Get Adobe Flash player

Rule of Law


Rule of Law deals with the idea of being governed by law or rules. In Australia these “laws” are our Constitution and entrenched Imperial laws for our peace, order and good government – for our liberty. We either respect that, or, we have other things dictating called tyrants, or dictators!!!  It is most necessary these “Matters of state” continue as a community concern – since Constitutions in Australia can only be changed according to the will of the people at referendum, and not otherwise.

 We must address how “the powers that be” have (in time) moved constitutional settings without our approval. They claim the WORDS of the Constitution have not been altered! By altering settings through Eg., the purported Australia Act 1986 (Cth), there is change to the Constitution, and therefore, an infraction (violation or legal break) has been created.

The High Court of Australia is required by law to retain ALL aspects of the Constitution .. as it is the constitutional guardian of the law of the land.    Therefore, we have work to do to ensure constitutional Rule of Law.

When Rule of Law for governance is founded in a constitution which “we the people” agree to then there is peace.

When there is no respect for the Rule of Law in this way, then tyranny and dictatorhip emerge – a police state exists!

In Australia the Imperial Constitution Act 1900 set matters in place for our governance with both federal and state Parliaments sharing the load in specific detail (see constitution Section 51) and the authority of federal Parliament was limited, as was the authority of the various state Parliaments.

Now, more than 100 years later, the constitutional settings have become corrupted, and there is lack of respect for the Rule of Law in lower courts – for the constitution is said to be of no consequence, and statute law applies!  This has happened without the approval of the people through referendums.  It is difficult to get referendum changes. Equally, it is difficult to get justice, for, to go to the High Court of Australia is an expensive exercise most people cannot afford.

When the foundational documents of law in the country are corrupted, then the High Court refer to that as an infraction against the constitution. Entrenched law, from Magna Carta and earlier, is our “law of the land” – those laws from the United Kingdom applying here are listed in the Imperial Acts Application Act 1922 (Vic).

What can be said about recent development of the “Australian Government”, as a parallel to the constitutional Commonwealth of Australia, taking our country away from its constitutional roots without referendum approval? Such actions are actually treason. How can this corruption continue without the support of the lower courts in each state?  What can be said about the authority of any court which does not respect constitutional Rule of Law? 

Australians are at a cross road. Governments are acting without our consent to a new “system of government”. What will it take to re-establish the Rule of Law for our governance, for our peace and prosperity?

Consider that a “police state” is the alternative to a properly managed constitution! Many think we are there now. Therefore, what can be done to arrest this corruption to our Rule of Law, and where do we want to go as a people without bloodshed? 

These are issues on the table across the world. Control of the military and police, control of the financial economy (money), and control of the people is entwined in these issues, and, we must work through them together. 

 Peter Olney.


89 Responses to Rule of Law

  • geof says:

    If the commonwealth constitution is the law and local government lacks the constitutional authority to charge rates [TAX ON PROPERTY] why do the holders of certificate of title in fee simple lose when they challenge local government in the legal arena? There must be a reason. Is it because the certificate of title is not proof of real ownership, is it because we have unknowingly promised [contracted] to pay rates, is it possible local government is not collecting rates [tax], rather, a corporation is sending local residents a bill for services that said residents have already to pay.

    • petoln888 says:

      Firstly, the lower courts are not wanting to rock the boat and determinations are flawed. A QC advises the only way a fee simple argument will win is in the High Court! That should NOT be the case if the lower courts applied themselves to justice.
      Second, council appears to be using the notification of change of ownership notice to create a “liability” against the property owner. It has been determined Victorian law has no form to legally engage council as a third party to the property. I think council consider that an unknowing ‘contract’ occurs!!!
      Finally, given council IS a body corporate it has NO legal standing to call itself local “government”, for it in not such an entity – even though many believe otherwise. The local municipal council sends a Rate Notice to pay (as a tax invoice), with threat if you do not pay – which is the offence of ‘demand for money with menace’. At this point your wet ink signature is not on any agreement document!
      That councils cannot provide written agreement with you for specific services to you and/or your property, and that there has not been a fair price established for the services you require stands against the law for corporate entities. So, where to from here?

      • Just Sayin' says:

        The Oath of Allegiance now given by the Magistrates, Judges, Sheriffs, Police, is made to the Commonwealth of Australia Corporation and because of that “oath” DO NOT represent HRH Queen Elizabeth II and the Australian People or “OUR” legal Constitution. They represent the Corporation and are bound by it’s rules and laws. WE ARE NOT. QC’s and Solicitors will NEVER admit to you where they have sworn their allegiances and their hands are tied anyway from changing that. They can only distort the truth serving the court and be subjected to the Corporation’s laws that have been ILLEGALLY instituted – despite OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS.

        • petoln888 says:

          Upon entry to Parliament the Members are required to use the constitutional oath. Otherwise the points made are on the money. Do not forget that if you raise the constitutional oath issue in court then a federal matter is on the table, which means the court might not have jurisdiction. Anyway, the Magistrate or judge has to be careful in light of the Crimes Act 1914, S 34 – for they are vulnerable to being charged.

        • The Benarkin Rebel says:

          There is more than one way to skin a RAT, if these parasites have stepped outside of the constitution, and by our own complicity allowed ourselves to go along with it, then we have to change our tactics, to dealing with these parasites, now they may have put themselves above the constitution, as they are now operating as corporations, so now each and every individual is liable for their actions, there is no protection for them anymore, as they now cannot claim imunity as a government, and now by being a corporation … they cannot put themselves above corporate and commercial law as well as the Common law and law of the land.

          The reason you have been denied common law is because you have chased it under the constitution, and as you have no access to it with these parasites you are denied it.

          So now you are in their world of deceit and corruption, you must use their tools to destroy them, after all council, is just a name, a dead thing, written on a piece of paper, whereas the parasites who enforce the policies of that piece of paper, are the ones doing harm, they are the ones you challenge, not pieces of paper, you do that by building evidence, you challenge them to prove their authority over you (a living being) not a legal fiction … you all have the tools to do this, its called the truth, and its higher than any court system, it’s been used for thousands of years, you have never been educated into its use, as its destructive to liars, deceivers, and traitors.

          You have the power to tie up all the assets of those that do you harm, and bring them to their knees, using the tools against them, it does not require money suckers (lawyers) its above pretend judges, and silly magistrates, the only thing for it to have power is the truth, that’s why you build evidence, then you serve this evidence on the parasites to be rebutted, you do this by a commercial lien, (if your intention is to gain money you will most probably fail) but if you are honourable and your intentions are to bring about justice, you will succeed, the system if followed through will bring the system down, if enough people do it.

          Tying the assets up of the parasites … stops them feeding off the people … thereby finishing them off.
          The mightiest of corporations can be brought down with enough people challenge the authority of the parasites in control, and tying up their assets. .

          Want more info, then email please be patient, as I will get back to you.

      • Michael Baker says:

        If a council is making an unwarranted demand in violation of valid law ,and economic deprivation is suffered, consider this. If a public official coerces another public official to bring this about and it benefits others, IE ratepayers, that official could be deemed to have invoked S139.2 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), which carries a maximum custodial sentence. (10 years from memory)

    • petoln888 says:

      Maybe there will be more to share in this area shortly as the Whitehorse City Council is being required to answer matters of ownership, relationship to title, and how the council come to consider “liability” exists.

    • Jason Stepanovich says:

      Just reading your comment on title. If you own your home and get your deed from the lands title office you need to also go to the bank to get your COTTON DEED – the true deed – it has the real seal of authority of Judah!!

      • Anna Stol says:

        Hi Jason, I have asked the water corp for my COTTEN DEED and they do not know anything about it. Are they just playing dumb or can you help me to ask the right questions or the right place, I live in Western Australia.

    • owen mclaren says:

      The property title certificates issued have names printed in full capitals. A corporate identity is thereby identified. Ie., Commercial statue law. It is a deceptive legal method of not providing you your flesh and blood common law rights of fee simple title. While a corporate identity is named on the title its legal dealings will remain in corporate Commercial law.

    • Patric Preece says:

      I live in the land area of W.A. and do pay my Rates for fear of my roof being possessed by a corrupt so-called council which will not even return emails when I try to correspond. Are they still allowed to be called a Government Organisation, or, are the councils a Private Corporation. How do I find out?

      • petoln888 says:

        Constitutionally, municipal councils are a department of the State. In Victoria the State has tried to cause people to think of all councils as another level of government, able to tax. This legislation in the so-called Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) has never been passed at referendum, so effectively, councils are still a department of the State here. That means they are not a corporation in the commercial sense, but they are set up as body corporates. That means there has to be members of the body corporate ‘organisation’ for it to run in such a legal manner. So, who makes up the membership of your local council? And, have you consented to being a member if they try to tell you that you are?

    • Graeme says:

      Because on your title issued and registered with the corporation [State Government] of wherever, you only hold a location on a map! You are noted as a Tenant! And, because Fee Simple Title refers to the constitutional Crown, whereas the Courts are under the Crown City of London, Washington and Vatican, that is why there is no remedy available. The other thing is that when they send the Rates notice they send it to living people, however when the matter goes to a Court of Commerce, Maritime or Admiralty they assume you are a legal fiction dead entity known and displayed on court documents in capitals (capitis diminutio maxima)(slave name) and as such have no rights. Game over!

    • vic Sturgeon says:

      The reason you lose against municipal councils is because they do not answer to the Constitution Act 1900 (Imperial). Why? Because they are State departments under Parliamentary statute! Some consider Bob Hawke’s Australia Act brought councils into “legal existance” even though we said ‘NO’ to them in two referendums. However, the Australia Act is totally unconstitutional as it alters the letters patent for one thing. Some also think Habeas Corpus has been removed and that means we have no rights in their corporate courts, causing there to be no remedy.
      The best way we can stop this is to all refuse to pay your rates (land tax), since councils are in fact illegally causing a tax to occur. In any case, fee simple land rights under the Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus clearly define Fee simple land tenure as without fees or penalties. I.e., All land taxes are unlawful. Stop paying them and don’t go to local municipal council elections, for when you do you are aiding and abetting their treason!

      • vic Sturgeon says:

        Some people don’t vote in any election because they are all unlawful as the entire so-called governments of Australia are corporations registered in the USA. With their “headquarters” as the Australian embassy in Deleware, USA. The issue is whether they are simply legitimate government!

      • bevan says:

        Vic Sturgen .. Have you had any wins in WA?

      • bevan says:

        Whoever … Have you had any success / wins regarding rates in Victoria?

  • Keep up the good work Peter

  • Nina says:

    I am interested in you sending me information on these matters.
    We are dealing with the rates in court without success.
    Is there anyone who is able to assist in this.
    We need a class action and boycott the rates in mass. Is that possible?

    • petoln888 says:

      Hi Nina, .. there are materials available, but it depends in what State you live. The material on this web site has some pointers as to where to go with legal thinking, and what can be argued, but it is focused on Victoria. Contact me through my email.

    • Lee TONKIN-JONES says:

      I would be interested in your story and how you have been fighting

  • Alyn says:

    There apparently appears to be an area not considered thus far. I think that it really goes to the heart of the issue, it is Agenda -21. My question is “Should it be considered, and if not, WHY Not?”

    • petoln888 says:

      Hi Alyn, .. whilst there is material in the woodwork which talks about Agenda 21 it is not such that one can argue in relation to current law, or the unlawfulness of current statute. In effect it is an ancilliary aspect which may come into play another day. Have you managed to get your council to commit to the fact the council is running on Agenda 21? If not, why not? It will help your proposition if you do. Peter.

    • John Wilson says:

      Agenda 21 is an attempt to change our Commonwealth Constitution 1900-1901, mainly I believe through the foreign Corporations registered in the USA; accountable to USA law and its Revenue department. There has been no referendum to do away with the Constitution or to hand power to the UN. Where did this corporation get the authority. Reality? I does not have that authority but gets away with it due to the ignorance of the population as to their lawful rights. Many of you would know that there has been a deliberate attempt by political factions to “dumb down” the population. I do not mean dumbing down as being intellectually handicapped but “dumbed down” as a result of denial of knowledge of your rights; misinformation and media control. We should ask the questions as to who are the directors, shareholders and beneficiaries of this corporation and the “subsidiary corporations, because the lawful government has been high jacked and a corporate structure based on roman/admiralty/UCC. I reiterate the fact that the people are the lawful government and not parliament. Parliament is the people’s servant elected to carry out the Will and Mandate of the people. Political factions and their supporters are responsible and we need to demand a return of lawful government. I will keep repeating the Mantra… Learn about your Constitution 1901. Learn how it should work and also what powers the people have.

  • Alyn says:

    Thankyou for your reply. I refer to “LA-21″ — NOT Specifically Agenda 21, and yes, I have confronted council who maintained that they know nothing about the reference. I also confronted several Politicians at State and Federal Level just to get the same result. I then contacted the person responsible as admin of LA-21 who eventually said that the two Organizations are NOT connected. Strange about that point given that several pages at that time were “identical” in construction. PLUS .. apparently there is a signatory list of Councils who have signed up to administering Agenda – 21 Principals, but NO-ONE had even heard of these.

    • petoln888 says:

      Hi Alyn, I guess you are much more concerned about these aspects than I at this time. Let me know when you have the list of councils signed up. Meantime, it is my interest to do what I believe I must apply myself to, and I leave you the same room as you stand before your maker.

  • John Vance says:

    Agenda 21 is being implimented through councils in Australia using an organisation called ICLEI. My website is concerned about exposing the details of what is actually proposed, and of course, being a convoluted aim, there are lots of items that are not clearly explained, but look towards what Godfrey Bloom and Lord Monckton have been saying is heading towards Socialism, being as close as calling it communism as it can get. Adam Bandt (deputy greens leader and senator) was recently exposed as being focused on Marxists ideals and he studies removal of rule of law. His thought is that governments are looking towards removing rights that they feel are no longer needed for the individual.
    For starters I believe the removal of water rights and vegetative restrictions of rural land has been blamed for many farmers suicides, especially during the drought.
    ED: I understand farmer Peter Spencer is fighting this issue of vegitation restrictions in the High Court – as compensation has not been made for the “land use” change.

  • john says:

    Hi Peter, it matters not what State a person resides. Land Tax – termed by them as a land rate to deceive the uninformed public is equally unlawful throughout the Commonwealth of Australia. We, the People of the Commonwealth of Australia reside on the same land mass, therefore, land is no different in Victoria to that in NSW, QLD, WA… There is one Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1900…albeit the Act being a British Act, all courts, judges and People and every State throughout the Commonwealth of Australia are equally bound to that fundamental law – the Commonwealth Constitution. State courts prevent wins against land tax knowing well a win would deny Parliaments and their entities from much revenue used to gainer financial rewards also used for courts, judges…much more could be said. We have several matters before the courts and is only a matter of time before their corruption is exposed. The very best to you and yours for the New Year.


  • Mel says:

    There are two ways to attack this council issue – one via the constitutional path, that I imagine would ultimately have to be settled by the High Court and the other via “commerce” or commercial law and the use of Bills of Exchange to settle rate payments. The latter is based on the Bills of Exchange Act, for which apparently there are no precedent cases. However, the Act is being cited in business insolvency cases being handled in part by Mark Pytellek. The Bill of Exchange allows demands by councils and other bodies to be lawfully met without having to pay bank notes (which are themselves promissory notes). The “commerce” approach does not argue but seeks to settle all demands according to contract and equity law, under which our government corporations operate. Will keep you posted, still researching some issues here.
    ED: When more info and successes come through the BoE method then one might look further.

  • Hi all,
    I intend to have the LGA changed and I intend to do this via:
    Yes, I fully agree with Peter, that LG has no constitutional right to exist and I far better way for municipalities to be served would be if it was arranged by using a “body corporate” i.e. the “Body Corporate of White Horse Municipality”. [ED: They ARE presently set up as body corporates]

    Now, if the LGA restricts Councils to only be able to provide basic services, roads, water, rubbish, etc. the Councils would NOT BE ABLE to initiate such “snout in the trough” schemes, like study trips, long lunches, sister city relations, etc. etc. and the rates that they can raise would stay low. We would be at least 1/2 way there and changing the LGA may be an easier option, but voters nation wide would have to lobby hard.
    Below is my initial draft, I welcome comments.

    Changes to the: Victorian Local Government Act

    Whom are you petitioning?
    Victorian Government, Victorian Opposition, Members of Parliament

    Why is this important?
    The Local Government Act (LGA) needs to be revisited and revised to ensure “Good Governance” at the local level, i.e. local Councils.
    Local Government by Law, ought to be for the “Good Governance” for the local area that Council represents. Unfortunately, too many times this LGC Act is being abused by various Councils and Council Officers/Councilors not for the benefit of the local ratepayers, but for the grandiousement of the Council management.
    The Act is not clear enough in it’s description of what ought to be done and what ought not to be done, therefore it needs to be amended to make clear that any Council can only be involved in “What concerns the Local Area”. The Act must be revised to ensure that basic services are what Local Council is concerned with. This should take the form of:
    1: Local roads;
    2. Rubbish/sewerage and water supply;
    3. Local Bylaws/traffic management.

    Rate rises cannot be above the cost of living increases, ever. The rate burden is usually thrown at the ratepayer that is least able to defend him/herself, i.e. pensioners. people on low incomes.

    BTW, I am the spokes person of the newly formed Ararat Rural City Ratepayers Association ARCRA Inc.
    Website is

    Regards to all, Frank.

    • Pete Pyramid says:

      Frank, its good that you are actually doing something but I’m perplexed at the method that many people are pursuing.
      You wrote several points at which were local roads, rubbish/sewerage and water supply and local bylaws/traffic management. The last point (point 3) is the one that is most concerning, apart from the fact that local “government” shouldn’t exist in the first place, I’m bewildered as to why so many people are trying to make such a gestapo entity (ie. the Local Governments ~ Local Councils) work for us when clearly, history proves to us time and time again that it doesn’t work and all local governments are doing is stealing money from all Australians.

      Not only that but the mere fact that the Labor party (ie. the Socialist/Communist party) back in 1989 passed the Local Government Act 1989 (Vic), even though the Australian people said NO at the 1988 referrendum to a third tier of “government”. This to me is absurd and criminal and the Labor party must pay for this injustice. Anyone that has lived under communist rule or dictatorship can tell you that we are not far away from this here in Australia, and, its slowly being implemented by a fabianist model, NOT linked to any other society, just Communists. Period.

      Frank you make mention of Local Bylaws and traffic management… why on earth would local government be in charge of that when the Australian people in 1988 (ref question 3) said NO to local government. Why this fixation with “Governing” ??? Are people so stupid that they need the nanny state (ie. Big Brother)? It seems that it is… because we see and hear so many people saying “no one is going to tell me how to live”, yet so many people are not caring or realising that by implementing or allowing local councils to continue to do what they are doing, we the people are having our rights taken away from us, every second of our lives.

      Think this is exaggerated? How about needing a permit to pitch a tent in your backyard? how about needing a permit to practice Tai Chi in the local park with more than 3 people? Now if that isn’t a dictatorship rule, I don’t know what it is. Next they’ll be taxing us for oxygen… don’t laugh, believe me its coming unless we stop them NOW!

      So in response to your comment, its great that you are being proactive, but geez, PLEASE try to see the bigger picture and help us to rid our great nation of these blood sucking vultures that call themselves local councils (ie. local government). Peace out.

      • Just Sayin' says:

        Pete, You have hit the nail on the head! The Australian Constitution of 1900-1901 states that there are only two levels of government, Ie. no third tier of Government. That is the end of it and the buck stops there. No act of the Australian Governments can change this and any that do (which they have) are guilty of a WRONG. Under the Illegal Corporate Government [that we are ruled by?] we are just Chattels, Inventory and collateral on a world market. Corporation Councils are Illegal and do not have the rights to collect rates, fines or levies nor have the right to institute laws, bylaws or any thing else. These things have to be “supplied/funded” by the Government “directly” according to the Constitution. Not even the State Government has the right to change this and neither has the Federal Government. According to the Australian Constitution of 1900-1901 WE the people control the Government, the laws and the running of this country, NOT THEM! They have been caught with their pants down and are now desperately trying to get out of it using lies, deception and threats by their illegal laws to coerce and intimidate.

    • Lee tonkin-jones says:

      I really don’t get what you are trying to do..Replace unlawful lg. with another form? but as a body corporate?? wt heck are you aiming for?. Do you understand the CONSTITUTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH?

      • petoln888 says:

        The Commonwealth of Australia has (political) people sovereignty – see S 128 – and yet the Rule of Law is being thrown out the window by successive governments. For the people to have adequate Rule of Law for governance the governments must be brought to heel with them complying in a constitutional manner … and the High Court of Australia, along with State courts, must respect the people and the Constitution – otherwise we have (or continue with) government perpetrated anarchy!

        • John Wilson says:

          I agree petoln888. I read and hear that there is no Rule of Law in Australia because we are recognised as a sovereign nation. We also have the old them and us argument.. We don’t want to be told by the UK what to do. Clever technique by the vested interests to get you fighting among yourselves while they continue to amend and change laws to suit the few. My view is no matter whether we are subjects of the UK or a sovereign nation, the Rule of Law is still relevant. Good laws are still good laws. I would urge caution before considering doing away with the Constitutional Monarchy and the Rule of Law via the Crown, including the sovereignty of the people that intended that the people are the government, not the Parliament, which is the servant of the people. When the idea of a Republic was proposed I wrote asking for a copy of the proposed Constitution. The reply was that I should not be concerned with a Constution until after the Republic was formed. Indeed? If that was the view that was sent out to the public, how naïve are the vested interests to consider the public would wear such a thought. We do know the pluses and minuses of what we have and also people are becoming aware of how the Constitution can be lawfully amended and yet allow the people to retain their rights. Personally I would expect to be fully informed of how the new constitution would benefit all of us without fear or favour.

  • Hi Peter,

    All roads lead to Rome! :-)
    Far from disagreeing with you, but I use the term “Local Government” only as a convenience rather then the descriptive term.
    So, what I said is: Local Government (for want of a better term) should be ONLY concerned with the basic needs that are required in the local area, be it Whitehorse City or Ararat.
    Basic needs: Local Roads, Rubbish collection, Sewerage, Traffic Management ( i.e. Parking), etc. etc.
    Having those basic needs supervised from Melbourne by a myriad of public servants would not be in the best economic interests of the “local rate payer” or “local tax-payer”.

    What I, in the first instance want to achieve, is clip the wings of “Local Government” so that only the basic necessities that locals need, can be organised by “Local Government. I don’t really worry too much about titles, call it Local Government, call it Local Body Corporate, or whatever, for a starters, I want “Local Government” to be limited by Law to the basics.

    There is NO WAY, that I would support that Local Government should ever become recognized in our Australian Constitution and this idea must be soundly defeated when it comes up again, probably at the next Federal Election.

    If the High Court of Australia will deliver an outcome that prohibits anything “Local Government” so much better, but until that happens, we may have a better success rate limiting the Law for “Local Government”.

    Best regards

  • Pete Pyramid says:

    Hi Frank,

    Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comment, its great !
    Ok, even though I understand the reason why the term “local government” is used, its still perplexes me as to why many are so fixated with the “Governing” of a local area. Again, I reiterate, ” Does the population need another governing authority?” The answer is clearly NO – we have the State.

    Is it because of a misconception that local governance is “Closer” to the people? Does this mean that the entire population requires a nanny to dictate to them what they should be doing? For God’s sake the council should only be worrying about rubbish collection and small business end matters like parks, and NOT illegally taxing or issuing fines to it’s residents. Already State governments are a weight to society (politicians in general for that matter), let alone add local government. Sure there needs to be an authority to govern but it should stop at Federal and State. You don’t have to look far to understand that.

    I do not see any logic behind giving a local government the authority to issue parking fines when in our great constitution, public roads are to be used as fee simple, meaning no charge. Yet the local council henchmen walk around issuing fines to every Tom, Dick, and Harry. Where is the logic in a business issuing taxation notices (ie. council rates) to home or landowners when they are not legally authorised to do so as consent has not been provided to create a “liability” with the property owner. This is blatant THEFT! Where does this money go? Into investment funds for “super” benefit. Take a look at these:
    The above link mentions 72 councils !!! and they’ve all invested supposed public funds, but thanks to Peter Olney, he has found that the money is in fact NOT going into the public pool – the Central Revenue Fund – as required under a proper government.

    Do we need to clip the wings of “local government”? NO. We need to reshape them! In 1988 the people of Australia said NO, and that decision should be respected. I applaud what you are trying to do, we need more people like you, however local government shouldn’t be part of our great Australia as a third tier of “government”, remember, it was a unanimous democratic decision in 1988 and I just feel that the constitutional position should be respected both from a moral point of view and logical law point of view. Thats my 2 cents anyway. Cheers Pete.

  • Pete Pyramid says:

    I’m very interested to learn more about challenging local government by using the “Acts of Parliament” idea. I’ve always thought that by challenging them in court (Magistrates’) using the fact that the 1989 Local Government Act was not legally enacted, it requires a long drawn out process which involves an appeal through to the county court to get some closure. Although unfortunately I have personally experienced a Magistrate that did NOT follow the law, didn’t care about my basic rights (as I know of many others with the same experience) and thus just railroaded me in favour of the council. Appeal through the county court seems to be the only way around it. Even then, when one wins (ie. meaning doesn’t pay any illegally issued fines by the council), one will NEVER get the satisfaction to hear the Judge rule using terminology to make future reference re the illegality of local government, they just rule in one’s favour on some different aspect. In my opinion, Judges these days seem to be worried about rocking the boat rather than upholding the law when it comes to council matters.

    Can anyone share with me how to use the “Acts of Parliament” idea in a court of law? The reason for this question is that I am scheduled yet again before a Magistrate re council matters and I want to try something new to help avoid wasting my time appealing it at the county court, so I’d like to understand this method. I’m going to have plenty of practice in the next few months!

    • petoln888 says:

      Pete, some Acts of Parliament are invalid. I suggest the Constitution Act 1975 (Vic) is the place to start, for that has improper preambular assertion. An invalid part is where it tries to hold the third tier of “government” in place at Part IIA. There ARE aruments for holding that the Local Government Act 1989 (Vic) is unlawful too, however, it can also be argued there are lawful aspects to the Local Government Act 1989 (Vic) so you cannot say the Act is wholly invalid if that is true! Those parts of any Act which are OK stay OK, and are still law. (See Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic), S 6) I hope that assists.

    • John Wilson says:

      Starting with the 1975 Victorian Constitution. It is an invalid Act. By extension, so is the Local Government Act 1989 (Vic).
      How so?
      The original Victorian constitution is the 1855 Victorian constitution of the Imperial Parliament.
      To replace it with a new one initiated by the State requires: a referendum; true constitutional Royal Assent, and a repeal by the Imperial Parliament of the (colonial) Constitution of 1855.
      None of these steps have occurred, therefore the 1855 constitution remains the lawful Victorian Constitution, and, the Local Government Act 1989 becomes a nothing.
      I believe that any parliament using the invalid Victorian Constitution as it power base to enact new Acts/Legislation or to amend old Act/legislation will find they are invalid unless they are consistent with the 1855 Victorian Constitution, and, more importantly consistent with the Commonwealth Constitution of 1 July 1900. The Victorian Parliament has acted outside of its authority to make the changes since 1975. In fact, I would argue that such parliamentarian’s supporting these changes have committed indictable crimes against the Crown and the sovereign people of the Commonwealth of Australia and our Commonwealth Constitution 1900, among them being crimes of sedition, treason, and treachery.

  • See list Of Australian councils signed to Agenda 21. Also more good information on the U.N. takeover of our rights via AGENDA 21

  • Phil says:

    One thing that has been overlooked as I understand it from reading the article and all the posts is, from my extensive research, that you own nothing because you have surrendered your ownership rights to everything since birth when you were issued with a birth certificate.

    When you are born you are born as a living human being as a free man on the land to live by any means you choose so long as you do not harm, steal from or kill another human being basically however this human right was removed when you were issued with a birth certificate at which point your name was capitalised and turned into a corporation/corporate entity for which your body represented and as such were, and have been ever since, bound by maritime laws and were to live as a corporate body paying taxes and following all the laws/rules set out by the \”system\”. You did not consent to this but instead your parents did by agreeing to have a birth certificate issued at birth and you basically confimed that consent to abiding by the system at an age of 16 or thereabouts when you applied for a motor vehicle licence and a tax file number whereby you agreed to pay taxes for the rest of your life.

    You were not informed or explained to as to what it is you were doing only that it was the norm that had been conditioned into society through generations of authority such as government and the education system. Yo\’ve been lied to all your life. You own nothing because everything you own under your birth certificate \”capitalized\” name is owned by the bankers (the system). If you check any form of identification/certificate/registration/taxation/bank accounts(keycard/credit card) documents etc you will find that your surname, if not your whole name, is capitalized!

    It\’s deep….very deep but the whole nation needs to wake up, unite and take their humanity back from this fraudulent/criminal system that has enslaved you.

    There was a couple (Fiona & Arthur Cristian) once in the country pursueing the \”freeman\” status however they ceased doing so on the grounds that they had received threats to stop what they were doing! They can threaten a couple or even a small group but a large portion of the population well informed and with the drive to take action will be difficult to supress. A mass awakening is needed and quick!

    If you want to research for yourself start with researching the birth certificate and you\’ll have more than enough information and at the same time you can search and watch some you tube videos of Robert Arthur Menard who has several videos on youtube detailing the whole freeman thing!

    You don\’t own your house, your car…nothing because the system (global bankers) own you and to the point where you have a bond attached to your name in the stockmarket and you can actually use your birth certificate to pay debts you owe if you know how to go about it!

    Remember that if you have a birth certificate and you have never relenquished it and lived as a freeman off the grid then quite simply you own nothing!

    • petoln888 says:

      Phil, there are a number of things the people need to wake up to what is going on. Having come awake, then what to do? Clearly, there is need to work together to overcome the national difficulties. I am aware of some of the work by Arthur & Fiona. I am trying to tackle the “council” and “rates” issues for the direction of a strengthened council ultimately at the expense of the State is a big concern. This is a national focus most people can get on board with as there are a lot of property owners.

  • Si says:

    Thank you for providing this information. It is very informative though I still have many things to read and comprehend.
    Recently I have been looking into these matters as my parents own a fish and chip shop and have been demanded by the council to install a double bowl sink, which they say is mandatory for all food handling premises…. So yeh..we are still negotiating through this.
    I think it is very costly and yet ineffective management for the inspectors to come around each year and have different rules that results in us having to change things each time, and is costly.
    I found a document that addresses some questions asked and is a guide for councils:
    Are the answers accurate?

    • petoln888 says:

      I note your issues with council and can sympathise with you.
      You ask “are the Local Government ‘Fact Sheet’ answers accurate?
      NO .. they are not! Look at a letter to the Minister dated 29 April 2013 in this site about this.

    • petoln888 says:

      As for the answers offered to the so-called Myths .. NO they are NOT accurate at all, and they tell you on the sheet the answers are not to be taken as legal advice either! So, where does that leave anyone? I understand the Minister has been taken to task for the impropriety of the work by her department.

  • Koula Rafailidis says:

    Those who have done the research know that Councils are an unlawful operation and the collecting of taxes, fining and regulating via by-laws are all contrary to the Rule of Law. How is it then that councils do manage to get away with taking possession of family homes and auctioning them off to recover outstanding rates monies? How do they continue to get away with this every time. Furthermore, I have spoken with quite a few who are fighting against these unlawful councils and when I ask them “do you pay your rates?”, they try and dodge the question or reply with “Yes but….”.

    • petoln888 says:

      Koula, since the State courts are not independant – for they now come under the Department of Justice – there is reticence to judge by the law. Rather, State courts seek to maintain the status quo. So, the only way is to take the issue to the High Court of Australia, and that is a very expensive exercise the everyday person cannot afford. Therefore, to maintain the Rule of Law in this country, and the standards by which councils must operate from a constitutional point of view it will take more .. it is not that simple! There is a move towards a Class Action to handle this matter and Ratepayers Victoria are in there batting. Look at for more information.

  • Mark McMurtrie says:

    The CONstitution, a part of a Statute of the UK parliament, applies only to British subjects. It does not apply to the Sovereign Tribal peoples who STILL own this continent.

    When that Constitution was created, it contained no element of Sovereignty as it was a Colonial Constitution. It STILL contains NO elements of Sovereignty as ALL Sovereignty over those it administers is held by the Monarch of the UK parliament – a power foreign to these lands.

    The Tribes have NEVER acquiesced Sovereignty nor dominion over these lands and remain the only De Jure and lawful Sovereigns.

    The fact remains that the reason the Commonwealth is now trying to ‘recognize’ the Tribes in that Constitution is so that they can effect their laws over the Tribes IF the Tribes agree to that.

    Time for EVERYONE to wake up.

    When you buy a LOT (Location Of Title) in a DP (Deposited Plan) you are buying a mark on a map – this is why Australians are called land HOLDERS and not land OWNERS – the Crown being unable to grant an interest in something it does not own itself.

    • petoln888 says:

      Mark, thanks for that. There certainly are issues we have to sort through as a people living in Australia. I understand there are moves to manage the sovereignty of some Tribes within their own nation, and that others can become associated with the Tribe in that area (I guess if they live there too). Do you know much about that?

  • I would like to become a member, I like what is said

  • Dave says:

    Are local council rates legal under the Australian Constitution? If so who says they are? Anybody answer this for me please? Possibly show Government link.

  • Gus says:

    The country and states are in a hell of a mess, simply because those who should know better, don’t but continue to plunder the pockets of tax payer, ratepayer, small business as if they are a bottomless pit of gold. But, when will it finish, for common sense to prevail? Or, who will stop it, a individual, or politics?

    • petoln888 says:

      Gary, thanks for the comment. The issue really rests with enough people standing against this tyranny by not paying rates for example, and being able to hold their own in a proper court of law – which is not that of the government system! So, the people have to work out how to manage their own courts, with grand juries, indictments, all with the sheriff’s support, etc. There is more to do.

  • Gus says:

    As we all know, some individuals like to operate from public scrutiny when it comes to profit, irrespective of the damage to the people’s right to live, and life itself. This is quite apparent at special council meetings on submissions, the point is – do not be afraid of V.C.A.T. as they have a very updated w-site fully illustrated as to what it is all about. There are excellent workshops for the still timid and community groups, the E.D.O. (Environment Defenders Office) have material on preparing submissions/presentations for V.C.A.T. However, I do know the E.D.O. is deprived of funding simply because they did actually defend the environment from dig a hole, destroy the amenity and run with the profit – like gas fracking which is catastrophic for agriculture, land, and water tables. But, don’t be afraid of V.C.A.T. and thoroughly search both the E.D.O. and V.C.A.T. w-sites. Be warned, be prepared. Know how the system works and how it may affect you. And, check out the w-site links, education to dirty tricks by those who should know better, is paramount in this day and age.

  • Gus says:

    2014, here we come! First, Ordinary council meeting of the year for Whitehorse, held in the old Box Hill Town Hall. Hot on the agenda is the re-zoning of the City of Whitehorse for Mathew Guys attempt to pack whales into sardine tins, … through the Housing and Character Review. Not to forget the monstrosity in Station Street, Box Hill after Guy rejected Whitehorse objection to inadequate car, off-street car space, with a building height only suitable for launching missiles, as is the A.T.Os concrete obscenity to the surrounding area with more over priced coffee shops than sprinkles on a cup cake.
    Back to the Ordinary Council meeting of the 28 / 1 /2014 in the old town hall, Chamber all seated ( no standing ) 39 senior people, no Whitehorse Leader reporter, reporter from the Weekly Review, which is more real estate than community news with council agenda’s, 2nd room ( extremely small ) and passage way, 28 middle aged male and females, female being more prominent, moving North to room 3 – set up for tea / coffee – 74 senior people, only one couple under 30 most concerned to the environment and their future plans on life style. Issues include … will there be vegetation, or will we be forced to live in a Liberal style concrete cubicle, children, your guess is as good as anyone.
    Dennis Napthine, Jeff Kennett lost my vote in last term of office when Ron Walker and him had to play with the dinky toys on Albert Park lake, with a hypothetical income of millions which no one saw on paper as it did not just happen. YOU have lost my vote for not being realistic to the problems of the State of Victoria, as far as the Labor party goes I am sorry to see they have landed back on planet earth, is there some one to help planet Earth, without helping themselves first?
    The Ordinary Council meeting of the 28 /1 /2014 was a disappointment to the end result, the over-crowding, the continual noise with microphone sensitivity to wireless relay giving extremely poor clarity as to the discussion in the Council Chamber, you could say only 39 senior people actually heard what was being discussed, while the other 104 attendees did not have clarity to what was actually said. Sad to say only one couple were under 30 years, the remainder were predominately seniors ( pensioners ). What was most apparent was lack of education in the operational affairs of council and the relationship between Councillors and the administration, which is extremely difficult for anyone, as decisions are made behind closed doors. While annual salary packages are secret, for a service industry this must not be allowed as this service industry does not produce a tradeable / saleable commodity where remuneration is based on the return of profit from said commodity.

    In conclusion, I must highlight Mathew Guy’s heated discussion with John Fains ( AM 774 ) against opposition Andrews, it just got over board for a politician to present himself as a responsible minister of the State of Victoria then a voice from the past fiasco’s with privatization of essential utilities, John Cain stated on 774 both parties have failed by prioritizing their own personnel agenda’s from pre-election promises.
    The Constitution, is it really a document we can rely on for governance? Or, is it a learn to read booklet for babies? The answer appears to be any one’s guess!

    • John Wilson says:

      Relying on the Constitution alone will not achieve anything unless the people get some background and demand a return to lawful government. I speak with many and it is amazing how many people express the view “I don’t have any authority to make change, I am not important”. Rubbish! Everyone is important and can influence outcomes if you have the will. In order you create change you need to understand your constitution and use the tools it provides. Sitting back and bleating like sheep is not the solution. Once Australia was a proud and independent country, among the leaders of the world to create change, innovations, inventors and so on. What has happened?

  • Laura Jolly says:

    Hi there,
    I am the reporter from the Whitehorse Leader and rest assured, I was indeed at last night’s meeting.
    You can read my story on the tower decision here:

    • Gus says:

      Laura very glad to see your response, as I sat in your media chair, Sally, chased me out, and I eventuality had a seat in room three, the wireless transmission was not good as previously explained.
      It was surprising to see so many showed up, especially the age groups, with only one couple under thirty, I did a head count from the access passage door window as the council staff would not allow any one from the room 2 and 3 and the passage, down to the old council chamber.
      I must repeat myself, it was not the appropriate location for the subject in question, I did look for our local State Members presence particularly, as a State Election is very soon, and will say again that the City of Whitehorse is being carved up for the selected few, who don’t even live in the city, and neither do they care for the amity of the Whitehorse residents.
      AH ! Money, profit and run, or is it , you kiss my butt and I will kiss yours, providing of course we both profit from it, the others, who ever they may be, will just have to live with it, get over it, as I doubt if any thing will change before the next election, except miracles will be performed by the opposition after the election, but will there be any water for them to walk on, let alone afford it, not a hope in hell.
      Laura, the editorial on late rate payments Jan 29 214, this is important, as it is a clear indication of the disposable dollar in the city, then Waverley Leader Tue. 10-11-13 had a interesting editorial, on Room to improve, with a comment, Remember who you’re working for, the State fails miserably here, thank some one, the Minister for Local Council is retiring, could it get worse ?
      Laura wish you luck on reporting in the City of Whitehorse as there are many of us who are concerned to the cost and being able to live in any city for that matter.

  • Gus says:

    It is quite clear that Victoria has it’s more than fair share of problems. How, is the $100 fire level being handle as Local Council has to forward receipts to State Treasury every three months? BUT, I am told Local Council is not allowed to short term lend said money. So, whose mattress does it go under in the short term? And … How accessible will these funds be to those in fire ravaged areas? I am led to believe that there are millions of dollars still in the system from Black Saturday!

    • petoln888 says:

      Truth is, if councils are “government” then ALL funds should go to Treasury – to a Consolidated Revenue Fund – with Bills for appropriation passed by State Parliament to spend the rates/tax raised. Therefore, let us did a bit deeper on the issue!

  • Denis-Peter: of the family Rawlinson says:

    I see this site mentioned on face book, so I have posted it to all on my email address. The contact person to be notified if you would like to be part of this fight is Peter Olney. EM:
    As this is not just a Victorian issue, it is an Australia wide concern, maybe he should be part of your team too, and keep in touch with him.
    FYI Peter Olney resides in Victoria. He is wanting to hear from people who would like to be on his contact mail out. He is also collecting people’s name who may be interested to take up the challenge via a Class Action. Come on folks – if we unite on one issue, and remember any issue challenge has to go all the way to the High Court. Imagine if we achieve 5 million people? If you invite him to your space he just might be able to speak and assist you in these matters. OK, OK, he will!

  • John Wilson says:

    If and I say if; councils are an extension the Local government department, they do not have the authority to charge rates (taxes), fines etc. If we accept that under the Commonwealth Constitution 1900-1901 that we have only two tiers of government, then it seems that if (boy! we have a lot of ifs) rates, etc. were legitimate, then the rate accounts, etc should be sent out from the Local Government Department. Moneys would then go into Victorian Consolidated Revenue? Our “councils” are supposed to provide community services, e.g. waste collection water, power, roads and so on. They are supposed to charge ONLY for services rendered. When they want to raise revenue it is the poorer who pay and the rich who get the tax breaks.
    I recently raised a Mandate asking council to provide a signed written document showing its authority to sell off public assets plus 8 other questions relating to the use of the revenue it raised . They have refused to answer the questions and instead reiterated they received their authority from the Victorian Constitution 1975, and the Local Government Act 1989. I consider these to be invalid. One councillor stated at the hearing council needed to seek legal advice. This was agreed with an addition that the advice needed to come from a Constitutional lawyer or a professor at law, specialising in constitutional law. Council was requested to convene another meeting to advise the public of the outcome of the legal advice. Council has refused to answer any part or to hold a meeting to inform the public. Instead, the Chair/councillor of the Hearing put for a resolution at the next council meeting to continue the sale of public assets and lands, then published a letter in the local media that council’s authority came from the Victorian Constitution Act 1975 and the Local Government Act 1989. Having been made aware of the Acts and laws I believe this amounts to an act of at least sedition; perhaps even treason or treachery against the people of Victoria and the Commonwealth, but I suspect it believes it will be protected for its misbehaviour by the Victorian Parliament. I urge people to read and learn more about your lawful rights and be prepared to speak out. If there are enough people questioning these corporations then any parliament will be forced to do something about it. Send a “my Will” letter to your local MP requesting your questions be raised in Parliament.

  • John Wilson says:

    It is likely that the council will charge administration fees for handling the alleged CFA fire levy, so the $100-150 dollars will not be going to the area it is supposed to. A contact told council that he would pay directly to the CFA and not to council and was told he could do that if he wished but he would still have to pay council as well!!! How much CFA money is being put into council investment accounts if it is not being sent to the government , e.g. local government department or into Consolidated revenue? Surely this is a tax! As I said in an earlier comment a tax is a tax it should it not be paid into the Federal government Consolidation account to be re-distributed to the relevant sections. There needs to be a lot of clarification as what happens to these sorts of funds.

  • Dunstan Girton. says:

    We are a group of Residents from Kiandra Mews, Hampton Park, 3976, Victoria. We have emailed numerous Newspapers all over the country asking them to publish our emails for the benefit of all ratepayers; even the local newspapers have published our articles on rates. Rates have blown out to more than 300% in the last 10-15 years which is a terrible drain on all ratepayers, especially the pensioners, low income earners and large families with huge home loans. We live in the City of Casey. The CEO is paid a fat salary of about $400,000pa.; not taking into account there are 6 directors, 26 managers, Mayor, councillors, office staff and field workers. Around Australia we have 565 councils, many CEO’s are paid a salary higher than the Prime Minister of Australia! We have also suggested that Councils be abolished and for State Governments to properly manage their municipal departments – for the councils are not ‘government’ per se. We say ‘No way’ for a third tier of government.

  • Stroppy says:

    I am new to all of this. I have been told that I have the right to put a submission to the Council who wants to levy a Special Charge on me (and my neighbours) for a footpath. I am a pensioner and can’t afford the proposed charge. My research suggests that pursuant to S163(1) the VCAT Act I would be required to SHOW that I will get NO special benefit. I note also that the term ‘special benefit’ has no legal/statute law definition – although the High Court has provided a definition. It seems that the Council can proceed no matter what ‘objections’ are raised and VCAT will support them. Has anyone successfully avoided a special charge?

  • Stroppy says:

    OK, so a line was missed. I meant to say S163(1) simply says that if the Council CONSIDER I will get a special benefit they can impose the charge, whereas, I have to otherwise PROVE I will get no benefit. Here is a quote from a recent VCAT decision
    “To make out the ground in Paragraph (i) of Section 185(2) of the Local Government Act it is necessary to show that there is no special benefit at all to the residents.”

  • Heike Jindra says:

    Common Sense has entered the Federal Government. It is worth listening to the maiden speech of Fam. First Senator Bob Day from SA on 3 Sep 2014 via U-tube. It is encouraging to see someone with some 30 or 40 years’ of business experience shine light onto political absurdities. The Senate’s great ovation at the end of his speech is telling a tale ….

  • adrian says:

    Notice there has been no posts for several months. Is this site no longer operating? If so, it should be removed as a link from the Ratepayers Association website.

    • petoln888 says:

      Are you suggesting the material provided over several years is of no value? Is it not appropriate for other concerned members of society to also manage a campaign against their council? Is there any action on your part in these matters?

    • Graeme says:

      Notice how the negative mind has no positive input!

  • Anna Marie says:

    Great site, thanks for the information and feeds to read. I have been working for 3 months solid in dispute with a Council’s management over initiating legal proceedings against a family in Financial Hardship. Despite the councils obvious breach of contract, breach of Policy Guidelines and documented failures in administration, they are still insisting on pursuing a debt, which has been decreasing with payments and is being paid off and has hardship merit. I have no words, nor words, no words…to express the evil manner, the intent and the abuse of power and ratepayer’s money, to pursue something that is insufficient and has no standing or need to pursue. There is definitely a sole purpose to get a judgement claim at all costs-in the face of any damning evidence, and this pursual of a judgement claim, then allows any small breach to warrant a listing of the home for sale. Now, what has been inherently evil here is the persistence in known hardship, and the closing off of all negotiations for a debt that is under 2 years, that is being paid in installments. Both the Council and the Solicitors have used delay tactics, withholding evidence and making false statements…to achieve a judgment claim. None of this makes sense. What is going on??? A family who have contributed very well for years and paid off more than 2/3 of their o/s rates in a financial crisis…and the Council SUE THEM???? Who does this? It is so rooted in evil at the deepest levels that, there needs to be a new word made for this conduct. When I have the word, I will post it here. [Ed: Maybe "bastardize" .. to make degenerate, will do!]

    • Graeme says:

      Perhaps the High Court ruling from Forge v ASIC 2006 may help in which the HCA upheld the “Kable Principle”.

    • Graeme says:

      Upon reading the various articles on Councils it has come to my attention that we seem to be missing the point. Councils are a business and they have no lawful valid constitutional authority. They are extorting money from us by consorting with, aided and abetted by entities that are also businesses holding an ABN and claiming that corporate copyright legislation somehow applies to living men and women outside of their businesses. A conflict of interest exists at every turn as all are involved … from the Courts, Magistrates, Registrars, Councils to the Government – all hold a conflict of interest and are all interdependent on each other. The only one that has no conflict is the man or woman that they are oppressing. Remember, you are dealing with Private Corporations registered in Washington. They are represented by third party interloper debt collector solicitors that are actually Officers of the Court and when that issue is placed in context it appears as though they also have a conflict of interest. What I am saying is watch out for traps. That name has actually been created by them and as such pursuant to the maxims of law “He who creates holds liability”, therefore liability for that name rests with the Law firm that created it, it is also personage and that is a crime and is identified as Capitis Diminutio Maxima. Slavery systems, Personage and Barratry. A good site is Google:

  • Anna Marie says:

    Better still … Noncens vici – the very act of evil

  • John says:

    Anna Marie, I realize this information I am about to provide you may be too late to help you to put an abrupt halt to the (amongst other things) fraud and attempted abuse of process by the local council and the solicitors who often act with malfeasance. Firstly, if you are making instalments to reduce the debt, irrespective of the dollar sum, as long as they are regular that gets them out of your hair.
    Then, consider if the local council and their friends commit a crime by intimidation, coercion, and placing you and your family under duress to pay with the constant fear of judgment; whereby they can commit the legal theft of your private property by tribunal administration and NOT through a court of competent jurisdiction with your peers. Nevertheless, you have these criminals by the balls; if you draft an affidavit sworn under your full commercial liability before a Notary Public (if you can find one to witness) or a JP [as long as you write "under penalty of perjury" on the 'signature' line, before you place your signature directly above it; thus equivalent to a Notary witness] and send a ‘certified copy’ of said affidavit to the local council and their solicitors with a lovely little cover letter outlining that you will have them explain their actions before a Magistrate/Judge; whereby you will be seeking damages for the injury they have caused.
    As the late John Marsden, QC quoted “a debt cannot be claimed if it is not in dispute”. If you are making instalments; then there is no dispute.
    A filed Claim and Statement of Claim [an offer to contract] can mysteriously disappear if you handle it right. Furthermore, if you are in genuine Financial Hardship and regularly “honouring’ your contract to settle the debt. Then in my opinion I believe you have more than enough grounds to file an original claim for exemplary; aggravated and punitive damages [which is $400k maximum claimed for EACH damage]; case law reference IBBETT -v- NEW SOUTH WALES [2006] HCA. You do not need a solicitor to do this for you either. You are the Principal Creditor; not the debtor. Thus you reign SUPREME over an entity that is a piece of paper. Just for good measure, those spineless cowards who think they are not accountable for their actions, as they hide behind the corporation. NO, NO, NO…make them accountable for their actions by pursuing them in their private capacities for causing you an injury. Let them see what it feels like and explain to their family why they have no home and living under financial hardship. Its the only way these people will learn. Ensure you get your remedy.
    Finally; once you have ‘settled” the alleged debt; be sure to serve the local council a letter of rejection to offer to contract within 72 hours preferably; but under no circumstances any later than 28 days of the date of issue on the “Rate notice’ by recorded delivery [registered post and print out the proof of delivery off Aust Post website about 3 days later - do not leave it more than 60 days, as the tracking number will no longer exist; thus no proof of delivery]. A “Rate notice” is simply “an offer to contract” that’s all. One has the right to reject any offer to contract under UCC1-308. If one rejects their offer to contract; then the local council has no contract; there is no claim. SIMPLE! In my opinion this is the only way to end local councils and their fraud; by STOPPING the FUNDING of THESE CRIMINALS. The Federal Treasury [alleged taxpayer's funds] issues $2.6 Billion AUD per annum to local councils to operate. Which is an unconstitutional action on its own, as the executive power do[es] not have the authority to fund programs and organisations such as these. WILLIAMS -v- THE COMMONWEALTH [2012] HCA put a temporarily stop to that for about 6 months; until members of Federal Parliament amend legislation to circumvent a high court decision, which is federal law. Therefore, it is every man and [wo]man who are private property owners to STOP funding these pirates via rejection of Rate notices and their unlawful fines, which are invalid as well. People, I live by a simple rule when it comes to their so-called government agencies with their perceived authority. “The only authority they have over me is what I give them”. In my word; that is NONE AT ALL. I hope the above helped. I can provide you and anyone else a template of the letter of rejection I serve on the local council every year – as soon as I receive their offer to contact (Rate notice) – by the way… if one pays attention to how local councils use a “Rate notice” with a capital “R” for rates and a lower case “n” for notice. Then that means that is NOT a legal notice; as if it was a capital N; they are caught red handed committing blatant fraud, as they do not exist under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1900 (UK).

    • Tim says:

      Hi John,

      I am currently trying to go through the same with the Gold Coast City Council – could you please advise further.

    • charles says:

      I can provide you and anyone else a template of the letter of rejection – email me … itsnotmine [at] mail dot com

  • Craig Latta says:

    I live in WA. Is it compulsory to pay land rates or are the councils just doing this on their own accord.
    I can not find any law indicating it is or it isn’t compulsory.
    I believe if we choose to take our own rubbish to the tip we should not have to pay for it. We as a community are not being looked after by our council and decisions on shops or extensions of shopping centres, etc., are not being asked to be approved or accepted by the affected residents.
    Can we as a community lock out a council and look after our own area.

    • petoln888 says:

      If there is a legitimate third tier of ‘government’ in WA you will have your answer. If not, then a lot of push and shove is going on. The issue is how much ‘push’ are you and your friends willing to do to bring correction to the flawed systems across the States? It is not possible to answer the various questions floated here in this forum.

  • Jon Fletcher says:

    Great work, this is much the same as info I used against our local council here in NSW. I haven’t heard from them in several years.

  • Daniel Harrison says:

    Hi John, how may I obtain a copy of your template to reject contract of council rates?

  • Finance Guy says:

    A word to the wise. Whilst you maybe right that you don’t have to pay, your council will lodge a court judgement/default against your credit file if you do not pay. This may not seem like a big deal to some, but when you apply for credit (even mobile phones & utility companies) your application will be rejected as you have an adverse credit file. My advice is to pay them, and then fight it, otherwise no credit for you! Ever.
    [Ed note: 1/ How do you fight after the event? 2/ There is relief from this blacklist imposition after a set time - like bankruptcy]

    • Finance Guy says:

      Correct. Bankruptcy is a form of relief however, most lenders have an unwritten policy that a bankrupt applicant will not be considered until 7 years from the date of their bankruptcy. Quite a long time to wait for credit wouldn’t you agree? And then when you don’t pay them the second time, you are bankrupted again and unable to borrow for another 7 years! Not ‘cricket’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>