[rtw711]

Thanks for the clarification M-J.
Finally, when using “all rights reserved”, are you using Title Case (i.e. “All Rights Reserved”) or Sentence Case (i.e. “All rights reserved”) when signing your signature? I believe it is probably just a personal preference as to which case format you use.

[rtw711]

Is the format you used to sign your name, the format Mark is using, or you are not sure?

Also, when you go in to the Licence dept to update your licence details, are you required to use a digital pad and sign your name with your finger? If yes, any tips for using the digital pad? I asked them to use my signature on the licence update form and they refused to accept that telling me I had to sign on the digital pad. Any way around this? As I mentioned before, I found it really difficult to get it right where it took me several attempts to get it right.

[rtw711]

Thanks M-J.

Unfortunately it would be too late to ask Mark at next month’s Q&A session.

My issue is that I want to avoid having to repay any monies in the event that later on after my employment had ended, there was found to be an oversight made by the Payroll dept where they would demand that I repay the overpaid amount which is a condition/term of the redundancy payment offer.

If there is not full disclosure of how the redundancy payment is calculated when I asked for this information, then will signing my name with “All Rights Reserved” protect me from any liability owing? Or would adding a note indicating that I had requested this information and they failed to provide it protect me from any liability in the event there was an overpayment.

[rtw711]

Thanks M-J.

I have prepared affidavits previously. I have just forgotten the finer details which is why I asked the question about how to write the name re does the Court require the defendant to write the name as it appears on the Summons.

[rtw711]

Hi M-J, I am a little confused.

In the post, Driving Unregistered Vehicle, in your response on 17th July, you attached the document titled “How-to-sign-All-rights-reserved-2.pdf”. At the top of page 1 of this document, Mark wrote the following:

“The key is that you write “By” which differentiates the signer from the name, thereby showing there are two parties. Regards mark”.

Then on page 2 of the same pdf, in the post ‘How to “Sign your licence’, Mark showed how to sign ” your licence” as follows:

By (by accommodation …) Signature [Comment: forgot to include the colon ‘:’]

John James Dow (this is sentence case) [Comment: Title case NOT sentence case]

All Rights Reserved [Comment: Title case NOT sentence case]

Given the above, has Mark changed his view on using “By:” where you just sign your name as shown in my second example in my original post above?

i.e. Sign as:

J.Doe (written in cursive or your usual signature without ARR)

All rights reserved

Actually it would be quite difficult to fit all those 3 lines on the licence. What makes it even harder is the digital signing pad they make you use to sign your name, and on top of that, the digital pen as well. They won’t use the signature you used on their paper form. I reckon they deliberately have done this to make it hard for people to try and stop them from signing their name with ARR. I know I found it quite difficult when I previously signed my named using the first ARR format I quoted above.

[rtw711]

Thanks for that M-J.

However, this raises the following questions:

1. I actually prefer the bottom example of signing my name too as it would be the easiest and it is how I was signing my name prior to adding “All rights reserved” to my signature.

2. Is “All Rights Reserved” preferred over “All rights reserved”, or it does not matter?

3. What is the reason for not using “By:” and signing your name as shown in the 1^st method i.e. separating first and last name with the “:” with ARR written immediately below?

4. If I were to sign my name using the 2^nd method on an Affidavit but have signed my name on my driver’s licence using the 1^st method, then in the absence of a Stat Dec, could that prejudice me in a court matter where the Judge/Magistrate decides to refuse to accept the Affidavit as evidence? It would not surprise me if they did. However, this would be grounds for appeal for a new hearing. Also, if judge did this, then I think I would ask for an adjournment to produce a Stat Dec but that would create joinder.

If you were to request an adjournment would that create joinder? My understanding is that when you ask the Court to do something you get enjoined in the proceedings. Hence, joinder.

[rtw711]

Hi MJ, thanks for that information. That is very helpful.

In the SA EO Act in the Interpretation of the Act, they have included the following:

disability in relation to a person, means:

(c) the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness; or

(d) the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness; or

(g) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour.

However, there is nothing included in the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 pertaining to discrimination, diseases, or is there a section like Section 21 (Prohibited grounds of discrimination) of NZ HR Act in the SA EO Act.

I didn’t give conditional consent unfortunately. On both occasions I signed in on the contact tracing paper log under coercion, duress and threat of menace. On the 1st occasion I stayed and participated in the club activities after checking in. On the 2nd occasion, I was refused entry by the Covid marshal despite checking in manually (i.e. writing my private info on the paper log) and have not gone back since because I have been trying to seek remedy since then. Because I had concerns about my privacy and the club committing privacy breaches and not protecting people’s privacy, I declined to check in (as well as me knowing it was unlawful and was always voluntary) and so I disguised my phone number and the Covid marshal didn’t like the mobile number I had provided, so he refused me entry. I informed the Club President that it was a breach of privacy to collect the contact tracing info they way they were doing it where anyone checking in manually could see everyone else’s private information and also the contact tracing log was left unsecured and unattended at the premises where anyone at, or entering, the premises could easily see people’s private information. I took a photo for evidence of the privacy breaches.

In my recent letter to their lawyer, I provided evidence that there only 4 covid-related deaths in SA between March 2020 and 31.7.2021 and only 1 of those deaths could be attributed to Covid (even though the SARS CoV-2 coronavirus has never been isolated and therefore never been proven to exist) becuase 73% of those deaths could be attributed to deaths from other, comorbid conditions. So the member club of the Association had no grounds to refuse me entry and thereby discriminated against me on medical grounds. They directly discriminated against me because I was the only club member on the 2 occasions to tell the club Committee members that I did not have to check in because government directions, mandates etc are not laws, or had they been lawfully enacted into the legislation with royal assent. They effectively banned me from entering for a period of 16 months with me not having gone back there since December 2020 or renewed my club membership since it expired in 2021. They also discriminated against me on privacy grounds.

The Covid-19 contact tracing direction was essentially the provision of a medical service with the collection of private information for a medical purpose and was implemented by the Association/member club in response to the SA Chief Health Officer’s (CHO) contact tracing direction. Section 51(xxiiia) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 provides a constitutional guarantee of no civil conscription of medical and dental services. Further to this, under the legislation, the Federal Biosecurity Act 2015 was in operation in the declared human biosecurity emergency period, where the States and Territories exceeded their powers by bringing in directions under their respective public health and emergency legislation that allowed for the use of force and issuing general directions, that involve biosecurity measures, in the absence of biosecurity control orders and/or public health orders.

Can you think of any questions I could include in Demand Notice to send them into commercial default if I were to do the 3 letter process i.e. Demand Notice, Default Notice and Final Notice (including a Private Settlement Agreement where each party agrees to pay me an agreed amount of compensation if they fail to provide evidence to support their claims) ?

Thanks Kevin

• This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by  rtw711.

[rtw711]

Thanks for your reply MJ.

I agree with what you have written and have no intention of using any legislation that could damage me or weaken my position.

I asked for members interpretation of S79A of the EO Act as it was my intention to use it against my adversary to strengthen my position. I recently wrote to the EO Commission referring to this legislation but am not 100% sure if I have interpreted S79A correctly which is why I posted my interpretation on here to see if other members agreed with mine.

My matter pertains to me being discriminated on medical grounds when I was refused entry by an incorporated Association for declining to check in manually on a paper log for Covid-19 contact tracing. They were essentially providing a medical service by collecting private information for a medical purpose and by refusing me entry they were essentially discriminating against me on medical grounds.

I don’t intend to use it in Court as hoping to get a Court order for a Court-ordered meeting to take place between the parties and ask the Association setup questions at the meeting where they will go into default and hopefully reach a settlement with them at that time. Under Section 23 of the SA Associations Incorporations Act (AIA) 1985, they are bound by their Constitutional rules and one of their rules is that they must meet to discuss the matter. To date, they are still refusing to meet with me to discuss the matter and I believe that is because they know they were in the wrong to refuse me entry as I have written to them providing all the relevant legislation they have violated by doing so. I have been communicating with them through their lawyer as they were ignoring my correspondence up until I started getting heavy with them and applying extra pressure for them to meet which they still are refusing to do. Their lawyer is playing games.

The main issue for me is have I interpreted S79A of EO Act correctly? S79A is referring to exemptions from part 5 of the Act which refers to discrimination on disability grounds. Given this, could Section 79A be used in an argument to support discrimination occurring on medical grounds for a non-disabled person? i.e. can this section be used to apply to non-disabled people? If yes, I am correct in my interpretation and can use it against my adversary to obtain a Court order through the EO Commission ordering the Association to meet with me. If I am wrong, I will proceed ahead and file an application in the Court seeking the Court-ordered meeting to take place where I should be successful in being granted this order given the Association has contravened S23 of the SA AI Act 1985 and their own constitutional rules in refusing to meet with me.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 9 months ago by  rtw711.

[rtw711]

Here is a couple of formats Mark is using where required which is obtained from a few documents he has provided me.

1. For Notice of Liability, Notice of Default, Final Notice

By

${full name}

All rights reserved

2. For an Affidavit (special matter)

By

${full name}

All rights, dominion, powers, privileges,

indemnities and immunities, whether actual,

contingent, inherent or prospective: Reserved

I will assume Mark is writing/signing his autograph/signature on Line 1 and uses Title Case on Line 2 where he writes his full name (e.g. John Mark Doe or John Doe). You could write your name in the format Jane M Doe to shorten your name. Nothing wrong in doing so.

[rtw711]

In one of his videos, Mark suggested:

1. Show the agencies that it is your normal signature by showing them your same signature on your credit/bank card, passport etc. Then, hopefully they would not refuse it. They still have no right to do so. What WA State Act(s) were they referring to?

2. Get an interstate driver’s licence. Do you know any interstate?

[rtw711]

Thanks M-J. See my reply above. I agree with what you have written.

[rtw711]

VSP Calculations Issue

———————-

Thanks M-J for your two very detailed replies. It is much appreciated. I will further clarify my employment situation.

My employer is govt. I either accept the terms of the redundancy offer or reject it. They are not going to alter the terms of the redundancy offer just for my benefit. It is a standard redundancy package where they won’t vary the terms for any employee who has been offered one. However, as I previously wrote, if I reject the current offer, then when my employment is terminated next month, I will still receive a redundancy payment, but it would be reduced by 25%. So, it is in my best interests to accept the current offer. I just don’t agree to the non-full disclosure. I am going to have a meeting with payroll department to address my concerns about the redundancy payment calculations so hopefully that will put my mind at rest. Also, if I accept the redundancy offer, I have the understanding that an audit will be done of the calculations before any payment is finalised and made.

[rtw711]

Ok. I assume you are using Title Case Name for your name (i.e. Jane Mary Doe) and Sentence Case for “All rights reserved”.

[rtw711]

See my reply below. I replied to the wrong message.

• This reply was modified 1 year, 11 months ago by  rtw711.