ACTUAL TAX NOTICE for you to use.

[Bulletproof Monk]

This is the one I used recently, with no reply after more than one month, which is Tacit agreement.

Please feel free to use it anyway you like. This is not legal advice, merely information which you may use or not.



NOTICE

Australian Taxation Office (ATO)
Attn: Erin Holland
Deputy Commissioner for Taxation
P.O Box 9990
Chermside QLD 4032

RE: ACCOUNT: (your ALL CAPS STRAWMAN)
a.k.a (your tax file number)


Date: …………


I, (First-Middle:Last Name) have recently learned that I, with the status of being a full liability free will man, and with no intention or knowledge of being any form or type of incorporated entity or of being a commercial “also known as”, or of my being a ward of the Crown, am not a "person" - a limited liability legal fiction.

I therefore believe I am not a “legal entity” known as a ‘taxpayer’ subject to the Income Tax Act of Australia. Legal entities are sometimes referred to by several other names such as "paper people" due to their legal status of having many of the same rights and obligations as natural persons.

There are some legal possibilities that are available only to natural persons, not to legal entities; for example a legal entity cannot marry, vote, or be elected President.

Further, I have learned that I have been defrauded by the Crown (The Commonwealth of Australia) and deceptively induced by the propaganda of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), into making a presumed contract of incorporation.

This takes the form of a presumed contract with the Crown by status change to a limited liability legal fiction called a “person” by my having filed a return of income.

The presumption being that my status as a flesh and blood man was changed into a "person resident in Australia" and a "taxpayer"; and therefore supposedly making me subject to income tax by that assumed contract.

This act by the Crown [Federal Government of Australia] is believed by me to be a violation of contract law and is trespass upon my life and my property.

As the injured party, I hereby revoke and void any such supposed or assumed contract, past, present and future; and, hereby declare my sovereign status as a flesh and blood full liability free will man with absolute rights under Anglo-Saxon Common Law.

I hereby make claim upon any item of value in commerce collected, banked or invested by (your ALL CAPS STRAWMAN) © (a.k.a your TFN) as agent in commerce resulting from the exchange of my labour and/or skills with any party.

As (STRAWMAN) © is a created fiction, I hereby disclaim any responsibility for any debts of (STRAWMAN) © (and any numerical representation of it as assigned by the ATO e.g: ABN, TFN) incurred as debts owed to the Crown.

I hereby request that you pay back to me forthwith any supposed withholding tax upon (STRAWMAN) © which, in fact, has been withheld from my wages as collected by (STRAWMAN) © as agent in commerce; and, all supposed income tax which (STRAWMAN) © paid over to the ATO on the grounds that I was fraudulently induced to pay it and was thus unlawfully deprived of that money - my private property.

If you believe in any way I am in error by my above statements, I request that your response is limited to rebuttal, point by point, by mail in person and that you do not allow any harassment of me by ATO agents or allow any violation of my common law property and privacy rights.

I, (First-Middle:Last Name), a free will full liability man, declare in the presence of the undersigned Justice of the Peace that the above statements made by myself are believed to be true and correct.


(STRAWMAN) ©
by



(First-Middle:Last Name)
Authorised Agent

Your post box address.

[coderipley]

I know this thread is very old and Bulletproof Monk has long since left the forums, but in case anyone was interested, I sent this Notice after modifying it where needed and this is what I got back:

http://www.coderipley.info/law/ATO_reply_small.jpg

I'm just wondering if I should respond or not. It was two pages, the second page is just talking about a penalty for the threat at the bottom of the first page, which I have pixelised (I haven't done tax returns on certain years, blah blah blah).

Just because they don't accept my views, doesn't mean my views are wrong.

Oh yeah, the letter was addressed to the legal name, not the "redemption name" ie: John-Henry: Doe. I have since given up using that as noone notices/uses the colon and very few people even recognise the hyphen.

Martin.

edit: spelling.

[ezrhythm]

The letter doesn't ask for them to show the law that makes him liable for a tax.
And it doesn't include a dated time (eg. 10 days) that they must respond or then it becomes accepted by tacit agreement.
It should be notarized with the notary used as a witness that they didn't repond timely then a letter is sent to cure the agreement.
Look up Notorial Protest.

[coderipley]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

The letter doesn't ask for them to show the law that makes him liable for a tax.
And it doesn't include a dated time (eg. 10 days) that they must respond or then it becomes accepted by tacit agreement.

You're right. There are other things that should probably have gone into it.

It should be notarized with the notary used as a witness that they didn't repond timely then a letter is sent to cure the agreement.
Look up Notorial Protest.

No Notary wants to talk to me unless I have a Drivers Licence or a Passport. Obviously I don't want to have to get one of those unless necessary.

I'm thinking 2-3 impartial witnesses instead.

Martin.

[PANICPASS]

What does Australia's Constitution say about penalties? The United States Constitution has a prohibition against imposing pains and penalties without first consulting a jury for authority. Article 1 section 9 is titled "Limitations on powers granted to the United States. Article 1 section 9 clause 3 reads, No Bill of Attainder... shall be passed". A Bill of Attainder is 1) an act of a legislative body, 2) naming a described individual or group of people or entities, 3) imposing pain or penalty, 4) without first consulting a jury.

Why does your government behave as though Acts of a Legislature are constitutional when bills of attainder are outlawed? In other words they cannot pass a law authorizing a pain or penalty without first consulting a jury. Did a jury authorize the legislature to pass an Act imposing a penalty on you (the individual) for not paying taxes?

[ezrhythm]

Yes, let two or three witnesses establish a fact!

[coderipley]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

What does Australia's Constitution say about penalties? The United States Constitution has a prohibition against imposing pains and penalties without first consulting a jury for authority.

This is the closest I could find to what I think you're referring to.
From:http://www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/Principality10.htm
"80. The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes."

Did a jury authorize the legislature to pass an Act imposing a penalty on you (the individual) for not paying taxes?

This is all I could find, just skim read it:
"53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.

Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws."

It seems a bit messed up. Even with my recent stretch in vocabulary to be able to read the various Acts properly, some of this seems like it was deliberately made to be vague.

Of course, none of this applies since 1919, but don't tell our purported Prime Minister that.

Martin.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by PANICPASS

What does Australia's Constitution say about penalties? The United States Constitution has a prohibition against imposing pains and penalties without first consulting a jury for authority. Article 1 section 9 is titled "Limitations on powers granted to the United States. Article 1 section 9 clause 3 reads, No Bill of Attainder... shall be passed". A Bill of Attainder is 1) an act of a legislative body, 2) naming a described individual or group of people or entities, 3) imposing pain or penalty, 4) without first consulting a jury.

Why does your government behave as though Acts of a Legislature are constitutional when bills of attainder are outlawed? In other words they cannot pass a law authorizing a pain or penalty without first consulting a jury. Did a jury authorize the legislature to pass an Act imposing a penalty on you (the individual) for not paying taxes?

You can set a penalty by agreement, or contract. The notarial protest is a form of agreement.

[robhalford88]

Originally Posted by coderipley

This is the closest I could find to what I think you're referring to.
From:http://www.brumbywatchaustralia.com/Principality10.htm
"80. The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes."


This is all I could find, just skim read it:
"53. Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. But a proposed law shall not be taken to appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.

The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

The Senate may not amend any proposed law so as to increase any proposed charge or burden on the people.

The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein. And the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amendments, with or without modifications.

Except as provided in this section, the Senate shall have equal power with the House of Representatives in respect of all proposed laws."

It seems a bit messed up. Even with my recent stretch in vocabulary to be able to read the various Acts properly, some of this seems like it was deliberately made to be vague.

Of course, none of this applies since 1919, but don't tell our purported Prime Minister that.

Martin.

Forget the 1919 stuff, I know what you are on about, it is a dead end. I have spent years on that and it is totally irrelevant.

[coderipley]

I don't mean to derail the thread, and I'm sure we're both coming at it from different angles, but 1919 Treaty of Versailles is still very important in my opinion.

Australia became independant from the English Monarchy and current political structures became no longer applicable.

But again, just my opinion. It's because of that event that I don't take the Constitition Act too seriously and consider 99% of everything else in the law and political components of Australia a fraud.