Do Not Call Register has actually fined someone

[Sylvia Else]

On 17/06/2011 2:27 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"


** There is no law that protects directors from their own criminal acts.

Which criminal act would that be?

** Any deliberate criminal act.

So not relevant to this thread, then.

Sylvia.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"

** There is no law that protects directors from their own criminal
acts.

Which criminal act would that be?

** Any deliberate criminal act.

So not relevant to this thread, then.

** Do you have a point to make ?

If so, then FUCKING post it !!!!!!!!!!!

You ANAL fucking BITCH !!

 

[DavidW]

Sylvia Else wrote:

On 17/06/2011 2:27 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"


** There is no law that protects directors from their own criminal
acts.

Which criminal act would that be?

** Any deliberate criminal act.

So not relevant to this thread, then.

You're being mischievous, Sylvia. You knew that would set him off.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 17/06/2011 2:39 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"


** There is no law that protects directors from their own criminal
acts.

Which criminal act would that be?

** Any deliberate criminal act.

So not relevant to this thread, then.


** Do you have a point to make ?

If so, then FUCKING post it !!!!!!!!!!!

You ANAL fucking BITCH !!

You originally claimed that the director can be made personally liable.
So far you have offered nothing to support that claim, and your comment
about there being no law that protects directors from their own criminal
act has no relevance.

So we're stuck with the usual situation where you've made a claim, but
don't back it up.

Sylvia.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"

** Do you have a point to make ?

If so, then FUCKING post it !!!!!!!!!!!

You ANAL fucking BITCH !!


You originally claimed that the director can be made personally liable. So
far you have offered nothing to support that claim, and your comment about
there being no law that protects directors from their own criminal act has
no relevance.

** You have not posted anything to back up that assertion.

Time to do so.



..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"DavidW"

You're being mischievous, Sylvia. You knew that would set him off.

** In the past - it has taken me up to 10 requests ( each one getting
stronger and more irate ) just to get Sylvia to POST exactly what it is
she is thinking.

In every case, it was not worth the trouble.



..... Phil

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 17/06/2011 3:02 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"

** Do you have a point to make ?

If so, then FUCKING post it !!!!!!!!!!!

You ANAL fucking BITCH !!


You originally claimed that the director can be made personally liable. So
far you have offered nothing to support that claim, and your comment about
there being no law that protects directors from their own criminal act has
no relevance.


** You have not posted anything to back up that assertion.

Time to do so.

That you made the original claim, and the lack of relevance of your
subsequent comments are evident from your postings. Nothing further is
required.

Why would you think it was relevant?

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 17/06/2011 2:49 PM, DavidW wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:
On 17/06/2011 2:27 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"


** There is no law that protects directors from their own criminal
acts.

Which criminal act would that be?

** Any deliberate criminal act.

So not relevant to this thread, then.

You're being mischievous,

A bit, it's true.

Sylvia. You knew that would set him off.

He's actually being a bit cagey. I think he realises he's on shaky
ground, but isn't sure why, and is hoping that I'll reveal all before he
makes an even more embarassing blunder.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 17/06/2011 3:14 PM, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 17/06/2011 2:49 PM, DavidW wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
On 17/06/2011 2:27 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"


** There is no law that protects directors from their own criminal
acts.

Which criminal act would that be?

** Any deliberate criminal act.

So not relevant to this thread, then.

You're being mischievous,

A bit, it's true.

Sylvia. You knew that would set him off.

He's actually being a bit cagey. I think he realises he's on shaky
ground, but isn't sure why, and is hoping that I'll reveal all before he
makes an even more embarassing blunder.

Sylvia.

Well, looks like Phil has found in himself an exceptional level of self
control, and isn't going to be drawn on this, or perhaps he's figured it
out for himself.

The point is that breaches of the provisions of the Do Not Call Register
Act lead to civil penalties, but are not criminal offences.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dncra2006201/s29.html

Therefore anything relating to the liability, or otherwise, of directors
for their own criminal acts, is irrelevant to the discussion.

Sylvia.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"

Well, looks like Phil has found in himself an exceptional level of self
control, and isn't going to be drawn on this, or perhaps he's figured it
out for himself.

The point is that breaches of the provisions of the Do Not Call Register
Act lead to civil penalties, but are not criminal offences.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dncra2006201/s29.html

Therefore anything relating to the liability, or otherwise, of directors
for their own criminal acts, is irrelevant to the discussion.

** But not irrelevant at all to the post it was in.

------------------------------------------------------


"Jon"

"Phil Allison"

** The company has been fined, but is not operating and very likely
bereft of funds. The sole director can be made personally liable as she "
directed " her company to do an illegal thing.


Directors can be liable for behaving as though their company is solvent
when in fact it isn't. But I don't this extends to "illegal acts" of the
company.

** Bullshit.

As Sylvia says, cite the law.

** There is no law that protects directors from their own criminal acts.

If you think there is one - cite it.

In the case in question, the woman personally arranged for the illegal calls
to be made.

So she is liable to pay the fine.

---------------------------------------

** Defying the provisions of the DNC Act is illegal and subject to penalty.

The woman director deliberately, recklessly and PERSONALLY did that illegal
thing.

Seems she did not make any provision within the company to pay the penalty.

That her company is now bereft of funds will not save her from personal
liability.

Hence my ORIGINAL comment :

" Betcha she declares personal bankruptcy, then does a runner."



..... Phil

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 18/06/2011 1:44 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"

Well, looks like Phil has found in himself an exceptional level of self
control, and isn't going to be drawn on this, or perhaps he's figured it
out for himself.

The point is that breaches of the provisions of the Do Not Call Register
Act lead to civil penalties, but are not criminal offences.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dncra2006201/s29.html

Therefore anything relating to the liability, or otherwise, of directors
for their own criminal acts, is irrelevant to the discussion.

** But not irrelevant at all to the post it was in.

------------------------------------------------------


"Jon"
"Phil Allison"

** The company has been fined, but is not operating and very likely
bereft of funds. The sole director can be made personally liable as she "
directed " her company to do an illegal thing.


Directors can be liable for behaving as though their company is solvent
when in fact it isn't. But I don't this extends to "illegal acts" of the
company.

** Bullshit.

As Sylvia says, cite the law.

** There is no law that protects directors from their own criminal acts.

If you think there is one - cite it.

In the case in question, the woman personally arranged for the illegal calls
to be made.

So she is liable to pay the fine.

---------------------------------------

** Defying the provisions of the DNC Act is illegal and subject to penalty.

The woman director deliberately, recklessly and PERSONALLY did that illegal
thing.

Seems she did not make any provision within the company to pay the penalty.

That her company is now bereft of funds will not save her from personal
liability.

Hence my ORIGINAL comment :

" Betcha she declares personal bankruptcy, then does a runner."



.... Phil

To the extent that the penalties have been imposed on the company, they
are debts owed by the company to the Commonwealth. As a general rule,
directors are not liable for the debts of their company. There are
exceptions, but in each case the exception is identified by law. Unless
there is such a law making debts arising from penalties such an
exception, there will be no liability.

If there is such a law, it should be possible to cite it.

Sylvia.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"

Well, looks like Phil has found in himself an exceptional level of self
control, and isn't going to be drawn on this, or perhaps he's figured it
out for himself.

The point is that breaches of the provisions of the Do Not Call Register
Act lead to civil penalties, but are not criminal offences.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dncra2006201/s29.html

Therefore anything relating to the liability, or otherwise, of directors
for their own criminal acts, is irrelevant to the discussion.

** But not irrelevant at all to the post it was in.

------------------------------------------------------


"Jon"
"Phil Allison"

** The company has been fined, but is not operating and very likely
bereft of funds. The sole director can be made personally liable as she
"
directed " her company to do an illegal thing.


Directors can be liable for behaving as though their company is solvent
when in fact it isn't. But I don't this extends to "illegal acts" of
the
company.

** Bullshit.

As Sylvia says, cite the law.

** There is no law that protects directors from their own criminal acts.

If you think there is one - cite it.

In the case in question, the woman personally arranged for the illegal
calls
to be made.

So she is liable to pay the fine.

---------------------------------------

** Defying the provisions of the DNC Act is illegal and subject to
penalty.

The woman director deliberately, recklessly and PERSONALLY did that
illegal
thing.

Seems she did not make any provision within the company to pay the
penalty.

That her company is now bereft of funds will not save her from personal
liability.

Hence my ORIGINAL comment :

" Betcha she declares personal bankruptcy, then does a runner."

** You have TOTALLY IGNORED every thing I posted !!!

So it stands as not opposed.

To the extent that the penalties have been imposed on the company, they
are debts owed by the company to the Commonwealth.

** Wrong.

The money owed is a FINE imposed by the Federal Court for a deliberate,
illegal act carried out by the sole director.

The specified means of collecting the FINE is by civil debt proceedings.

If debt proceedings are initiated against the sole director - she has to
have a defence.

I say she has none.


...... Phil

 

[Jon]

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:962q8gFtpiU1@mid.individual.net...

To the extent that the penalties have been imposed on the company, they
are debts owed by the company to the Commonwealth.

** Wrong.

The money owed is a FINE imposed by the Federal Court for a deliberate,
illegal act carried out by the sole director.

The specified means of collecting the FINE is by civil debt proceedings.

If debt proceedings are initiated against the sole director - she has to
have a defence.

The court would have imposed the fine to the company. That's how it works.

Tax debts can be recovered from the directors but this is not a tax debt.
Also, if a company trades while insolvent then the directors can be held
liable for any subsequent debts. But the case in point is none of these
things.

I say she has none.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 18/06/2011 3:09 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"

Well, looks like Phil has found in himself an exceptional level of self
control, and isn't going to be drawn on this, or perhaps he's figured it
out for himself.

The point is that breaches of the provisions of the Do Not Call Register
Act lead to civil penalties, but are not criminal offences.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/dncra2006201/s29.html

Therefore anything relating to the liability, or otherwise, of directors
for their own criminal acts, is irrelevant to the discussion.

** But not irrelevant at all to the post it was in.

------------------------------------------------------


"Jon"
"Phil Allison"

** The company has been fined, but is not operating and very likely
bereft of funds. The sole director can be made personally liable as she
"
directed " her company to do an illegal thing.


Directors can be liable for behaving as though their company is solvent
when in fact it isn't. But I don't this extends to "illegal acts" of
the
company.

** Bullshit.

As Sylvia says, cite the law.

** There is no law that protects directors from their own criminal acts.

If you think there is one - cite it.

In the case in question, the woman personally arranged for the illegal
calls
to be made.

So she is liable to pay the fine.

---------------------------------------

** Defying the provisions of the DNC Act is illegal and subject to
penalty.

The woman director deliberately, recklessly and PERSONALLY did that
illegal
thing.

Seems she did not make any provision within the company to pay the
penalty.

That her company is now bereft of funds will not save her from personal
liability.

Hence my ORIGINAL comment :

" Betcha she declares personal bankruptcy, then does a runner."



** You have TOTALLY IGNORED every thing I posted !!!

So it stands as not opposed.


To the extent that the penalties have been imposed on the company, they
are debts owed by the company to the Commonwealth.

** Wrong.

The money owed is a FINE imposed by the Federal Court for a deliberate,
illegal act carried out by the sole director.

The specified means of collecting the FINE is by civil debt proceedings.

If debt proceedings are initiated against the sole director - she has to
have a defence.

I say she has none.

ACMA media release.

http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_410053

"Court ordered FHT Travel to pay a civil penalty of $120,000 and granted
injunctions restraining both FHT Travel and Ms Earnshaw from making
certain telemarketing calls."

So it is the company that has to pay the penalty, not the director.
Unless you can cite a law that makes her liable to pay the penalty if
the company cannot, you have nothing.

Sylvia.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Jon"

Tax debts can be recovered from the directors but this is not a tax debt.
Also, if a company trades while insolvent then the directors can be held
liable for any subsequent debts. But the case in point is none of these
things.

** There is no point is saying what it is not.

Fuckwit.


.... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"

"Court ordered FHT Travel to pay a civil penalty of $120,000 and granted
injunctions restraining both FHT Travel and Ms Earnshaw from making
certain telemarketing calls."

** Stale news.

The company has apparently ceased trading but has not been wound - it is
about to be struck off.

http://www.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gns030c?acn=126_910_647&juris=9&hdtext=ACN&srchsrc=1

So it is the company that has to pay the penalty, not the director.

** That situation can change by a new order at the request of the ACMA.

Unless you can cite a law that makes her liable to pay the penalty if

** You have TOTALLY IGNORED every thing I posted !!!

So it stands as not opposed.

The money owed is a FINE imposed by the Federal Court for a deliberate,
illegal act carried out by the sole director.

The specified means of collecting the FINE is by civil debt proceedings.

If debt proceedings are initiated against the sole director - she has to
have a defence.

I say she has none.

What do you say is her defence?



...... Phil

 

[Jon]

"Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:962s3jF9r7U1@mid.individual.net...

Unless you can cite a law that makes her liable to pay the penalty if


** You have TOTALLY IGNORED every thing I posted !!!

So it stands as not opposed.

The money owed is a FINE imposed by the Federal Court for a deliberate,
illegal act carried out by the sole director.

The specified means of collecting the FINE is by civil debt proceedings.

If debt proceedings are initiated against the sole director - she has to
have a defence.

Debt proceedings cannot be initiated against the sole director if the debts
are owed by the company. The case would be struck out due to a wrongly
named defendant.

You don't get it. Directors can only be held liable in certain situations:
eg. tax debt, trading while insolvent. YOU need to explain why the
director will be liable for the company's fine.

 

[Phil Allison]

"Jon the Know Nothing Jerk "

Debt proceedings cannot be initiated against the sole director if the
debts are owed by the company. The case would be struck out due to a
wrongly named defendant.

** Complete bollocks.

The ACMA case in the Federal Court was against the company AND it's sole
director.

The Court made orders against BOTH.

You don't get it. Directors can only be held liable in certain
situations:

** Reckless, illegal behaviour that incurs large debt IS one of them as is
criminal behaviour.

Particularly when there is only ONE person, the sole director, responsible.

Note that the " one gal and a dog " company is about to be struck off the
register by ASIC.

Very likely for not filing documents or responding to ASIC.

Registration is about to run out too, in August.

http://www.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gns030c?acn=126_910_647&juris=9&hdtext=ACN&srchsrc=1



.... Phil

 

[Rob]

On 18/06/2011 3:41 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"

"Court ordered FHT Travel to pay a civil penalty of $120,000 and granted
injunctions restraining both FHT Travel and Ms Earnshaw from making
certain telemarketing calls."


** Stale news.

The company has apparently ceased trading but has not been wound - it is
about to be struck off.

http://www.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gns030c?acn=126_910_647&juris=9&hdtext=ACN&srchsrc=1


So it is the company that has to pay the penalty, not the director.

** That situation can change by a new order at the request of the ACMA.


Unless you can cite a law that makes her liable to pay the penalty if


** You have TOTALLY IGNORED every thing I posted !!!

So it stands as not opposed.

The money owed is a FINE imposed by the Federal Court for a deliberate,
illegal act carried out by the sole director.

The specified means of collecting the FINE is by civil debt proceedings.

If debt proceedings are initiated against the sole director - she has to
have a defence.

I say she has none.

What do you say is her defence?

As you mentioned Phil she's a Kiwi

..... Phil

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 18/06/2011 3:41 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

"Stupider than anyone Else Alive"

"Court ordered FHT Travel to pay a civil penalty of $120,000 and granted
injunctions restraining both FHT Travel and Ms Earnshaw from making
certain telemarketing calls."


** Stale news.

The company has apparently ceased trading but has not been wound - it is
about to be struck off.

http://www.search.asic.gov.au/cgi-bin/gns030c?acn=126_910_647&juris=9&hdtext=ACN&srchsrc=1


So it is the company that has to pay the penalty, not the director.

** That situation can change by a new order at the request of the ACMA.


Unless you can cite a law that makes her liable to pay the penalty if


** You have TOTALLY IGNORED every thing I posted !!!

So it stands as not opposed.

The money owed is a FINE imposed by the Federal Court for a deliberate,
illegal act carried out by the sole director.

The specified means of collecting the FINE is by civil debt proceedings.

If debt proceedings are initiated against the sole director - she has to
have a defence.

I say she has none.


What do you say is her defence?

Her obvious defence is that she doesn't owe the money.

Sylvia.