Local Councils are illegal entities

[Wolf]

I posted this under more history lessons but it probably deserves its own thread.

An excellent example of the corporatisation of our political system is the issue of local councils...
The below is from an email sent to me recently from Mark Hines. It is information I had discovered during my court experiences and is accurate enough for me to copy and paste here without editing, so here you are;

QUESTION :
If local Councils are legal ???? why are they trying so hard to get them recognized under the constitution ??

BECAUSE THEY ARE ILLEGAL, fraudulent, unconstitutional, Unlawful, and HAVE NO BASIS EITHER CONSTITUTIONALLY OR LEGALLY.

In the 70s and in 1988 the People of Australia said NO to Local Government, This is why they want a referendum to become a Republic
Which is TREASON against the Will of the Sovereign People of Australia

https://youtu.be/P53KCZDzSD4


https://youtu.be/k1AjRvDcbsk

https://youtu.be/B44abxGmBYA

https://youtu.be/UN9n6cVQp4I

Are Councils Legal?
The power to tax is the power to destroy. The one who has the power to tax will eventually own all property— and this method is being used now. The criminally brilliant strategy of gradual but never ending increases in property tax (“rates”), 'justified' by regular 're-valuations', will eventually 'price' everyone out of their properties!! A LARGE NUMBER OF US are now aware of this and we are going to put a stop to it! It is estimated that already approx 500,000 in Victoria alone have refused to pay this illegal tax. While “governments” may have gained their “legitimacy” with the excuse of various “constitutions” and /or by majority "vote‟ of the populace, (so - called “democracy”) local governments (councils) have: ---
NO LEGITIMACY—
NO CONSTITUTION—
NO HEAD OF POWER
The following are based not on assumptions but “officially” admitted FACTS.

Fact 1
The Constitution is Australia‟s basic law.
Quote: The Federal Attorney General's Department Constitutional Policy Unit, 9th January 2002; “ the current Chief Justice of the High Court, the Hon. Murray Gleeson, AC, noted the status of the Constitution as Australia's basic law (published as) The Rule of Law and the Constitution. ABC books, 2000, on page 6
“In Australia, unlike the United Kingdom, we have a basic law, the Constitution, which defines and limits the power of the Parliament to alter the Law “ And on Friday 21st June,2002 in the NSW Parliament Thearterette ,during the "Australian Conference on Bill of Rights‟, the acting Attorney-General, (the First Law Officer in Australia), Darryl Williams, AM,QC,MP has said this, about :“Constitutional and Common Law Protections”:

“ The Australian Constitution specifically protects certain rights and freedoms.
These include
(1) - trial by jury -
(2)- freedom of religious associations
(3) - prohibition on discrimination on the basis of State residence-
(4) - freedom of interstate commerce; and just terms for acquisition of property.

And then

“WE HAVE THE COMMON LAW”.
We have our own unique written Constitution which provides both express and implied protection of rights.

Fact 2
The Australian Constitution DOES NOT recognise "local government‟

Fact 3
Attempts by the “government” to alter the constitution to recognize "local government‟ have failed TWICE. The last Referendum was held on the 3rd of September 1988. 67% of the population REJECTED the proposal for recognition of a third tier of “government”, namely, local “councils”.

Fact 4
The result of any Referendum is LAW. Despite that clear unmistakable affirmation of the Constitution by the people of Australia IN ALL STATES, the “government” (Hawke) introduced the "Local Government Act 1989” (1993 in some states)

Fact 5
All the bureaucrats, in every “council”, are relying on this ULTRA VIRES, NULL and VOID Act to justify their UNLAWFUL actions.

Fact 6
Even if local “councils” were legal, (which they are clearly not!), they have no "right‟ to levy any kind of TAX on anyone! Quote from a letter by Gary Friend (Queensland) to a local newspaper March 5th, 2001: “John W. Howard, Peter H. Costello & Commissioner of Taxation Micheal J. Carmody all stated before the introduction of the infamous “Goods and Services Tax”, quote: local government COUNCIL RATES will attract NO GST because council rates are a TAX and we CAN‟T TAX A TAX. Also the High Court of Australia decided that "STATE GOVERNMENTS COULDN'T RAISE ANY TAX‟, when the “State Excise on Fuel, Tobacco & Alcohol‟ was removed.

Fact 7
A large percentage of properties are held in “FEE SIMPLE”. By LAW these properties CANNOT be “levied” or “charged” under ANY description! ( That was the very purpose of the creation of the FEE SIMPLE tenure! See High Court rulings on the subject)

Fact 8 An order/fine/ notice by police officer or a single magistrate is NOT a Judiciary Order - it is illegal because it is a violation of Common Law and comes under Slavery in the Criminal Code Act 1995 Sect 268.10
Any Council laws that conflict with Common Law are illegal.

Some reference is to illegal Tasmanian local government, however the following shows all local governments are illegal.

"At Law, words are supposed to mean what they say."
(Geoffrey Robertson, 'The Justice Game".)

While it can be argued that this document can no longer validly relate to Australia, as it is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom,

This document was created to amalgamate the Australian colonies into a Commonwealth, and to set the rules by which the Commonwealth would be governed by the people as a self-governing colony. It was styled under the format of the Westminster Parliamentary system and clearly established the Parliament of the Commonwealth, and the Parliament of the States. It also clearly established the powers and responsibilities of both those parliaments. It allowed the provision for certain alterations of those powers, while specifically restricting alteration of certain others. Such alteration of the way in which the Commonwealth of Australia would be governed by the people was strictly limited to alteration by way of referendum of the population.

THERE IS NO OTHER MEANS BY WHICH OUR SYSTEM OF SELF-GOVERNMENT CAN BE LEGALLY ALTERED.
The Constitution was formatted to protect the Australian people from a number of things, and also to give the people of Australia the ability of Self-Determination of Government.

NOWHERE DOES IT PERMIT THE PARLIAMENTS, OR THE JUDICIARY, TO OPERATE OUTSIDE THESE GUIDELINES.
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) defines a constitution as:
"A precise body of fundamental principles, agreed to by the members of an organization or state, according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed."

Clause 9, Chapter I, Part I, Section 1, [63 & 64 Vict.] British Colony of the Commonwealth of Australia [CH 12] Constitution Act states:

"The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The Parliament or, The Parliament of the Commonwealth." Clause 9, Chapter V, Part I, Section 106, 107, & 108, [63 & 64 Vict.] British Colony of the Commonwealth of Australia [CH 12] Constitution Act state [Annexure A]:

106.
The Constitution of each State of the Commonwealth shall, subject to this Constitution, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be, until altered in accordance with the Constitution of the State.

107.
Every power of the Parliament of a Colony which has become or becomes a State shall, unless it is exclusively vested in the parliament of the Commonwealth or withdrawn from the Parliament of the State, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be.

108.
Every law in force in a Colony which has become or becomes a State, and relating to any matter within the powers of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, shall be, subject to this Constitution, continue in force in the State; and, until provision is made in that behalf by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, the Parliament of the State shall have such powers of alteration and of repeal in respect of any such law as the Parliament of the Colony had until the Colony became a State.

THE ORGANISATIONS KNOWN AS 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT' DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF THE FEDERATION OF THE STATES INTO A COMMONWEALTH.

A RATEABLE PERSON WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 DID NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OF THE FEDERATION OF THE STATES INTO A COMMONWEALTH.

Historically, on a 'local' level, there were at first military officers, then "landed gentry" in charge of local road and drainage construction gangs. 'Local Government' did not exist, and the free populations of the Colonies, (under British Colonial Rule) were at liberty to do with their properties much as they wished.

It can be seen then, that since 'local government' did not exist at the time of Federation, then there can be no continuance of local government law.
You will note that Sections 106 and 108 "subject" the Constitutions and Laws of the States to the Constitution of the Commonwealth, while Section 107 allows the powers of the Parliaments of the States to continue unless they are exclusively vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth. Paragraphs 4 and 5 on page ii of the Constitutional Commission (1985 - 1988) state: [Annexure B]:

Federal Powers. The Constitution divides power between Federal and State Parliaments. It lists the subjects about which the Federal Parliament can make laws

e.g. taxation; currency; defence; external affairs; interstate and international trade; foreign, trading and financial corporations; marriage and divorce; quarantine; pensions and other social services; immigration; bankruptcy; and industrial arbitration (see especially sections 51 and 52).

State Powers. There are important omissions from the list of powers given to the Federal Parliament e.g. land, police, criminal law, education, health, roads, industrial safety, prices and incomes, and the environment. The Constitution expressly guarantees the continuing existence of the States (sections 106 and 107).

There are a few subjects about which the States are prevented from making laws (sections 52 and 90), e.g. to impose customs and excise duties. The States are also forbidden from having their own defence forces without the consent of the Federal Parliament (section 114)."

You can see from sections 51 and 52 of the Constitution, and from the Constitutional Commission (1985 - 1988) report that the power of taxation is held exclusively by the Federal Parliament.

The Courts of Australia have long held that council rates are a tax. Yet, under the Australian Constitution, the Parliaments of the States do not have the power of taxation. "John Winston Howard, Peter Howard Costello & 'Commissioner for Taxation' Michael Joseph Carmody all stated before the introduction of the infamous "Goods and Services Tax", Quote: "Local government Council Rates will attract no GST because Council Rates 'ARE A TAX AND WE CAN'T TAX A TAX'.

Also, the High Court of Australia ruled that "State Governments couldn't raise ANY TAX", and because of this the 'State Excise on Fuel, Tobacco & Alcohol' was removed.

It can be clearly seen that the authors of the Constitution were not allowing for any Parliament other than the Federal Parliament to impose a tax. Therefore, the only land rates tax that can be imposed within Australia, is one imposed by the Federal Parliament through the Commissioner for Taxation. Unless we receive a "Rates Notice" from the 'Commissioner for Taxation it is INVALID and UNLAWFUL.

In view of the above, this proposed action can only be withdrawn.

PART TWO - 'LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993'

As discussed in Part 1, the [63 & 64 Vict.] British Colony of the Commonwealth of Australia, [63 & 64 Vict.] [CH 12] Constitution Act gives specific powers to the Federal and State Parliaments.

IN NO SECTION WITHIN THE Commonwealth Australia CONSTITUTION IS THERE PROVISION FOR THE FEDERAL OR STATE PARLIAMENT TO ESTABLISH A THIRD LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE PEOPLE VIA A FEDERAL REFERENDUM.

Organizations known as 'local government' did not exist at the time of Federation. Laws that existed prior to this were laws for the Colony of NSW, or laws for the Colony of Victoria etc. Administration of local matters was confined to the control by military personnel or 'landed gentry' over local construction gangs.

The Local Government Minister purports to enact legislation, for local authorities to enforce, every time he approves a local law or policy.
Only an Act of Parliament can pass a law into existence. THE MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT A PARLIAMENT, and therefore cannot speak an Act or law into existence.

We have the situation in TASMANIA where the various 'local governments' apply to the Minister for Local Government for a rate (tax) increase, and the Minister either approves or disallows it. In LEASK -v- COMMONWEALTH Justice Kirby clearly pointed out that a Ministerial Statement cannot speak the act into constitutional validity where such validity is missing.

Because the Parliament of TASMANIA is subject to the Commonwealth Parliament, and also subject to the Commonwealth Constitution,
AND OWES IT'S ALLEGIANCE TO THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OF THE Commonwealth Of Australia, (who twice told them they did not want to recognize local government), THE PARLIAMENT OF TASMANIA COMMITTED AN ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OF THE Commonwealth Of Australia.

They did this by overthrowing the relevant sections of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia, by which they are bound, and by overthrowing the twice demonstrated will of the Sovereign People of Australia.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) defines treason as:
"The crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill or overthrow the sovereign or government."

PART FOUR - FEE SIMPLE
Webster's Legal Dictionary, 1889, defines Fee Simple Title as:
"Fee Simple is a Contractual Agreement between the present owner and the previous owner, involving neither a third nor other parties. Fee Simple permits an owner to do with his property as he might wish. It is the highest form of land ownership available.

Third party interference is prohibited to a property held in Fee Simple Title."
The Property Law Act Section 18A is the legislation required to legalise the granting of Fee Simple Tenure. The property referred to in Council's unlawful demand for a permit tax is owned in Fee Simple title, and was purchased under a Fee Simple contract.

The Fee Simple (freehold) Title is a contract with a Government seal, subject only to the conditions therein. Meaning that any other charges arising from other acts including Water Act, Local Government Act 1993, etc, that are area or title based, if challenged could not be enforced as compulsory charges.

These charges, while not necessarily illegal, if challenged would have to be ruled as voluntary, therefore unenforceable. Only becoming enforceable, if or when an agreement is reached, and the services associated with the charges are accepted by the titleholder.

[Scarts]

Wolf, aren't there political sites with forums you could post your whack job conclusions?

[Wolf]

Wolf, aren't there political sites with forums you could post your whack job conclusions?

Maybe you didn't notice, this area of the forum is called 'off-topic'?
You are under no obligation to read my posts, nor comment.

If you desire to comment, perhaps you could actually attempt a reasoned rebuttal rather than obnoxious insults? Or is that too far beyond your intellectual abilities?

Have a go... what exactly is it about the OP you find 'whack job'? Then try to disprove or provide evidence to back up your claim.

[Scarts]

You can type this anti authority c**p til the cows come home. Wolf. It doesn't mean anything or change anything. I don't think you're smart or clever. Are you saying you're not a total toss pot?

If you think you're so clever, go and break some more laws just for the fun of it. I for one would love to read your dribble, typed from your gaol cell with your new boyfriend looking on.

You are preaching that laws do not need to be obeyed and you are wrong.

[Wolf]

Still no rebuttal, just more personal attacks... so sad.
Is it because you cannot rebut any of the historical/legal facts I bring up?
It is, isn't it.

Go on, prove me wrong.
I have brought the claim our system is corrupted and has been changed without our permission, behind our backs.
Then I have backed up my claim with evidence, multiple times and in multiple forms.

Come on, let's hear your reasoned rebuttal of the evidence, if you have got one.

[Zed]

Gee, I love reading the ongoing comments from both of you about each other. it is way more entertaining than half the topics in this section.

Zed

[Wolf]

It COULD be entertaining or possibly even informative... if only Scarts would debate like an adult instead of tossing out insults like a child.

Not once has he provided a reasoned argument debating my evidence point by point. All he can do is try and distract from the truths I present with strawman attacks.

It is behaviour typical of a paid disinformation troll, or a slave who refuses to acknowledge his own chains... when you can't rebut the evidence, personally attack the messenger.

Sadly, he does actually show some signs of reasoned thought from time to time but seems to lack the constructive intellect to formulate said thought into an intelligent argument.

For example, rather than build on the fact that if one removes thier consent to being 'ruled' by STATUTE, as it is everyone's basic human right to do so under the Common Law, all that happens is punishment, he seemingly intentionally missed the basic point that statute is NOT Law and calls me names like a child.

He could even back up this point with historical evidence, such as how the Orignes were treated under 'white man law'... even though they obviously never consented to said law. Ironically, I have debated from the very same 'side of the argument' he is coming from with diehard 'Freemen-on-the-land' types over and over in 'political forums' many times... though I have never stooped to immature personal attacks in such debates.

I present historical facts and evidence here in order to maybe get people thinking. It would be nice to actually debate the evidence like grown ups. This would encourage more thought and even possibly inspire creative concepts and new ideas.

Come on Scarts, act your age rather than your shoe size... stop trying to shut down any debate with ad hominem attacks... debate the points, you can do it. You seem like a fairly intelligent bloke, use your wit contrcuctively.

or perhaps you simply believe yourself to be a real wit but in reality are only half correct in said belief?

[Wolf]

*constructively

[Zed]

Wolf and Scarts,

I think you both make good points and I see the merit in both sides. You both want the best for our society and want to protect the things we find sacred or love in our culture/country.

I appreciate the time and effort you put in Wolf, we are all passionate about our views, that is why we post them here. I agree with the speed cameras and revenue raising, people that do a lot of driving are losing licenses due to being caught doing 3 or 4 km’s over a few times. It’s those sneaky ones on hills or streets with 3 different speed limits. Don’t agree with your views on marriage equality I agree with Scarts, but I enjoy your topics.

Both of you (Wolf and Scarts) are both intelligent, interesting and funny people.

Zed

[Scarts]

Still no rebuttal, just more personal attacks... so sad.

Is it because you cannot rebut any of the historical/legal facts I bring up?

It is, isn't it.

Go on, prove me wrong.
I have brought the claim our system is corrupted and has been changed without our permission, behind our backs.
Then I have backed up my claim with evidence, multiple times and in multiple forms.

Come on, let's hear your reasoned rebuttal of the evidence, if you have got one.

Wolf by name and drongo by nature? Now that's an example of a possible personal attack. It depends how intelligent you decide a drongo is? But everything I've said earlier is a dose of realism.

I can rebut each and every one of your fanciful, fictionalised historical claims. Your version of legal facts is where the corruption is. Unlike you however, I don't have the luxury of being an unemployed bum with 24 hours a day at my disposal. When I have a few spare hours, just for the fun of it, and because it's in the best interest of this forum to do so, I will systematically pull to pieces each of your bogus and misinterpreted claims and discoveries.

Wolf, you speak of freedom being diminished, because you got a couple of lousy parking and speeding fines, yet you're more than happy to continue to drive your car on government funded roads. You're more than happy to pay money to have a drivers licence. Where do you think these freedoms of yours and money for road upgrades comes from? Money tree plantations?

Yet, you have the layman's audacity to refer to infringement notices as revenue raising. You seem to be in the dark that all vehicles when they leave the factory, have speedometers that are set to reading faster than you are actually going. This means, that any speed a camera catches you at, your speedometer at the time, was telling you you were going a few ks faster anyway.

In your world, nobody would get a parking fine or speeding fine, would they? People would just be able to do as they please, because no law is proclaimed these days, quite the same way as they were proclaimed back in 1899. In your world, the national road toll would be hundreds of times worse. You sir are a hypocrite of the highest order.

Our system works quite fine and any changes that have occurred have occurred as a result of the peoples permission. Your facts Wolf are not facts, because you have referenced nothing you have said, there is not one shred of evidence to support your assertions, and instead, your facts are opinions. Your opinions.

Like I said, when I find the time, I will correct each of your misunderstandings, point by irritating point.

[Wolf]

Simply cannot help yourself can you?
Every single comment makes spurious allegations against me personally, even though you do not know me.

You know what 'they' say about assumptions and those who make them...

I have never been unemployed in my life my friend.
You may think the system is fair... likely because you have been one of he very few who has not experienced either direct injustice nor the intimidating tactics of a corrupt 'elite' (by which I mean those fellow slaves granted extra 'privileges' for enforcing the slavery system... you sir, are a classic example of the phrase, "None are so enslaved as those who think they are free").

If the 'system' is fair, tell me why the politicians all have pension programs the rest of us can only dream about?
If it is fair, tell me why many 'citizens' wait in agony for life saving operations for sometimes over ten years while ALL dental, surgical and medicinal care is provided instantly for the politicians who 'rule'?
If it is fair, tell me why those same politicians can vote themselves yet another pay rise at the same time they vote to lower he minimum wage?

I will agree we have a better system than most, but disagree with your assertions it is not corrupt. FFS open your eyes, look around you... are you really that naive to believe the 'elite' would NOT make sure they controlled things for their own benefit?

Patiently waiting for a reasoned rebuttal of the legal/historical facts I have been presenting over many topics. Feel free to start with the points raised in the OP.

[TheBlackStump]

Another example of our governments not being fair.

The NSW Labor state government started up a home loan scheme in 1986 called HOMEFUND. In total some 56,000 loans were made to mainly low income families up until 1993 when HOMEFUND was shut down due to it being a faulty product.

The NSW Liberal Party was in government at time of HOMEFUND shutdown. The 56,000 borrowers had their legal rights to sue the NSW government and other associated parties to the loan scheme. The Government subsequently introduced retrospective legislation to take away the borrowers legal right to use a legal representative/solicitor and also to sue for Government damages. The total payout to borrowers would have run into billions of dollars and would have been the largest class action in Australian history.

Tell me how that is fair for a government to retrospectively legislate away a persons legal right to use a solicitor and also to sue the government for damages.

[TheBlackStump]

Further to my above post.

In the case of another unprecedented global financial crisis hitting many people have already liquidated their assets and put their money into bank accounts . The Aussie government guarantees bank accounts up to $250,000 for each account so some are opening multiple bank accounts and putting $250,000 max in each account.

Can the government guarantee be relied upon. Where will government get the money to cover their promise. Does the government even have equity/funds to back up their promise ? Or will government just introduce retrospective legislation to avoid their promise which they know they can not fulfill.