Kerry Verdon

Sep 15, 2014 3:50 AM
Thanks Alan.


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 15, 2014 3:50 AM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Pete Daoust

Sep 15, 2014 4:10 AM
Without ill-will, vexation or frivolity ? ... I like more: With Respect, Honor, Dignity and Integrity... But that's just me :)


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 15, 2014 4:10 AM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Alan Day

Sep 15, 2014 4:48 AM
Thats actually a remnant of free-dumb days. It needs to go.


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 15, 2014 4:48 AM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Pete Daoust

Sep 15, 2014 4:50 AM
:D


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 15, 2014 4:50 AM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Alan Day

Sep 24, 2014 11:45 PM
Update - Holy shit. Council sent a response.


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 24, 2014 11:45 PM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Alan Day

Sep 25, 2014 2:41 AM
Regarding a response to this I am thinking Do Not Call. Maintain communication via Registered Mail. The way I see it, there is no reason for Council to invoke the Privacy Act. They have no reason to. I have not asked for any details, whether personal and/or financial etc from anyone. I have asked, what I consider, a general question. Can the surety of the Person be used to discharge this public debt? It's a simple yes or no. I'm not interested in a discussion. I want an answer to a question. So I am of the opinion that sending a response stating the above is the way to go.. I think there is perhaps more in this response than what I am seeing.


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 25, 2014 2:41 AM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Kerry Verdon

Sep 25, 2014 5:28 AM
I did laugh at your comment! Yes, scary when they do respond. My question is........who is the owner of land? Who are we 'buying' the land from?


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 25, 2014 5:28 AM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Kerry Verdon

Sep 25, 2014 5:30 AM
re reading this, the CR has simply dusted his hands of this and passed it on. I guess if he receives enough of these letters there may need to be response or action from him directly. I wonder what is going on behind the scenes, if you have provoked their interest and there is talk or they just want to sweep it under the table?


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 25, 2014 5:30 AM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Kerry Verdon

Sep 25, 2014 5:30 AM
What is your next course of action?


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 25, 2014 5:30 AM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Pete Daoust

Sep 25, 2014 11:11 AM
The focus is: Can the surety of the Person be used to discharge this public debt? :D


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 25, 2014 11:11 AM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Will Bed

Sep 25, 2014 12:21 PM
You are a MAN. You HAVE a PERSON. If they claim anything else, ask THEM to provide the PROOFS for THEIR claim.


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Sep 25, 2014 12:21 PM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Alan Day

Nov 05, 2014 4:16 AM
Another response but this time to my third letter to Hume City Council regarding Rates.. Didn't hear anything back from the second but she does acknowledge receipt of it as can be seen. I'm curious that she doesn't know (Or claims not to know) about surety/security of the person. Here in Australia, we have no Bill and/or Charter of Human Rights (Those countries that do mention security of the person). I'm thinking perhaps this fact alone may have a lot of these people clueless as the rest of the masses and if so, why she may not know. If her response is genuine of course I'm a little bit stumped on how to reply to this. Pete or anyone else have any tips??


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Nov 05, 2014 4:16 AM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Rick Hiltz

Nov 05, 2014 7:03 PM
i always love it when they use the privacy bullshit .............. we all know by now it doesn`t exist and means nothing When you owe them money because they give it to a third person (collections). Its always best to let them know right up front before you sign any thing that you to have a privacy policy and the release of any of your personal information to any third party including law enforcement and gov`t subjects them to a fee of 5000.00 for each offense


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Nov 05, 2014 7:03 PM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Scott Duncan

Nov 06, 2014 10:19 AM
"I'm not authorized to answer questions" is the one that drives them bat-shit insane. Trust me on this one. :D


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Nov 06, 2014 10:19 AM
Type of Post:
Place of Post:


Alan Day

Nov 07, 2014 6:00 AM
Re: "I'm not authorized to answer questions". So simple yet elegant. It's the little things that matter


Unique Facebook User ID:
Last Updated: Nov 07, 2014 6:00 AM
Type of Post:
Place of Post: