The Capacity of 'Government' - Follow Up
The following lists some potential actions and consequences of sending the three notices in succession.
Demands for payment continue as if your notice were never received. "Government" continues to act as if it were Government... but without any evidence. It is as if no justification need be made..."We are Government... because we say so."
This appears to be common practice.
Typical examples may included citing various Acts as the authority by which they act, e.g. Local Government Act suposedly justifying the authority of Local Councils.
Others quote from within various Acts as justification of their authority over you again without providing evidence of lawful authority of that Act's origin.
Some even point to the lawful origin of an Act whilst covertly administering Acts originated elsehwere, e.g. The Parliament of the Commonwealth is cited as the lawful origin (Correct) whilst adminstering Acts from the Parliament of Australia (non-constitutional). You are left to presume one is the same as the other. See Validation Diagrams for further clarification.
Any reference to an unsubstantiated Act is simply bluffing. No amount of quoting from within an Act validates the lawfulness of the Act or of the entity administering it. Remember also what Chief Justice Latham said about 'pretend laws'.
Referral to Other Agency
In continued pursuit of payments, fines or taxes, reference may be made about passing the matter over to another agency, e.g. Fines Enforcement Registry. This could be likened to calling in a debt collector.
What authority does this agency have to demand money from you if the original agency couldn't validate their lawful authority..?
Do they have a different ABN..? Are they a different corporate entity..? Should they be given opportunity to demonstrate they act as or for a lawful Department of the de jure Government of the Commomwealth of Australia..? See first Notice.
Some "Government Departments" may make threats to involve the Federal Police, impound private property, seize private property, strip you of your Driver's License, etc.
Whatever the threat, ask yourself what basis they have. Have they cited another Act..? Is that Act valid..? Is this threat a more exaggerated form of bluffing..?
If the original demand had no lawful authority... what lawful authority will enforce it..?
If not on the original notice or demand served to you, commonly a clause will be seen in the response you receive along the lines of "You may elect to have this matter dealt with before a court."
Dealing with the matter in Court is automatic acceptance that the "Government Department" is who they say they are. Your notices have proved they aren't.
Remember your wording... "Before this matter can be addressed, determination of the capacity in which you act shall be made."
Terms & Conditions
Where you've determined that the "Government Department" demanding payment of (unsubstantiated) charges is only a corporate entity... isn't their continued insistence for payment harrassment..?
Do you want to harrassed..?
Suppose you were to write your own terms and conditions and include this with your notices..?
Suppose you listed financial penalties for such things as:
Suppose you declared that the doing or performing of one or more of these actions was the acceptance of the terms and conditions your provided and the entering of a lawfully binding contract between the parties..? And that no action = no contract. This provides opportunity not to enter a contract.
Thereafter, shouldn't you invoice them for doing or performing these actions..? How would you now view any continued demand for payment, bluff, threat or referral to other agencies, having provided your terms and conditions..?
In all likelihood, payment of your invoices will not be made, this being breach of contract. Unfortunately there is not a de jure court in the country to enforce payment... yet. It is leverage however.