Lawful Validity Of Imposed Council Rates

steven made this Freedom of Information request to Melton City Council

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Melton City Council should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

From: steven

Delivered

Dear Melton City Council,

councils have existed since the 1870's and they were never part of state or federal Government, councils were something people had organized on there own accord and those that could afford to contribute towards the construction or purchase of extra luxuries did so voluntarily which brings me to my point, if the people wanted councils as a part of the state & federal government they would have included them in the 1900 constitution

I have numbered my requests

1) Please provide lawful validity of Imposed council rate fees that have jurisdiction over the 1900 constitution

2) Please verify whether local councils recognize the fee simple title ownership of land, if land is owned under a different type of title please elaborate.

3) what are the rights people have under the type of title that local council alleges to be the type of title ownership existing at this current time.

Referendums in 1974 and 1988 both show that the vote for local council was not carried,

4) can you explain what guise local councils are still operating under after the 2 failed referendums?

if it were possible for the councils to gain authority as a legitimate government entity without a referendum, why would there be 2 previous failed attempts ?

5) can you please explain the process for budget approval and the strategy behind having 90 million dollar surplus sit in the council's bank account earning interest.

6) how is irresponsible spending monitored and policed

7) please explain how residential rates and commercial rates are calculated , to clear up confusion in regards to commercial properties having to pay more for properties worth less than residential, is the calculation based on the assumption that a commercial property making large sums of money by engaging in commerce and therefore must pay extra.

commercial properties receive absolutely no service from the council , not even a general waste rubbish bin and yet they are being charged $3500 p.a and they have to pay for private rubbish bin $500 p.a add body corporate fees of $1500 p.a to the $3500 p.a

Yours faithfully,

steven

Link to this

From: Internet Enquiries
Melton City Council


Attachment image001.jpg
32K Download

Attachment image002.jpg
1K Download


Thank you for your email. This has been forwarded to the relevant
department/officer for response.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Customer Service

Melton City Council

[1]Melton logo colour - low res   P: 03 9747 7200

   E: [2][Melton City Council request email]

   W: melton.vic.gov.au

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
2. mailto:[Melton City Council request email]

Link to this

From: Internet Enquiries
Melton City Council

Good afternoon Steven, thank you for your email enquiry. Your request has been forwarded for the attention and response of our Legal Services Office

Thank You

Sharyn
Customer Service Officer | Melton City Council

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Christine Denyer
Melton City Council


Attachment image001.png
25K Download


 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I refer to your email of 8 January 2018 regarding “Freedom of Information
request – Lawful Validity Of Imposed Council Rates” and advise that your
FOI request is not valid as you have not paid the required fee.

 

Section 17(2A) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (“the Act”) requires
that an application fee of $28.40 accompanies a request for access.  Such
a fee did not accompany your request.  Accordingly, I cannot process your
request until you pay the application fee.

 

If you are unable to pay the fee on the basis of hardship, please state
your reasons in writing and provide any evidence that you believe supports
your claim.  A decision will then be made as to whether your hardship
claim is accepted or not and you will be informed of the outcome along
with any applicable review rights.

 

Unless and until a fee is paid, or a waiver granted, your request remains
invalid.

 

Further, any request for access to documents must provide such information
as is reasonably necessary to enable the agency to identify the documents
sought.  In my view, your request does not provide sufficient information
for me to identify the documents you seek.  The Act is not an Act for
access to information – but rather, documents.

 

Of the 7 numbered items set out in your email, reproduced below, all
appear to be requests for information, as opposed to documents:

 

1) Please provide lawful validity of Imposed council rate fees that have
jurisdiction over the 1900 constitution

 

2) Please verify whether local councils recognize the fee simple title
ownership of land, if land is owned under a different type of title please
elaborate.

 

3) what are the rights people have under the type of title that local
council alleges to be the type of title ownership existing at this current
time.

 

Referendums in 1974 and 1988 both show that the vote for local council was
not carried,

 

4) can you explain what guise local councils are still operating under
after the 2 failed referendums?

 

if it were possible for the councils to gain authority as a legitimate
government entity without a referendum, why would there be 2 previous
failed attempts ?

 

5) can you please explain the process for budget approval and the strategy
behind having 90 million dollar surplus sit in the council's bank account
earning interest. 

 

6) how is irresponsible spending monitored and policed

 

7) please explain how residential rates and commercial rates are
calculated , to clear up confusion in regards to commercial properties
having to pay more for properties worth less than residential, is the
calculation based on the assumption that a commercial property making
large sums of money by engaging in commerce and therefore must pay extra.

 

Accordingly, even if the fee were paid (or waiver granted), you request
for access to documents under FOI is not valid, because it is plainly a
request for information rather than documents.

 

Notwithstanding that it is not a valid FOI request, I would like to assist
you with your enquiries.  

 

Insofar as your email asks legal questions, you might consider obtaining
legal advice from an independent lawyer.  A lawyer would be able to
explain to you the validity of local councils. I am a lawyer however I act
for Council and thus cannot provide you with legal advice. 

 

By way of general legal information, I advise that local councils are
established via States, as has always been the case.  Like all powers of
the States, the power to establish local councils is not specifically
mentioned in the Constitution (whereas the powers of the Federal
Government are specifically listed in the Constitution). The referendums
that you mentioned (by Whitlam and Hawke) were, as I understand it,
symbolic in nature and had no substantive effect (though, as you note,
they were not carried).

 

The Local Government Act 1989 (the current Local Government Act for
Victoria) has various provisions relating to the budget, reporting, and
‘best value’. The Act provides, amongst other things, that the budget is
approved by the Council at an Ordinary Council meeting after allowing the
public the opportunity to make submissions in relation to a draft. There
is also then quarterly reporting at Ordinary Council meetings.  If you
require more detailed answers in relation to the finance side of things,
please let me know and I will refer the matter to the Manager of Finance
for him or one of his staff to answer you directly.

 

A lawyer would also be able to explain to you the legal notion of ‘fee
simple’ ownership and provide you with a summary of what rights and
obligations a property owner and property occupier have in accordance with
the law.  

 

Even though your FOI request is invalid, I hope that I have provided you
with relevant information to satisfy your concerns/queries, as set out
above.

 

If you are unhappy with my handling of this matter you may complain to my
manager, the CEO, Mr Kelvin Tori.  You may also always complain to the
Victorian Ombudsman.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Christine Denyer LL.B, MSocSc
Manager Legal and Governance | Melton City Council

 

[1]cid:image001.png@01D3570B.7E64D330

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links

Link to this

From: steven

Delivered

Dear Christine Denyer,

the sheer audacity to ask for money, you've got be kidding ?

are you going to dismiss high court rulings?
where do council employees get off quoting invalid unconstitutional acts to support the harm being done to people ?

I'll give you the answer to all of the questions that you will be getting asked while you hold that position of causing harm to others as an employee of unlawful local councils.

free of charge.

I suggest you read the entire constitution including the preamble because it is imperative that it is understood as a complete set of rules rather than parts taken out of context.

once again you aware that a referendum in 1974 and another in 1988 the people voted no to the recognition to local councils

common sense would suggest that councils had no recognition if referendums were taking place to obtain recognition.

so why didn't the government take that route before attempting the referendums , because they tried to pull the wool over the peoples eyes and sneak the local councils in via legitimate means but they under estimated the peoples awareness so when two attempts failed they realized the only way was to dupe the people and cheat the bullet proof system, so they used bob hawke ( who is an Israeli citizen to this day) 1986 Australia act which opened the door for the 1989 local government act and the councils are still unlawful that is if you know the law but for most sheople they accepted it and continued on with grazing.

furthermore if the constitution states that the federal parliament cannot impose taxes on the people and uniformity of tax across all states is essential

so if the federal parliament is bound to this part of the constitutions why would you or anyone think that the state has power to introduce what the federal cannot

section 109 is where your explanation falls flat on it face , the state imposing taxes on the people contradicts the constitution and therefor the federal law takes precedence.

the preamble is a crucial part of the constitution because it explains the intentions and objective which puts it all into perspective and draws a picture that undeniably shows how ridiculous it is that these local councils have some how just appeared out of thin air.

the whole point of the 1901 constitution was to unite all he states and create uniformity and once this was achieved the state parliament power would diminish and the federal parliament would run the united uniform states as one , after 120 years the states power is minimal.

the only evidence showing that local councils are legitimate is the councils saying they are legitimate.

then you have 500 years of case law , common law and fee simple land ownership that reinforces this , but councils continue to act unlawfully by using the 1989 local government act that only came about because of the unlawful unconstitutional Australia act 1986.

although our constitution doesn't seem like much, once you understand it you will come to realize and appreciate how secure it really is .

respect must be paid to the men responsible for it's creation these men were some of the most brilliant minds to have lived , the only real way to bypass it is by cheating.

constitution: a defense against tyranny
tyranny : when governments force actions onto people against there will

PROPERTY RIGHTS IN AUSTRALIA
Australia is a Common Law Country, and property-owners have rights at law, particularly through the High Court ruling by Mr Justice Kirby in September 1998. Property owners whose land is held under Deeds in Fee Simple have the right to refuse to agree to the takeover of their land for this or any other purpose.

Private Property Owners and their Rights
Property Owners’ Rights in Australia are guaranteed in three ways by three different legal instruments, as under…

(1) Deed in Fee Simple
(2) Magna Carta 1215, and
(3) The Bill of Rights 1668/9

Fee Simple rights, particularly the High Court ruling given by Mr Justice Kirby, in September , 1998, when he made his decision by using an earlier High Court Case (1923) when Mr Justice Isaacs settled a dispute by confirming to the property owners in the case the rights conferred on all property-owners under their Freehold Deed in Fee Simple.

Under the current laws in Australia, both State and Federal, it is absolutely illegal for the Government “to take what it wants”, or indeed to dictate in any way what property-owners must do or not do in regard to their lands held under Deeds in Fee Simple so long as we retain our Common Law status under our legally unchangeable Christian Monarchical Constitutions, which apply both State and Federally.

Certain politicians are trying illegally to change our unchangeable (except via referendum of the Australian People) Federal Constitution, because they want to deny people the right to hold private property under our Monarchical laws.

Evidence of present protection of our rights through “Fee Simple”
In the High Court of Australia, in a decision in the case The Commonwealth v New South Wales, Justice Isaacs spoke of “fee simple” as follows…
“In the language of the English law, the word fee signifies an estate of inheritance as distinguished from a less estate… A fee simple is the most extensive in quantum, and the most absolute in respect of rights, which if confers, of all estates known to the law. It confers, and since the beginning of legal history it always has conferred, the lawful right to exercise over, upon, and in respect to, the land, every act of ownership which can enter into the imagination, including the right to commit unlimited waste. Besides these rights of ownership, a fee simple at the present day confers as absolute right, both of alienation inter vivos and of devise by will”

PLENTY V. DILLON (1991) 171 CLR 635 F.C. 91/004 – (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA) states in part…
a) Consent to an entry is implied if the person enters for a lawful purpose. In Robson v. Hallet (1967) 2 QB 939, Lord Parker C.J said (at p 951): “… the occupier of any dwelling-house give implied license to any member of the public coming on his lawful business to come through the gate, up the steps, and knock on the door of the house”. This implied licence extends to the driveway of a dwelling-house: However, the licence may be withdrawn by giving notice of its withdrawal. A person who enters or remains on property after the withdrawal of licence is a trespasser. Australian Constitution Act (1900-01) and the privacy act for trespassing and are liable for a $167.000 fine. In Davis v. Lisle (1936) 2 KB 434, police officers who had lawfully entered a garage for the purpose of making enquiries were held to have become trespassers by remaining in the garage after they were told by the proprietor to “get outside”.
b) The general policy of the law is against government officials having the rights of entry on private property with the permission of the occupier, and nothing concerned with the service of a summons gives any ground for creating a new exception to the general rule that entry on property without the express or implied consent of the occupier is a trespass.
c) If the courts of common law do not uphold the rights of the individuals by granting effective remedies, they invite anarchy, for nothing breeds social disorder as quickly as the sense of injustice which is apt to be generated by the unlawful invasion of a person’s rights, particularly when the invader is a government official.

The Australian Constitution incorporates the view that individual freedom should prevail alongside a limited role for government. Section 51(xxxi) requires that if the government acquires property from any State or person, it does so on just terms. Just terms have been defined by the High Court as ‘full and adequate compensation’ where the acquisition is a compulsory taking.

Section 51: (xxxi) The acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws:

However, it must be noted that section 51 (xxxi) only applies to the Commonwealth. It does not bind the States nor do the States have ‘just compensation’ clauses in their own constitutions.
For this reason, Section 109 of the Australian Constitution takes precedent over any State Constitution.

Section 109. When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.
Property rights are essential to freedom, justice, peace and prosperity. They are basic rights. Despite common law and constitutional protections, property rights are increasingly being eroded by the modern regulatory state. The time has come to restore respect for property rights for all landowners.

A TRESSPASS NOTICE is in fact a withdrawal notice to the common law’ … implied licence to any member of the public coming on his lawful business to come through the gate, up the steps, and knock on the door of the house’, and must be clearly displayed at each access to a FEE SIMPLY owned property.

“Commonwealth of Australian Constitution 1901” Protect your rights and freedom in Australia by getting to know your Constitution. The government, corporations and mainstream media are at work to SUPPRESS THOSE RIGHTS from you the public and Sovereign People of Australia.

I cannot understand why people will continue to try and reaffirm a story to people that know exactly what is going.

Yours sincerely,

steven

Link to this

Alan left an annotation ()

Steven
Although not Victorian, A Case in NSW dealt with these very same issues - Hoxton Park Residents' Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council [2010] NSWSC 1312 I suggest you read the judgement, especially the section relating to the existence of local coucils pp25-29

Link to this

Pauly Kay left an annotation ()

I hope this helps mate.
The case of Linville Holdings P/L v Fraser Coast Regional Council [2017] QSC 252 was brought by a landowner challenging the lawfulness of rates imposed by the Council.

Link to this

Alan left an annotation ()

You may recall that the decision in Linville Holdings P/L v Fraser Coast related to a procedural problem in the levying of rates in QLD and not on the power of Local Government to levy a rate. The validity of the QLD Local Government Act was not opposed. Hope this clarifies.

Alan

Link to this

Renee left an annotation ()

You should be able to counter sue back the money you have paid to council over the years under these laws, if you could find a ballsey enough solicitor.
A different council took my elderly mothers tractor for unpaid rates.
But under these laws they have taken our money and possessions illegally.
You would have to follow procedures to the courts but dont forget President Lincohn was proudly self educated and achieved heaps..

Link to this

Alan left an annotation ()

Exacactly what is the law you refer to? As to any debt claim that proceeds to judgement, goods may legally be taken to secure the debt. Judgement debts also are recorded and affect your credit rating which lasts for 5 years unless removed upon settlement of the debt. Local Council rates are legal and this has been proved in several Supreme Court proceedings.

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Melton City Council only: