saul-james
Forum Replies Created
-
I had my name removed a few years ago (before Albo happened) by simply filling out this online form. Super easy.
I didn’t hear from them because I supplied no contact details. Two weeks later I check for my NAME and it was gone. I checked again a week ago to the same effect.
https://formupload.aec.gov.au/Form?FormId=osn#indefinitely
The best thing about this method is you don’t have to commit fraud thanks to the Acts Interpretations Act’s definition of Australia.
-
Acts Interpretation Act 1901
https://www.legislation.gov.au/C1901A00002/latest/text
legislation.gov.au
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 - Federal Register of Legislation
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 - Federal Register of Legislation
-
Sure, living without government is one of my goals too. I’ve learnt a great deal about how to do that recently. If you are going to revoke anything, the first thing to do is to learn how to revoke the government’s power of attorney over you and how you gave it to them in the first place (enrolling to vote etc). Then learn how to take control of your PERSON and make the government the Trustee (revoke your citizenship/residency). Then it’s just a matter of learning how to contract with them to your favour.
Once you’ve learnt about those three concepts you may find your USI quite useful. My suggestion is to keep the USI and learn about power of attorney, naturalisation, and private-member societies (private nations).
-
I filled out every part except for the contact information.
-
From the Constitution…
Section 115 – A State shall not coin money, nor make anything but gold and
silver coin a legal tender in payment of debts.https://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s115.html
Now that negotiable instruments are the only form of payment all that you can do is discharge a debt. Actual payment of debts is impossible. That’s why you don’t technically own anything.
Just a suggestion, but make sure you understand as much as possible before you take action with negotiable instruments (PN’s & BoE’s).
www7.austlii.edu.au
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 115 States not to coin money.
Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII) - Hosted by University of Technology Sydney Faculty of Law
-
Do you realise that the $50 note you withdraw from the ATM is a promissory note?
Does it make any sense to pay a promissory note with a promissory note?
Is it possible to withdraw a $50 promissory note from the ATM and then go into the bank and redeem it for gold?
-
Universal Civil Procedure Rules 35.1 refers to NSW as far as I can tell. So, yes, you would need it to align with whatever State you are in.
UCPR 35.1 – An affidavit may, with the leave of the court, be used despite any
irregularity in form. -
No, that is for the government agent. You’re asking them for that information.
-
“I came across these two failed attempts of using promissory notes in Australia, does Mark address the reasons why they failed in their attempt in any training or other areas of this platform?”
It’s quite possible he does refer to one or both of these cases somewhere among the Q&A sessions, but I cannot confirm that. Alternatively, perhaps we can figure out why they failed?
From what I can tell from reading the articles provided, it seems both failed because they presented testimony/argument/made claims. As Mark constantly reminds us, we must NEVER make claims in any situation, whether in court or along the roadside. Always ask questions.
For example…
“Payment by those means is not a means of payment approved by the Commissioner,” she said.
“The fact that there is no legislation specifying that promissory notes and bills of exchange cannot be used as means to pay tax debts is beside the point. The point is that they are not means of payment that have been approved.”
Q: So we are in agreement that a bill of exchange is a lawful means of payment? And additionally, are you claiming that the Commissioner can ignore the laws of the Commonwealth as it pertains to payments within the Commonwealth?
In regards to the ATO case, the case may also fail because the instrument titled “Bill of Exchange” in the picture from the article is not a BoE according to the Bills of Exchange Act 1909. The instrument in question fails to qualify due to a single indorsement. Where is the ATO’s signature? The only BoE in the image is the cheque itself.
The BoE in reality is the penalty notice sent to you by the ATO; the instrument of first issue, made by and indorsed by the ATO with their seal. The receiver of the instrument may either pay or PAY TO THE ORDER OF. You have two options; you either pay the money or you can indorse it payable to some party.
Bill of exchange defined
A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person (the ATO) to another (You), signed by the person giving it (the seal of the ATO), requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay on demand, or at a fixed or determinable future time (due date), a sum certain in money to or TO THE ORDER OF (2nd option) a specified person, or to bearer.
— Bills of Exchange Act 1909 Section 8(1)So, from my understanding the instruments offered to the ATO don’t make much sense if presented alone. However, if those same instruments where presented in the form of a contract renegotiation, as Mark does, that is a different story altogether. When presented as a renegotiation of contract the focus is no longer on the actual instruments but on the contract itself.
It may be a fact that issuing promissory notes and indorsing bills of exchange is an option under statute, but it may also be a fact that the average Joe is unable to use these methods without resistance because we don’t have the Power of Attorney over our legal person. This is probably why Mark uses contracts to discharge liabilities rather than relying on the negotiable instruments alone.
It appears from the articles that both parties did not follow Mark’s methods of operating entirely within contract law and asking set-up questions.
-
This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by saul-james.
-
This reply was modified 7 months, 2 weeks ago by
-
I’m unsure which document you are referring to. What is the Doc number?
-
Yes, it should be “seen”.
-
“So take what we save now … and buy some silver while its low, store it a way in the event they ever come to collect…”
No. In the bankrupt world we live in that would be like having to “pay” twice. Your promissory note when indorsed and delivered is a cash equivalent. The bank can securitise the instrument and “get paid”.
That’s how they got the funds in the first place. When you blank indorsed the loan agreement you created a promissory note as you handed it back to them (delivered it). The whole world operates on “promises to pay” and “orders to pay” (negotiable instruments).
To get the full picture, read and study the Bills of Exchange Act 1909.
“…Mark mentions a Gold Stamp he uses on his pNotes.”
It’s purely for appearances. The thing of value on a PN is the indorsement (the signature).
“…could the lender ever consider fraud charge against me…”
Maybe they could, but couldn’t you do the same to them? Has the bank been honest about how they acquired
the funds? Did they fail to disclose
something to you? Has not the bank
engaged in fraudulent behaviour? -
“I wonder if they would ever call on us to make good the promissory notes we write and issue?”
My understanding is that a promise to pay is only payable with gold or silver, and in a bankrupt world operating on negotiable instruments exclusively, the only other way to “pay” a promise to pay is with more promises to pay.
I think the general idea is that you promise to pay one day when gold and silver coins return to the payment system. Until then…
-
“…so I’m not sure which way to go”
It’s no fun being unsure what to do, huh? I typically find that I feel unsure of what to do when I don’t fully understand the process. If you had clarity and the confidence to defend yourself (hold your position) do you think you would still feel unsure of what to do?
My suggestion is to make sure you understand the diversity between you, the living woman, and the All-Caps-Name (Ens Legis, creature of statute, person, individual, etc). When the ATO writes to you, they ALWAYS address their correspondence to the All-Caps-Name, and they ALWAYS sign off using their Title Case name. Right there, in that very correspondence they are admitting that there is a diversity between the Ens Legis and you, the living woman.
Essentially, the ATO presents you with the evidence you need to defend yourself every time they write to you by using the All-Caps and Title case formats in the same letter. Having the confidence to defend yourself is always connected to how well you understand the subject matter.
Make yourself bulletproof and you will know what to do.
In the meantime, write to the ATO and apologise for the delay in lodging and inform them of your plan to lodge by a certain date after the end of this coming financial year. That will satisfy them and give you the time to understand the process and why it works.
Good hunting Petra!