anandrah
Forum Replies Created
-
If you have a Trust you can continue to operate in the Public. Using a Foundation has limitations. For one, functioning as a not for profit which may well be a masquerade for many. I personally choose to be honest while I uphold my ‘none of your business’ response to legal entities. Ie’ I don’t lie in order to protect myself. So I can’t pretend to be a NFP. Thats just me. The key thing about Foundations is they purposefully avoid usimg words that come with tax or other liabilities. Trusts, well they have a great deal more scope. You can conduct business as usual. I prefer dealing in the public now that I comprehend how to control it. It ironically has a lot of fredom.
-
<div>Hi. ‘ how to structure a business in the public’. I’m sorry but you really need to be more forthcoming if we have any hope of assisting you.</div><div>
Do you have a Trust? Have you perused the list of webinars with relevant topics, thats the two places to start. As Morag has kindly indicated, re: Trust.
</div>
-
Say your fingerprints are your intellectual property and your terms and conditions (they have T & C – so do you!) state a service fee to have a licence to access your intellectual property must be paid. Best to saythat in writing.
They will reply, well no fingerprints no membership. Then ask (in writing) is there legislation that compels me to provide them? They will say, no its just our policy. Then say, could I sue you for discrimination if you refused my membership based on your refusal to pay to licence my property and instead ddeman it for free?
-
Thankyou Kate. I am yet to have a close look but I can forsee various aplications. One would be, applying against public service or parliamentary decisions. I recommend anyone using these to source the original via their own UCC search.
-
I have done exactly that. I love that list. Although its poorly presented and thus some presumptions are very confusing. Also I don’t think all 12 need rebutting. But yes its an excellent thimg to do. Presumptions are what the entire system of public officers exerting influence, rely upon.
-
Click on My Account
Where it says Login Information, is actually a pull down menu. Clicking there presents further options. Notifications is the option to choose. Srttimg all to Web will prevent email notifications. I recommend checking the other settings such as Privacy also
-
Another couple of insights about Wise. When used as an acccount for a Non Registered Trust, it simply uses the Trust name. As opposed to banks which, since 2019, use ‘TRUSTEE NAME ATF TRUST NAME’. ATF stands for ‘As Trustee For’. So, with Banks the Trustee name is blatantly exposed. Wise does not have anywhere near the responsibilities of banks so while is still licensed to provide a financial product, the expectations from the regulators are lower. Also. Some have missed, that it can be used to buy and sell online. Particularly useful if foreign exchange is involved considering the exceptional mid-market rates as mentioned previously.
-
see my thread about Wise and Trusts. It’s an excellent setup for a buisness. Many free tools and resources also available therein
-
Non-negotiable autograph are the words. On Notices or invoices with the luxury of space I elaborate by also stating ‘ autograph not to be securitised’
-
for clarity, I provided no tax file number, no business number, no company number to Wise and had a business account verified. Despite Wise normally expecting all of those things for a buisness customer. They have two accounts, a personal account for everyone and a buisness account if its relevant for someone. The latter account is how you implement the Trust. So, some may wish to simply use the personal version for simplicity + benefits.
-
Thanks Morag. Firstly, I recommend it as an option alongside the bank account used for a Trust. Not ‘instead of’. It’s not a true firewall like a foundation because it is obviously in the Public. But in my own observation it could be a useful 2nd tier, or alternative tier, compared to just relying on the bank account alone. Payments received could be spread across Wise and the bank account for example. And banks usually penalise foreign transactions quite severely so Wise means the Trust bank account doesn’t need to deal with them at all. The sheer fact of being able to open another buisness account in the trust name is a useful resource.
To your second question. They do have Public words on the application questions, words like Income. But so does the bank in their forms and terms and etc, we already have to deal with the same stuff with the bank. It’s a case of jumping through the hoops without concern. For example, the other day Mark told me, concerning the Trust account. If the bank insists on a tax file number then just give it to them so they can tick that box. Meaning, these things don’t matter so much because of the fact of the Trust and our ability to hold position regardless. Of course its better to avoid it. My bank didn’t ask me for any numbers.
But yes Wise does have ‘know your customer’ obligations no different to a bank. Because they have a license to operate as a financial services provider. Actually their obligations are a bit less than a bank, they don’t have quite as much expected of them per the regulator because they don’t have the same responsibilities of a bank. Would be why I found the T & C to be so streamlined and straightforward.
-
Hi Torus, studying the legislation proper, from the EU Parliament website, is going to be the key element for success. This is a crucial task I regularly recommend and it has certainly provided breakthroughs for me. Including, for example, evidence that a certain activity was voluntary when all the media ( and government websites!!) were screaming that certain activity was law and not performing would result in prison. So, everyone is a liar until studying the legislation proves otherwise!! Source materials- not third party commentators. Sarina, asset emancipation can relate to a variety of things. It is ultimately colloquial and some what semantic. But in essence its about regaining control. A Trust is one manifestation of this.
-
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Certainly didn’t waste my time. Admittedly it’s nicer to be receiving an appreciative response than, for example, the contrary 🙂 Good luck with your process
-
Hi Becca. You can send it by registered post. But by returning payment to you, the liability has been discharged. Pursuant to the Bills of Exchange Act. You should notice the court to this effect. If you look under ‘Courses’ in the menu there is an excellent list of responses for holding position pursuant to the Bills of Exchange Act. And an even more comprehensive list in the Solutions Empowement manual available in the store. (i urge everyone to purchase this, the resources are above and beyond anything on this excellent site) I have no idea why they wrote requisitioned, it was obviously by someone with little idea of what they were doing! Just stick to your guns. The liability has now been discharged by their act of refusing or returning payment.
-
I can add, the knowledge of that maxim is what we can hold against an adversary. It’s not whether ‘they’ understand it or not. Mark pointed it out so we can use it against them. You singled out debt but debt does not have any additional special status. It is just a claim.
-
Hi Mahesh. The answer is yes. Morag defined it well in the sense of burden of proof, and whether we accept or conditionally accept a claim. But not agreeing with or not understanding a maxim isn’t something that is going to get your ass handed to you, as you put it. If this is something you want to learn more about then Equity is the subject to focus on. And searching that maxim or variations of it with the keyword equity included should be very helpful.
-
Hi. Dean provides the information and its up to us to practice renegotiating contracts based on those guidelines you refer to. A template is not necessary. How would you approach it, based on that information? in the Freebies section are many documents that address what you refer to. Also see webinars on dealing with police and the webinar on what to do when arrested – thats a recent one. There are also modules with documents ( supported by webinars) that can assist for example Claim of Right
-
1. Yes if there is a liability stated in the order 2. Yes absolutely
-
1. Yes if there is a liablity stated. 2. Yes
-
that’s so funny!
-
that is so funny!
-
and this video is not a recent response to his ‘educational’ output! It’s 7 years old!
-
Thanks Morag. I am only going by whats directly quoted in the guidance note to the legislation. According to them its the other way around. Email is not covered by the legislation but private member sites are (as I directly quote in my briefing sheet.)
No doubt Mark will hardly lose any sleep over the legislation pertaining to this website.
Of course, you raise some great points. I’ve never liked the fact discussions here can be sent to email. Its very insecure. I disable that feature.
I trust everyone realises how dangerous the proposed legislation is! It will be great to see responses on this thread affirming members have actioned my documents, and then some.
-
Yes as Morag said it’s the very nature of dealing with the Public. Remember, you are not the Trust either. It is working for you. It’s an expansive cognitive shift to make. It’s a tool, a device. Seperate and distinct. Having said this, I did receive an application form from the bank regarding the Trust and it had a prefix before my name ( Mrs/Mr/Ms) etc. I was irritated by this and emailed saying, my parents didn’t name me mrs/mr/ etc and my friends don’t call me that either. The staff apologised and said they had corrected it and removed it from the record. My name was in Title Case also. Not that it matters so much. Asserting yourself as a living being is when a claim is made against you. ‘Can you show me how this applies to a living man/woman?’ So you can use that with the bank if necessary.
-
JP’s can be a strange breed thats for sure. I suppose something about the demographic is quite specific – the type of individual attracted to applying. It also depends upon the context. Are they in a booth at the shopping centre with not much to do but read a novel, or are they in a one hour slot at a community centre with 25 people waiting to see them. I’ve had the spectrum of experiences from highly pleasant, to good to indifferent, to evil and inbetween. After years of practice I have developed a instinct for quickly observing the manner of who I am dealing with, how to approach them, what to say, definitely what not to say – and also, when to simply walk away and not waste my energy because they are being too contrary and not worth getting stressed about. I’ve had to report JP’s for misconduct before, which I did just on principle. I saw a news article recently explaining a a recruitment drive for JP’s because of low numbers. I momentarily wondered if it was something I would be interested in. After the explanatory steps, it was mentioned ‘ your social media accounts will be reviewed to assess your ethical hygiene’ or whatever. Okay they didn’t say ethical hygiene but almost! I’m not on social media but that was enough for me! In Australia, because of the imaginary virus no one can demonstrate exists [cough] the law has changed to allow a wide range of professionals to act as a JP. This feedback can be found on the Attorney General website. This is SO much easier as you have a better range of personality types from amongst the community and no one thinking they have more legal knowledge than you do. ( A client told me a JP actually crossed out words on her Affidavit saying they had no legal relevance! I was ready to punch the wall I was furious! ) The caveat is that, these professional types are not obligated and have a right to refuse. And, don’t mention the words ‘JP’ they will only get confused. Simply ask for your signature to be witnessed. A bank teller with 5+ years experience is one example, that is probably the easiest. As is the postmaster or manager of a post office, or a post office clerk with 5+ years on the job. I remember they are paid to be there, it is their job to serve, so while of course I am always respectful and pleasant , I remember to be confident and not feel like I am imposing on their time. Any professional that is a member of a professional organisation ( accountant, psychologist , doctor, chiropractor for example) are also able to do this. But I avoid small businesses because their time is too precious in my perception, compared to an employee of a corporation.
-
On the documents, ‘name of your estate’ is your full name in all capital letters
-
Thanks Morag. They were my words you quoted regarding Alice and the use of Latin. I loved the idea. But Mark commented on it in a Q & A. He said not to do it unless you signed everything that way. Makes sense! Mark commented in a Q & A also he came across using ‘ In Own Right’ as being of higher standing again. Being an option as an altnerative.To me it sounds like Anna von Reitz saying that. Just my instinct. In holding position, the point is that it’s not ‘adding words to signature’ but that ‘this is my signature’.
-
It’s a good question. It’s a situation I’ve had to consider before. Thumbs up too for considering use of a process server, an excellent investment in the necessary situation. But, I promote saving money when possible. We shouldn’t think we need to throw money around to achieve a remedy. I am almost certain ‘Delivery’ equals ‘Acceptance’. You seem to know the article has landed. That’s lawfully sufficient. If they don’t check their box it’s not your concern. I can go a step further and from memory, also from memory of Marks comments, the date we dispatch is the delivery. Not the date the respondent receives it. So, for example we serve a notice with a particular date and terms that require a response within 28 days. It’s 28 days of the date of our Notice, which is also our dispatch date. Thats the ‘delivery’ date, lawfully. We don’t say ‘ 28 days from when you receive this..’ Getting back to the original question. Nonethless, sure, we want proof they’ve received it and signed for it. They need to sign for it before they can view the name of the sender. And they might only refuse it if they have a history of receiving ‘unsavoury’ content from you previously. Further, most people are too curious. They would rather read something, and then ignore it, or try and believe they are superior to your correspondence, then out right reject it. Or they might hope your content is vexatious and frivolous and then they can use it against you. The odds on them outright refusing something, and even being in a position to have such foreknowledge without liablity (I mean, knowing it was you, rejecting it, and lawfully getting away with ‘not accepting’ in face of your proof it was delivered) are fairly low. I’ve considered all the angles of this situation already!
Final tip – if you really, really think they are looking our for your correspondence and trying to dodge it. Use the third party mailer ( named on the 3rd party proof of mailing certificate) as the party signing the reverse of the envelope as the ‘sender’. This is technically correct. And / Or use a different sort of envelope from the one the respondent is expecting. If they expect you to hand write – use an address label. If it’s overseas mail, and the respondent is looking out for’ registered mail from Australia’ ( for example) . Which in that example happens to be in very obvious, non-discrete, big blue and white card satchels, with ‘Australia Post International’ alll over it in massive coloured letters. Send it to a friend in a 3rd country, sealed and inside another envelope. and ask them to dispatch it for you registered post. Their name can be on the 3rd party proof of mailing certificate as the legitimate sender/witness. Ensure everything is scanned to PDF for evidence before hand and theres your full paper trail. Oh and also be sure the tracking service you use is even correct. Follow up with a human enquiry. I was getting a ping-back something hadn’t arrived 8 weeks after I sent it. Turns out it was received after 14 days. Turns out the Australia Post website doesn’t work well with international registered post feedback. I used the postal website for the recipient country for results. This is a GREAT idea. Upon hitting customs of the destination country they had scanned the envelope and created a full delivery narrative and even allowed me to download the signature of delivery.
-
How do you know they can charge you with forgery, Morag? I’ve not heard that before. Forgery or fraud if duplicating someone elses signature but not our own? I comprehended the evidence of prior use was simply to hold position if challenged. We are entitled to update our signature – it’s ours, after all – and many people don’t even have a consistent signature but just scribble randomly. I’ve only found it an issue when for example a pedantic bank teller who says comparing my signature with the one on file is how they verify my identity, which is a rather irrational. I just said, their signature on file so many years old I can’t even remember what it looks like. RE: Retaining all rights. Is there a reason the initial poster wishes for ‘retaining’. Definitions are highly specific. All Rights Reserved is used by multinational corporations and is thus well established. I’d prefer to stick to the script personally
-
You could also volunteer it under the Resources menu / ‘Community Contributed’
-
Thankyou. For another perspective. Dean Clifford ( Canada) commented on this subject when asked, in a webinar, recently. He said he used to believe the judicary/courts were corrupt. Now he comprehends, that they will work for you if you have properly established a contract in your favour. In other words, people lose onlybecause they haven’t created the necessary conditions. For some additional context on that. Elsewhere he has explained that we have forfeited our rights entirely and are perceived as having done so. This is also why the court works against us. Take control of the strawman and establish a contract in your favour and then the courts will serve you. In some ways it IS justice. The courts are simply responding to the fact most people are, legally, slaves or chattel. The court can’t perceive it any differently.
-
If you don’t understand something then by all means question it. But don’t write it off as being wrong because it doesn’t seem logical to you. You are wondering about a maxim but it has tremendous history and application behind it. Millions of practitioners and students. If you haven’t studied the law then sure, things will seem new. You could say ‘ oh that maxim is wrong because it doesn’t align with my perspective’ Okay that’s one perspective. Or you could say ‘ Whats wrong with my understanding that needs broadening because this novel concept isn’t aligning with it?’ Ultimately though what matters is practical outcomes and results. No need to get caught up on one particular academic thing, move forward and get your hands dirty. Try it out. See what happens. The reason the one making the claim provides the remedy is because it’s an inherent feature of Equity. The rules of equity are as old as recorded commerce. Being stone tablets from 5000 years ago. And as for that maxim. Sometimes the ‘remedy’ is that there is no claim to answer to. Because the claim is defective from the outset. So the remedy is that there is no controversy. Oh and its a law of medicine also. He who provides the poison provides the remedy being a loose translation from Latin
-
you can also write return to sender, unknown addressee on the front for the post office to read. On the reverse ‘ Deceased. Remove from list’
sometimes the less confrontational and naive approach is more effective. Bringing up law can create a controversy for which the adversary has a defence prepared ‘ Oh, you are in supplicant to us, you ignoble serf, and we have these powers and these powers, so how dare you raise thy sullen head to gaze upon us..’ Instead just ‘huh?’ is the way forward!!
-
Here is a practical article about the CUSIP, what it is for and how to search them https://www.lifewire.com/cusip-numbers-3482127
-
Thanks Morag. I was not referring to inside the conversation, but when scrolling the main feed. Only the last remaining comment of any topic is visible. Which may just be ‘thanks’ or a smiley face or whatever. No context, obscure. Thus, this requires interacting with every single conversation one by one to see the original post, and even to check if it ‘s something I desire to read or something I’ve read before. Or whether its something that is calling for a response from me. Terribly inefficient. It’s the opposite of seamless and easy. Even a message long enough to be truncated, clicking ‘read more’ doesn’t reveal the remaining text on the screen but takes you away from the main feed and into the conversation itself. This may sound totally trivial but it’s laborious and clunky. A well functioning blog or forum is not much different from a book – everything is accessible and visible without effort. The previous forum allowed seamless scrolling of every message and every reply without any interaction required whatsoever. Just simply scrolling down indefinitely. It allowed for a great deal to be absorbed in a short time, it was quick and simple to see if a conversation needed a response, and if something had been read – as was so often the case – before, it was easy to skim over it with the eyes. None of this is the case now. It’s not my inclination to respond in this manner but not only has feedback been encouraged, the forum is the only reason I regularly log in and I’m almost entirely deterred from using it now
-
I can’t say I’m enjoying use of the forum in the new site. There’s more complexity instead of less. I personally have always found complexity on web sites to be a killer. Especially for interactive things like a discussion forum. One basic primary example. the community forum which has all comments running down like a stream, in order of recent to least recent. Only the replies can be seen. They have no context or reference point because from scrolling down message to message/topic to topic, only an abstract recent comment can be read and not the penultimate post/question. It requires clicking into the individual conversation and then clicking back out of it again. I suppose its ultimately personal preference but its not seamless and intuitive, and I have to personally review every conversation just to even see if I want to read it. Honestly, as someone who has enjoyed being an active contributor to the forum for a long time, I’ve felt an aversion to logging in to the new forum for the above reasons, because it’s not easy and pleaant to read and write thus am going for long stretches in between doing so.
-
Thanks Webmaster for your responses. In response to your first comment, I was simply suggesting the provision to ‘donate’ a document for consideration be made clearer so more members make use of the facility. (As a tangent I realise I can’t review your comment as I reply – I can’t see it nor quote from it, nor even move the reply box around to get a look at the comment behind it. So I’ll have answer your comments from memory ) So perhaps a new group needs to be formed that is titled ‘ Site FAQ’ so it’s one single discussion thread as you posited. With a highly specific title. Unlike the present ‘general discussion’ that even has toll fines mixed in with this thread 🙂 As for the ‘does everyone know they need to join a group..’ question. My point being, not everyone is comfortable or proficient with the technical aspects of a new website. I had to manually figure out that if I wanted to post I had to subscribe myself . There is no instruction to this effect and thus many members may remain in ‘read-only’ mode instead of creating exciting discussion.
-
There is a webinar on how to Notice the toll companies as to no longer be subject to them. For your information the toll companies are ultimately irrelevant – apart from the mass of mail they send out. It’s just the state revenue collector you need to deal with, once the toll company sends their fine to them. You can tell the revenue collector you were not driving at the time of the alleged toll. You can also say you did in fact pay and were fined incorrectly – revenue are well aware of how inconsistent the toll companies are and are surprisingly willingly to set aside an allegation in this specific instance.
-
Thanks Morag. well said. Who are some of the other identities you can think of? One thing that struck me in that video was some of the blatant undisguised comments made on some of the TV apperances but seemingly gotten away with, because they could be interpreted innocently and not for their literal horrific reality. One particular phrase the video narrator didn’t repeat for closer attention was so blatant . Host to Brand ‘ I understand you really want children?’ Brand: ‘ I want children. I want them so bad, sometimes i get involved with other peoples, sometimes I hijack them’