Update: John Zukerman has passed back his alleged claim, to the alleged claimants.
Dun & Bradstreet (Australia) Pty Ltd are now the second round of interlopers acting as unauthorised agents for the alleged entity ATO, who have been served with Courtesy Notices.
Originally Published 14 Jan 2015
John Zukerman (you), acting as Managing Director
C/o alleged THE PROBE GROUP Pty Ltd
ABN: 19 092 585 745
214 Balaclava Road
Caulfield North Victoria, Australia 3161
Posted at: www.pn.i-uv.com (for all to know and rely upon)
Today: 14 January 2015 Your Reference: DT2XXXXXX
Recently, an unsolicited form letter dated 8th December 2014 was sent from your company addressed to XXXXX XXXXX, concerning an alleged obligation.
You also made threats of legal proceedings and additional costs unless the alleged outstanding amount is paid.
For the avoidance of any doubt:
Every claim and allegation contained within your computer/intranet–generated form letter is denied and rejected, for lack of evidence.
Therefore, you are instructed to provide verification of your claim/s immediately, including:
1) proof of your Agency;
2) proof via an Affidavit, that Anthony Wallace’s Affidavit cannot be relied upon;
3) proof of a lawful contract signed by both Parties;
4) a hand signed invoice in accordance with The Bills of Exchange Act 1909; and
5) your Professional Indemnity Insurance policy details, as your unsupported demands for money may be mistaken,
within ten (10) days from the above date.
Your failure to provide proof of your claims, as per your instructions in points 1-5 above will be constituted as ‘harassment’ and may lead to action under The Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and/or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth).
Your failure to provide proof of your claims, as per your instructions in points 1-5 above, will constitute your agreement to the following terms: that you are a third party interloper; you have no legal standing; no first-hand knowledge of this matter; your claim is fraudulent; any damages we suffer you will be held culpable; you agree to pay all fee schedules; that any negative remarks made to a credit reference agency will be removed and that you will no longer pursue this matter any further.
Should you provide sufficient evidence that I owe you or your alleged client any obligation, and that you can provide proof that you have been assigned agency, I may be happy to pay any verified claim in full.
If your next communication fails to provide adequate assurance of your claim or fails to convince me that your alleged claim has been terminated and no longer applies, please be assured I will be seeking legal advice concerning your company’s attempts at extortion.
- I do not give you or your agents, permission to contact me by telephone. This legal and lawful instruction has been recorded on your system 13 January 2015 at 4:10pm. Should you choose to contact me, I must warn you that calls will be recorded, and you will be invoiced in accordance with your Terms and Conditions No CLGMPC13B.
- As you are aware John, failure to take heed of this instruction will be construed as ‘harassment’ and may lead to action under The Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and/or the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth).
- Your Terms and Conditions No CLGMPC13B was previously been offered for your acceptance, wherein the method of acceptance was clearly defined in a Courtesy Notice dated 10 July 2013, recorded as being received by you.
- You were formally advised that, should youchoose to interact privately and individually beyond that date, you would be acting in the capacity of an individual entity, without a corporate safety net and with full personal liability for EVERY ACTION RESPONDENT TAKES under common law protected and preserved by public policy UCC 1-103, and Universal law, the governing law laid out in the OPPT UCC filings. (Refer: WA DC UCC Ref Doc # 2012113593)
- Youhave clearly engaged the invoicing process previously, of which there are still outstanding amounts owed. Any correspondence from youthat threatens any action/s listed in Schedule A of T&C: CLGMPC13B may bring immediate commencement of legal action against youto recover the value of yourunpaid invoices and/or a formal complaint to ASIC and ACCC.
Understand now John Zukerman, and be governed accordingly
Without prejudice, XXXXXXX TM
All Rights Reserved, as per UCC 1-308
NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO THE AGENT AND NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPLE
ATT 1 Affidavit from ATO Officer Anthony Wallace…………………………. 4
ATT 2 Top 10 Facts about the Australian Taxation Office (ATO):………… 6
ATT 3 Court Evidence ATO is NOT a legal Entity……………………………….. 7
ATT 4 Extract: Letter from taxpayers to the ATO in March 2011……… 10
‘Extract’ Attachment Links……………………………………………………………………………….. 15
ATT 5 Acting In Commerce……………………………………………………………. 16
ATT 1 Affidavit from ATO Officer Anthony Wallace
ATT 2 Top 10 Facts about the Australian Taxation Office (ATO):
The following facts support the widespread claim of the ATO being illegal:
- The ‘ATO’ is a private company registered in Washington (Click here) and according to a World Bank Official, tax revenue is given to the Roman Catholic Vatican (Click here).
- All law in Australia must be passed by a Parliament in both houses (in states that have both houses) and then by law must be gazetted.
- The law that established the Australian Taxation Office has been challenged in a particular court whereby a Plaintiff created the need to document the ATO’s formation to the satisfaction of the Defendant and the Court.
- The Plaintiff, with the approval of the Australian National Library, brought into the court every Federal Government Gazette for the time period around when the law was passed by the Federal Parliament.
- The Defendant was asked to ‘Please show us in which Gazette we will find the Legislation regarding the Australian Taxation Office’, to which the Defendant stated; ‘It is not in any Government Gazette’.
- The Judge of the matter then stated; ‘You have proved beyond any doubt that the law establishing the Australian Taxation Office has not been Gazetted and thus place its legality in question’ he went on, ‘But I can not permit Australia to fall into financial chaos and thus strike out this evidence’.
- Further, Justice J Callinan, in Moelike v Chapman [B8/2000 (24/8/2000)], agreed that the ATO was not a legal entity. This has been validated by two judges.
- Since this case, an article from the Aussie POST i quotes the High Court case on May 17, 2000, where the ATO admitted it isn’t a legal personality, a view also held by the presiding judge, Justice Callinan. It goes further, stating “at the heart of the matter is the inability of the ATO to provide any documentation that proves it is either a legal entity or was established following correct procedure…”.
- Further, as a response by Anthony Wallace, officer of the ATO, to Mr D Cameron on February 25, 2000, in an affidavit ii, stated that the writer and others he contacted could not identify any relevant files or documents setting up the ATO.
- The Australian Government has misled the people of Australia in matters relating to taxation.
ATT 3 Court Evidence ATO is NOT a legal Entity
Extracts from a letter dated June 29, 2005, addressed to the ‘Taxation Commissioner’, Mr M Carmody, follow:
The letter stated:
As you are apparently aware, via Australian “High Court” cases and numerous other legal challenges against the “Australian Taxation Office”, the credibility of your “commission” and the status of the “ATO” have been known to be, for some considerable time, illegitimate.
Please take further notice that your “commission” is entirely dependent upon the following:
Laws issued by a legal “Australian Parliament” granting the gathering of taxes,
A legally appointed “Australian Government”, and;
A Governor General with the appropriate legal status as granted by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland,
It was also stated:
Please take further notice that as it has been revealed in courts in the United Kingdom:
The ruling iii in the Chancery Division of the High Court in London, on Friday 25th June 2004 (the case was heard by Master Bencher Bowman, of the Chancery Division of the British High Court, who had previously reserved his decision on 9th March 2004), has stated that “Letters Patent, issued under ‘The Great Seal of Australia,’ by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, appointing a Governor General in Australia, have been issued incorrectly.”
That as a result of the ruling of the Chancery Division of the British High Court, that the Governor General of Australia holds no executive powers what so ever.
That as a result of the ruling of the Chancery Division of the British High Court, all current Australian Laws assented to on behalf of a British Monarch by the Governor General of Australia, cannot hold any valid or legal executive authority as the Governor General’s appointments have not been lawfully issued and are in legal terms ultra vires.
It was also stated:
I have included, as attachments to this letter, documents and letters that have been sent to various persons to acquaint them with the travesty of injustice that has been imposed upon the peoples of the Commonwealth of Australia.
It was further stated:
Take Note: that as you now have both actual and constructive notice of this legal defect you have a Duty of Care Obligation to act immediately and step down from your position, once you have notified the peoples of the Commonwealth of Australia.
It was also stated by the writer that shortly after the letter was delivered, Mr Carmody left the position of Commissioner of Taxation and was replaced by another and that there was no response to his letter.
Another letter by the same writer, was sent to the new Commissioner of Taxation on or about 15th February 2006 and stating:
Please take notice: that I requested the “Commissioner of Taxation” to step-down on the 29th June 2005 as he held no legal status.
It was also stated:
Accordingly any attempt by the “Australian Taxation Office” to demand monies with menace from any Australian citizen is an illegal act and must stop forthwith. All current and pending claims by the “Australian Taxation Office” upon the Citizens of Australia must be withdrawn immediately.
I (writer of this letter) forwarded documentation to the “Taxation Commissioner” on the 29th June 2005 to acquaint him with the travesty of justice that has been imposed upon the peoples of the Commonwealth of Australia. You are advised to review this documentation without delay.
Take Note: that as you now have both actual and constructive notice of this legal defect you have a Duty of Care Obligation to act immediately.
Thus, as is made clear in the above information and attachments, no current law, created in Australia after 1919 has any legality. The writer of the above letter extracts was attempting to rectify this matter with the least amount of political, financial and human suffering as possible. Rather it was an attempt to ‘wake up’ the system.
Further, we are aware of private arrangements made by the Australian Taxation Office and other persons. Many people had taken action against (or had actions taken against them) by the Australian Taxation Office. We understand that in such private arrangements, the Australian Taxation Office had dropped all legal action and paid compensation to the opposing party(s).
We further understand that in many documented cases people had entered into an arrangement whereby the opposing party need not pay any further taxation in Australia. In some cases the Australian Taxation Office has even agreed to reimburse all taxation paid by the opposing party in a further private arrangement.
Many senior political persons, in both major political parties, are aware of this and simply turn a ‘blind eye’; because they are aware of the outrage that would be felt by the Australian people, should this matter be made public.
The late Sir Harry Gibbs, former Chief Justice of the Australian High Court, had written an ‘explanatory statement’ iv and a letter v supporting the conclusions reached that underpin the above statements, upon which our requests are founded.
In his statement he makes note of the fact that these conclusions are based on the historical facts. They were solely relied upon. There is no political rhetoric or legal opinion unless based on historical fact.
His statement goes further in confirming access to the historical documentation.
One of Sir Harry’s key findings is:
“I therefore have come to the conclusion that the current legal and political system in use in Australia and its States and Territories has no basis in law”
ATT 4 Extract: Letter from taxpayers to the ATO in March 2011
To date, there has been no response by the ATO to the taxpayers concerned. Instead the ATO continues to forge ahead with their stated intention to take every single asset.
‘Extract’ Attachment Links
Attachment # 1: Article by Greg McLean in Aussie POST
Attachment # 2: Affidavit by ATO Officer Anthony Wallace
Attachment # 3: Ruling by Master Bencher Bowman June 23rd 2004.
Attachment # 4: Sir Harry Gibbs Explanatory Statement
Attachment # 5: Sir Harry Gibbs Letter
ATT 5 Acting In Commerce
John Zukerman acting as Managing Director for Probe Group Pty Ltd
(ABN 19 092 585 745)
NOTICE: Request for Professional Indemnity Insurance Details
All correspondence from your offices and related agents/departments, have so far referenced ‘money’, ‘outstanding balances’ and ‘associated costs’, so would it be reasonable assume that you are therefore “acting in commerce”? Also, as you signed off your letter with the title of ‘Director’ that goes with your job, does this also further confirm that you are indeed “acting in commerce”? If this is the case, as all your correspondence seems to indicate, there is something important to consider before you proceed with any further action in any of these alleged matters.
“Acting in commerce” always requires “insurance”, in order to indemnify the ‘Actor’ against any “act, error or omission in the performance of providing professional services”. As business engaged in commercial activities, some how, some way, you will be insured against making any mistakes, for example, if you proceed with any of the matters listed below and any turn out to be a ‘mistake’. As such, there are two things you need to consider. The first is “circumstances” and the second is “claims”.
As you must be aware, “circumstances” can lead to “claims”, if you make any mistakes “acting in commerce”. Which is why, if you read the small print of your policy, you will almost certainly find that you need to report any “circumstances” as well as any “claims” made against you. Simply put, if you fail to report any “circumstances” you are UNINSURED. “Uninsured” means you would be PERSONALLY LIABLE for any mistakes you make while “acting in commerce”, for example, if you proceed in this matter and it turns out to have been a mistake while you were “acting in commerce”, you would be “uninsured”.
Reviewing the paper trail of all previous correspondence you and your associated entities have received related to these alleged matters, it is easy to see there has been a complete lack of desire to be engage “in commerce” with you and your organization. Your decision to proceed directly against those documented desires may be interpreted that you and your associates have deliberately attempt to force various private parties to “act in commerce” against their wishes or better judgment.
If light of questions concerning whether you are “acting on commerce”, please provide the following details of your Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy, for any claim that may be made, if you decide to pursue any of your alleged ‘infringements’ and/or ‘obligations’, and it is determined that you have ‘made a mistake while “acting in commerce”:
The name of your insurer
Your insurer’s contact details
Your insurance policy number)