Gday from Australia guys!

Another Aussie being shafted by credit Corp group

22k cba bank debt sold to ccg and turned into 39k debt due to the magic Of interest!
Very much looking forward to learning from the collective knowledge and experience you all have. If anyone has a way of dealing with this specific dc pm me some links please

How can they charge you interest on the basis of an allegation that you owe them money? They are bluffing.

This is why its often a good strategic move to send them the 3 letters you will find on this site here as soon as they contact you. The letters make a conditional offer.

The 3 letters all say that you will happily pay the amount owed if they prove you owe the debt?

The 3 letters ask them to provide you with the foundation documents they need to successfully sue you.  These are a copy of the original agreement you signed with the credit provider, a copy of the Default Notice the Original Creditor sent you, and the Assignment Notice.

Rarely can they come up with the original agreement.

Go to the ASIC website and get the REGULATORY GUIDE 96  Debt collection Guideline for Collectors and Creditors

The Guideline says that once you dispute the debt, then collection activity must stop until either you agree to pay it or the court makes a determination.

Take it easy mate, its Friday night, time for a few beers and the footy.

Thanks ausk,
I know, it’s disgusting these companies are allowed to exist and harass people to the ends of the earth. I’ll be calling them tomorrow and asking for any and all information regarding the account be sent to me and then I will respond with the 3 letters from this site. I’ve noticed the letters are based from England
What do I need to change to make it work in au?

Hi and welcome.

Cheers mate

jkback wrote:Thanks ausk,
I know, it’s disgusting these companies are allowed to exist and harass people to the ends of the earth. I’ll be calling them tomorrow and asking for any and all information regarding the account be sent to me and then I will respond with the 3 letters from this site. I’ve noticed the letters are based from England
What do I need to change to make it work in au?

To customise them to Australia, go the relevant section about assignment in your states property law act and or regulations and change the letter as required regarding wording, dates and terminology.

change the reference to english laws to the relevant Australian law which you can find by searching with Auslii. This will most likely be "Australian Consumer Law."

read the letters through and compare them with the DCA is referencing in their communications with you.

DO NOT talk to them. Write them a hard copy letter and tell them that you are prepared to communicate with them on the matter but communications will be by letter only and NO OTHER form. Tell them that any other form of communication will be regarded as harassment for which you may report them to the debt collectors regulator.

You need to learn all you can about the proclamation of Australian Laws. This is something of a gold pass if you learn it right. There is a section in the Aus constitution on the proclamation of laws, it describes how it must be done. LEARN IT, Look up a law that was passed before 1970+ look in Part Two of that law and it will have a proclamation statement in it and it will contain a date of proclamation also.

Look up a form called 'Notice of Discovery" or "Notice to produce." Should you get a summons to attend court some day you need this because this is whats going to get you off the hook. This is because NO law passed by the "Australian Parliament" or the "Australian Government" is legal believe it or not. I';; go into that later.

I will give you some high court cases to find, READ and download and save because they will kill your case for you, if it goes to court. DONT TELL the DCA any of this.

stay in touch

hi and welcome!

Hi; jkback; sorry for dumping all this on you but its best you get it one hit so you can understand it.


Proclamation of Laws
In the 1970’s Goff Whitlam asked the Queen if he could start another government. The Queen said no, but Whitlam went ahead anyway and worked on the creation of a new system of government for Australia. With the assistance of people like Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, in due course the “Australian Government” and the “Australian Parliament” appeared and government was moved away from the Commonwealth Parliament to the “Australian Parliament.”
A new coat of arms featuring the emu and the kangaroo was also developed.
Most Australians to this day believe the creation of Australian Government” and the “Australian Parliament” was just cosmetic name change and it was the same dog with a different name. This is not the case and no government since has said or done anything to correct this misconception in the public consciousness because to do so exposes the slight of hand that was perpetrated on the Australian people behind their backs.
The whole purpose of the creation of a new Government was to find a work around the constraints placed on Australian governments by the Australian Constitution. All governments hunger for power and see all legal constraints on them as barriers to be overcome.
The creation of Australian Government” and the “Australian Parliament” was all a precursor to Australia becoming a republic.
The Australian Constitution provides for the Commonwealth of Australia Parliament and nothing else so “Australian Government” and the “Australian Parliament” have no place in the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.
Proclamation of laws comes under Section 58 of the commonwealth of Australia Constitution. This section says:
Australian Constitution - Section 58 - Royal assent to Bills & Recommendations by Governor-General
When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure.
The Governor-General may return to the house in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation.

For a Bill coming out of the Commonwealth of Australia parliament to become law, it must first receive Royal Assent, it must be assented to by the Queen. However, the queen does not do this herself. She delegates this role to the Commonwealth of Australia Governor General in relation to Commonwealth laws and the Governors Generals of all Australian States and Territories in relation to state and territory laws.
The Governor General and the Governors General are supposed to perform the function of reviewing Bills coming up from the parliament to ensure they are consistent with Commonwealth of Australia Constitution. This is the reason Section 58 of the constitution above is written like it is, to provide a means for dealing with laws which are inconsistent with the constitution.
Part 1 and Part 2 of all laws coming up out the Parliament relate to proclamation. The following graphic is a copy of a valid Proclamation certificate for the “Act to Constitute the Commonwealth of Australia” that was passed by the British government in 1901. It was this Act that transformed a group of British Colonies run by Governors into a single united country known as Australia with a constitution.
This graphic can be seen in Section 2 or Part 2 of any commonwealth law. The states should have something similar.
This graphic below is a copy of a valid proclamation certificate for the West Australian Criminal Code.

Note that this contains the words “Be it enacted by the Queens Most Excellent Majesty.” The original Royal Titles and Styles Act requires this wording for all legislation both state and commonwealth. Note that it also contains a date on which the Act became law by being given royal assent on the 21 April 1969.
The current Royal Titles and Styles Act is similarly worded but is not the same which is a deliberate slight of hand on the part of the commonwealth and all state governments. All the attorney Generals in Australia are fully aware of this deceit but choose not to alert the Australian people, the people they are supposed to serve.
In a law that has been passed since the imposition of the “Australian Government” and the “Australian Parliament” at Section 2 or Part 2 it will have something other than the above valid proclamation statements. It may say something like “This act comes into force on a date to be proclaimed” or something similar. These laws are invalid because they do not conform to the Australian Constitution - Section 58 - Royal assent to Bills & Recommendations by the Governor-General
In the 1940s Chief Justice Latham of the High Court of Australia said; and to paraphrase: “any law made in excess of power to make law is no law at all and is of no force and effect. (The court case is South Australia v Commonwealth (First Uniform Tax Case (1942) 65 CLR 373 at 408, Latham Chief Justice.)
In 1999 in the court case “Re Wakim [1999] HCA 27; 198 CLR 511; 163 ALR 270; 73 ALJR
839 (17 June 1999)” the court stated and to paraphrase “a legislature cannot by preambular action give itself power to make law where no such power exists.”
You can now see why all laws passed by the “Australian Government” and the “Australian Parliament” are invalid are of no force or effect. More importantly they cannot be relied upon by any debt collector to get money out of you because as both Chief Justice Latham and this decision by decision above by the high court.
Below is the proclamation for the Act that gave us the Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution.
How to use proclamation of laws in court.
The police, the lawyers, the courts and the politicians all pick and choose from all the laws to suit themselves and their own interests so therefore its OK for us to do that too.
Law making must follow proper due process, so how do we know if it has or not? When we take the establishment to task we very quickly discover that we must comply in full, with every part of the law or laws we are taking action under. If we are required to meet this standard then we are entitled to expect the state with all the resources it has available to it, to do the same.
We need to ask questions. Questions like “has it been given royal assent as per Section 58 of the constitution?” “Please show me the royal assent and if you can’t you are making a false claim and I do not consent to the jurisdiction you are trying to enforce onto me.”
The way we hold them to account to the standards they hold us to, in relation to the Constitutional validity of the laws they are relying on for their authority, is obtain a copy of the Proclamation Certificate and we do this using what is known as Discovery.
Discovery is the process where parties to a legal proceeding identify and disclose to each other documents that are relevant to the issues in the proceeding. In some courts, an order for discovery may be made against a person or a body who is not a party to the proceeding.
As soon as we have been issued with a summons we immediately complete a Notice of Discovery or a Notice to Produce. In Western Australia the relevant form is currently called “List of Discoverable Documents and is on the WA supreme court website.”
In WA, Discovery comes under section 36 of the Supreme Court Act 235 and Order 56 of the Supreme Court Rules 971 related to discovery.
For the legal system; the issue of proclamation of laws is something they just do not want to talk about and they certainly do not want proclamation of laws to raise its ugly head in their courts or in their legal world.
The reason for this is that any ‘law’ made by the “Australian Parliament” or the “Australian Government” is not consistent with the Australian Constitution - Section 58 - Royal assent to Bills.
The Proclamation Certificate is an instrument that explains the proclamation details and as important as this is, all legislation must have a date on it. E.g. “This legislation was assented on xyz date” and become the law within the commonwealth (or ‘x’ state.) on this date. If there is no date in the ‘Commencement” section of Part 1 or Part 2 of an Act or Regulation then it then it has not been assented to.
The Date of Assent must be proven because if the date on when it comes into effect is not known, then it cannot be proven to be law.
For our purposes, we must insist on being given a proclamation certificate on which there appears the date on which it become law. We must not let ourselves be tricked into believing that it has been proclaimed and assented to just because the prosecutor or the magistrate claims that it has been proclaimed.
Road Traffic Act 1974

Part 1 Preliminary

1. Short title

This Act may be cited as the Road Traffic Act 1974.

2. Commencement

(1) Subject to subsection (2) the provisions of this Act shall come into operation on such date or such dates as is or are, respectively, fixed by proclamation.

Road Traffic Act 1974, is no law at all!



So how to maximise proclamation of laws in court?
Part of our defense in court is to go to Section 1 or 2 of each Act they are relying on for their Authority to prosecute us under and look for the date on which it was proclaimed. If it has not been proclaimed then we should bring this to the attention of the court and say that Act does not apply. It has not been proclaimed, therefore it has not law.
If an agency seeking money from us such as police, councils or private car parking companies or anything similar, and they try to tell us that proclamation of laws is not required, then we can advise them that prosecution must prove all aspects of the case including the lawfulness of the Acts relied upon and that this was confirmed in the High Court in Munday v Gill. This is all we need to say.
Alternatively; we might like to say something like “the prosecution has failed to provide substantiating evidence the legislation they are relying has received proclamation in accordance with Section 58 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution.”
One of the tricks courts play is that the magistrate or prosecutor may pick up a piece of paper and say, “this is the proclamation certificate here, I have it my hand.”
One way to deal with this is to interject and say something like “You honor, may I see that certificate please?” If they say no or they say they are satisfied the law is legal or something similar, then we can interject again as say something like “your honor, I suspect you may be erring in law and I may appeal this case to a higher court.” We then remain silent to any statements they make because we do not argue with a magistrate.
Another trick they try is to claim that a proclamation cert if not required to for new Act or Regulation or for one which has been amended but which has previously been given royal assent in the correct manner in the past. However, this is incorrect and if they insist they are right, then we can interject and respond with the statement above.
The Requirement for Proclamations comes out of Section 58 of the constitution and are binding on both the commonwealth and the states. The commonwealth consists of all the states and territories of Australia and the states and territories of Australia constitute the commonwealth.
This section of the constitution cannot be changed without a referendum of the Australian people and passed by the majority of people in a majority of states. No Australian State government and or the Commonwealth Australian Government can change it because this section of the constitution is part of the inherited laws from England and only the British parliament can change them.
Proclamations are binding on all prosecuting authorities in Australia. Refusal to provide proclamation for a law can be taken as proof the law in question has not been proclaimed in the manner required by Section 58.
The other entities known as the Australian Parliament or State of NSW etc are corporate entities. Corporate entities have no legislative power. This is because only courts have the judicial authority as set out in Section 71 of the Commonwealth Constitution which says:
“The judicial power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Supreme Court, to be called the High Court of Australia, and in such other federal courts as the Parliament creates, and in such other courts as it invests with federal jurisdiction. The High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice, and so many other Justices, not less than two, as the Parliament prescribes.”

(Note: corporate entities are not mentioned.)
Where a proclamation date cannot be found in the document then it must be regarded as deficient and therefore it cannot be relied upon as a source of authority.
When this happens Section 109 of the commonwealth constitution applies


‘Commonwealth Of Australia Constitution Act - Sect 109 - Inconsistency of laws
When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

Wow that’s a lot!!
I’ll grab a beer and get reading
Thanks I really appreciate you taking your time
To help me out

I’ll be putting together letter 1 soon I’ll upload it for you to have a look before I send it . Also I spoke to the bank last week and there was never a default listed on this account and I have a statement from the bank saying the full amount owing was actually Paid in full by a company called dcs who I called to negotiate a payment arrangement on my behalf with the bank but I never fully finalised the paper work with them then somehow credit Corp end up with a claim against me for the alleged debt.

jkback wrote:I’ll be putting together letter 1 soon I’ll upload it for you to have a look before I send it . Also I spoke to the bank last week and there was never a default listed on this account and I have a statement from the bank saying the full amount owing was actually Paid in full by a company called dcs who I called to negotiate a payment arrangement on my behalf with the bank but I never fully finalised the paper work with them then somehow credit Corp end up with a claim against me for the alleged debt.

The problem with payments plans is that if just one payment is missed the DC can go bolting into court and obtain a judgement for immediate payment of the entire outstanding amount.

Don't ever fall for "just give me one dollar a week to start with." routine.

I reckon many of them prefer to get their money using this trick, its easier and sometimes quicker.

gday mate