Stuart Stone
But there IS a mistake...by my own ignorance (ignorance of the law is no excuse), that I believed I was the name.
It is a mistake that was made by ME, and it needs to be corrected...once corrected, then any further interaction from 'THEM' would most likely fall under the category of 'Demands with menaces' which is found in Section 138 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 Australia Administrative zone clubhouse rulebook:
138.1 Unwarranted demand with menaces (1) For the purposes of this Part, a person (the first person) makes an unwarranted demand with menaces of another person if, and only if: (a) the first person makes a demand with menaces of the other person; and (b) the first person does not believe that he or she has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and (c) the first person does not reasonably believe that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand. (2) This Part applies to a demand whether or not it is for property. (3) This Part applies to a demand with menaces, whether or not the menaces relate to conduct to be engaged in by the person making the demand. 138.2 Menaces (1) For the purposes of this Part, menaces includes: (a) a threat (whether express or implied) of conduct that is detrimental or unpleasant to another person; or (b) a general threat of detrimental or unpleasant conduct that is implied because of the status, office or position of the maker of the threat. Threat against an individual (2) For the purposes of this Part, a threat against an individual is taken not to be menaces unless: (a) both: (i) the threat would be likely to cause the individual to act unwillingly; and (ii) the maker of the threat is aware of the vulnerability of the individual to the threat; or (b) the threat would be likely to cause a person of normal stability and courage to act unwillingly.
'Ignorance of the law is no excuse' then becomes a double edged sword :D