Blog Archives

TweetThe Freeman Delusion –┬áThe Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument in Australia By : Robert Sudy FREE E-BOOK CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD – The Freeman Delusion This E-Book is the most comprehensive guide to the delusion that some people call “Freeman” or “Sovereign” or the countless other names that the Courts have characterized as Pseudo Legal (stuff […]

OPCA theorists often insist that THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE is some sort of “international law” that applies to every nation that trades with the United States, but this is completely false.

In any case, I do not accept that the unilateral delivery of a promissory note, as occurred here, was a payment of a tax related liability within the meaning of regulation 18 of the Taxation Administration Regulations 1976 (Cth). The regulation requires payment of the liability, not a promise to pay; and a promissory note is not a method approved by the Commissioner for payment. The third defendant had not agreed to the discharge the tax liability in this eccentric way; nor, as the third defendant submits, could he have, consistently with regulation 18(1).

No newer/older posts
%d bloggers like this: