming, am I not admitting to being a person (as opposed to a man) according to their system under the second witness principle?
Doesn’t it shoot the whole “How does your act apply to a man?” thing in the foot?
Or does stating that I reserve all my rights in court somehow negate this?
Also, was I correct in understanding that even if the court rules against us, assuming it does go to court and we fail to hold our position, we could still theoretically change the details, add a sum certain and some consideration and discharge the court-ordered liability by contract, or give a promissory note? (I haven’t actually learned how to do those yet. I wrote my first three notices based on Tom Barnett’s How To Write A Notice video.)