Dear Australian Local Government Association,

I am making an enquiry today into the validity of “Local Government”. According to local government “officers”, the local council’s authority is purportedly taken from the Local Laws Acts, Local Government Acts and the Australia Act 1986.
As I have read the Commonwealth Constitution, I have noted that it is indeed mentioned as a Department of State (page 935 Annotated version)
To date, there have been 3 referenda with which the people voted whether to recognize local government in the Constitution
1974 and 1988 The people said NO!
1999 As part of the Republic agenda which includes recognising local government in the constitution, the people AGAIN said NO!
Can you confirm or deny that there exists lawful traceability back to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution 1901? If there is, can you please provide me with this information. If there is not, why not?

local governments are illegitimate, they are members of an international body called ICLEI which is run by the United Nations, they are part of a sustainability program aka agenda for the 21st century, this is an act of Treason, the entire government is corrupted to the core by big corporations with parliament made legislation that we are told by politicians we must obey but many supreme court and high court decisions that confirm our rights are priority no 1 , high court have reinforced the 1901 constitution as being the highest law of the land , the judicature (HCA) was constituted by that very document,.

the act that the local and state governments rely on
is unlawful
• In the case of Attorney-General (WA) v Marquet [2003] HCA 67; 217 CLR 545; 202 ALR 233; 78ALJR 105 (13 November 2003), Justice Kirby states very clearly between paragraphs 203 – 213 that the purported 1986 Australia Act – which Government agencies hang their hats on every day – is illegal and void, because it purports to alter the Commonwealth Constitution without complying with Section 128, which can only happen by way of a referendum.

COMMENT - The Australia Act has been declared to be illegal and void, therefore any action that a government takes under this Act is illegal and void.
• In the case of Port of Portland v State of Victoria [2010] HCA 44 ( 8 December 2010, all 7 Justices confirm the validity of the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 and the Bill of Rights 1688.

COMMENT - Many lower courts routinely ignore or dismiss the Imperial Acts Application Act, so defendants can demand that magistrates are legally bound to rule in accordance to this Act if applicable.
• In the case of Hospital Provident Fund Pty Ltd v Victoria [1953] HCA 8; (1953) 87 CLR 1 (11 March 1953), Justice Williams talks about Section 2 of the Victorian Acts Interpretation Act, that all Acts are subject to the Commonwealth Constitution and that a court should ensure the Constitutional validity of an Act.

COMMENT - All courts have to observe Constitutional validity when passing judgement, therefore defendants can produce this ruling if their matters are subject to this Act.
• In the case of South Australia v Totani [2010] HCA 39 (11 November 2010, Chief Justice French stated that even magistrates' courts must be in accordance with Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution.

COMMENT - Again, this ruling proves that all courts are required to act in accordance to the Constitution, so if defendants become aware that a magistrate or judge is ignoring their Constitutional rights, they can produce this ruling and force the courts to adhere to it.

If you question it then you are labelled as a conspiracy theorist , anti social , not willing to contribute , free loader, trouble maker, they insult you while they steal your money , yes it's theft.
if a criminal kicked down my front door and said give me money or I will hurt you it would be illegal and you still have the option to fight back . what option do you have with councils ? they send you bills and demand money with menaces , threaten to take to court and sell your home.

CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 87
Blackmail
(1) A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—

(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and

(b) that the use of the menaces is proper means of reinforcing the demand.

(2) The nature of the act or omission demanded is immaterial, and it is also immaterial whether the menaces relate to action to be taken by the person making the demand.

S. 87(3) amended by Nos 9576 s. 11(1), 49/1991 s. 119(1)
(Sch. 2 item 41), 48/1997
s. 60(1)(Sch. 1 item 65).

(3) A person guilty of blackmail is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to level 4 imprisonment (15 years maximum).

They claim to be ignorant to having reasonable grounds,
during a phone conversation a Gadens lawyers said " as far as i'm concerned the local governments are legitimate" this is the escape hatch , so the best to do it prepare an affidavit with statements of claims get i witnessed by a justice of the peace send it with registered mail and if the don't reply within a given time by law this admission to your claims then have this entered into public record by a notary , it is up to us to start making the ones who are doing this accountable, because corporate criminals never ever own up, this is the only way to make them accountable when this process is done right an affidavit from a living sentient being with first hand testimony is unmatched in legal standing it will put you in a position where you can then place a commercial lien on personal property of the agent marked as 1 of the respondents. it must be a coincidence that it's the same legal representatives for local government and the banks, you would think that the culture within any organisation in this country should be one that desires to help people, I can't remember when was the last time I was treated fairly or left with a feeling of confidence, so naturally I have a strong feeling of distrust, if people are treated like garbage they will take a stand.
------------------------------------------------------
as for the side note next to the green button ---> no ranty politics , ranty is not a word, technically it reads no politics, the entire premise of this website i.e charity is about policy, not only do Australian's have political freedom of speech but despite what people are led to believe Australians do actually have freedom of speech, it is found in more than one place , I will name the one that everyone seems to miss, in the 1901 constitution in the preamble the sentence " with the blessing of almighty God " the Grantor of dominion and free will and all inherent rights , it is irrefutable, 1688 bill of rights also being valid under the colonial constitution and the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 No. 9426 of 1980, magna charta and habeas corpus are also included in the the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 No. 9426 of 1980. Australians are well protected , they just don't know it, so if this website it all about the right to know then if should not be enforcing any moderation policy,

Yours faithfully,
We the people

Dear Australian Local Government Association,

I am still yet to receive a response

Yours faithfully,

John

Dear Australian Local Government Association,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Australian Local Government Association's handling of my FOI request 'Validity of Local Government'.

I am still yet to receive a formal response

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/v...

Yours faithfully,

John