WA Posting on YouTube now have a Concerns notice-Defamatory Comments

Discussion in 'Defamation Law Forum' started by pierre, 10 July 2019.

  1. pierre

    pierre Active Member

    Joined:
    10 July 2019
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Getting harassed by my local council, regarding parking at my premises. due to frustration I made a YouTube video regarding the ranger that visited me. https://youtu.be/z1ougGgzWFU I have expressed my self in the Australian slang way with text throughout the video, This has been deemed defamatory by the city of Sterling legal team who are acting on behalf of the ranger.
    my first question is that part 2 of the 2005 defamation act it states
    9. Certain corporations do not have cause of action for defamation
    (1) A corporation has no cause of action for defamation in relation to the publication of defamatory matter about the corporation unless it was an excluded corporation at the time of the publication.
    Can the corporation still act on behalf of there employee?

    Q 2
    Part 1 — Preliminary
    3. Objects of Act
    (b) to ensure that the law of defamation does not place unreasonable limits on freedom of expression and, in particular, on the publication and discussion of matters of public interest and importance.

    I believe I'm just expressing myself, would really appreciate anyone's comments on this matter.
    Thanks
     
  2. Rod

    Rod Lawyer
    LawTap Verified

    Joined:
    27 May 2014
    Messages:
    6,267
    Likes Received:
    876
    1. I suspect the proposed action is by Ranger Dan, not the city of Stirling. So, yes the city can use its resources to help Ranger Dan.

    2. I didn't watch all the video. What are the imputations being complained about in the concerns letter?

    And yes, public interest and fair comment can be a defence. I make no comment about whether the defences would win the day in court.

    What have they asked you to do? (eg remove the video?)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  3. Rob Legat - SBPL

    LawTap Verified

    Joined:
    16 February 2017
    Messages:
    1,988
    Likes Received:
    422
    I got about 30 seconds in. The text when you’re opening the door is reminiscent of the ‘freeman on the land’ rubbish that always seems to be circulating.

    You’re not going to get anywhere in a court if that’s going to be your attitude or argument in any form.

    Further, abuse of public servants going about their jobs and/or singling them out in a public manner is not going to be looked on favourably in court.

    And, given the amount of post production obviously spent on the video it is clear that the action is not a spur of the moment thing. You’re unlikely to be given any wiggle room in any analysis of what you’ve published.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  4. pierre

    pierre Active Member

    Joined:
    10 July 2019
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for your response Rod

    The letter addressed to me from there legal team says
    We act for the city of Stirling who employ a ranger Mr Daniel ------ .
    and basically says
    My comments make give rise to imputations to the effect that

    (a) Daniel ------ is not acting lawfully " I can prove the city of Stirling and there authority is unlawful"
    (B) Danial ------- is incompetent " I can prove that he is incompetent for issuing a fine for the offence that is wrong"
    (c) says all the comments I made
    is intended to lower him in the estimation of right thinking members of the community. " I could say the same thing towards me in the video"

    The publication of these comments on you tube are false, defamatory and aggravated by malice in which you have impugned the reputation and standing of Daniel -------


    I would never believe in this day and age that putting text in a video the likes of your a dickhead or dip s**t or your being a dick would not be a protected freedom of expression and based on my opium, not fact.
    The Fact is without hearing someone saying the word, your interpretations could be wrong. I often say to my friends and family shut up dickhead or c**t.
    in the Macquarie Dictionary of Australia English c**t can be used as a neutral or, when used with a positive qualifier ( e.g., good, funny, clever), a positive way of referring to a person. so when I text in my video "for being a Cocky c**t" how is this defamation?
    And if you watch the video he is being a smart ass.
    I have 3 infringements now for the offence 3.2 (2) (a) Parking and local laws 2014 City of Stirling have been knocking on my door for a few years now, but 3.2 is about parking and stopping on a carriageway and my car is not on the carriageway.

    A written offer to make amends which must include.

    (a) Immediately removing for publication the you tube video
    (b) provide Daniel ----- a written apology
    (c) publish a letter to the recipients of the defamatory statements, withdrawing the defamatory material and acknowledging that the publication were improperly made and
    (d) Damages in respect of your action in defamation are to be assessed having regard to any apology that may be forthcoming.

    Any ways sorry Rod for rambling on but this just really frustrates me, the abuse of council powers, for them to make bylaw's when ever they want, to come to my house and to try to make a bylaw fit for my offence to basically steel from me.
    All local Government has been constitutionally unlawful since 3-Sept-88 when there was a referendum to incorporate Local Government into the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act 1901.
    All 3 referendums was a no vote
    In the 1999 Referendum, we the people also voted to remain a Constitutional Monarchy – We are not a democracy (mobocracy). A lynch mob, is a democracy – the majority wants to hang the minority.
    In 1999 WE remain a Constitutional Monarchy under English Common Law. and above all is God’s law in the KJV 1611
    And yet here are the officers of a local council at my door asserting there unlawful authority.
     
  5. pierre

    pierre Active Member

    Joined:
    10 July 2019
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  6. Rod

    Rod Lawyer
    LawTap Verified

    Joined:
    27 May 2014
    Messages:
    6,267
    Likes Received:
    876
    wrt the imputations:

    (a) They will likely win. I can't see you proving the council is acting unlawfully. Regardless of the merits of your argument, the justice system recognises councils have a legitimate role to play in our community. You will not convince a judge otherwise.
    (b) Not sure you can prove he is wrong. Your car overhangs the road at the front. Technically I suspect the ranger is correct, though I have not read the WA road rules to confirm this statement.
    (c) Hmm, interesting one. Many right thinking members of the community do not like parking officers so not sure they'll be successful saying you're lowering people's opinions any further than they already are.

    I'd be removing the video, and apologising. Not sure I'd pay any money, well, maybe a dollar. The alternative of going to court is not a good experience and likely costly. There is an argument that council would be wasting funds chasing you at court over a matter like this when an apology has already been made. ie not a proper use of public money.

    re: Local councils. Councils/cities/etc existed in England well before the concept was exported to Australian colonies. Australia, when it comes to British settlement, existed as a number of independent colonies which morphed into States. The ability of councils/municipalities to generate rates and taxes has always existed and will continue to exist for the foreseeable future. The 1988 referendum was more about the Cth trying to remove powers from the States, not recognising local councils. The Hawke Government was frustrated with State resistance to his/Keating's reform plans and saw recognising councils would be one way to bypass State control in many areas. There was some thinking at the time that a 3 tiered system of government was excessive and that 2 tiers would be better (Cth and local councils - no States).

    Any argument you try to raise about legitimacy of local councils at court will severely lower your credibility.

    With an apology I'd be saying the ranger committed offences as well - driving off with no blinker, arm outside window waving a piece of paper. Cops say it is unsafe to drive without 2 hands on the steering wheel. Then I'd be suggesting the matter end with the apology.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  7. pierre

    pierre Active Member

    Joined:
    10 July 2019
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0

    Yea your probably right about trying to prove that councils are unlawful wouldn't do me any favours in court.
    when I received the 3rd ticket which I'm going to make a second video about it, I went strait to the council with my camera and confronted them about it.
    They didn't like me filming say this is a privet building and your not allowed to film supposedly in a public lobby ( feels like dictatorship china)
    I informed them I was well within my right to record and document my appeal.
    As I was getting nowhere with my appeal via email I met with the coordinator manager there and I explained to her if she can prove how clause 3.2 (Parking and stopping on a carriageway) applies to my vehicle when I'm not actually on the road. I also informed her that it says nothing about protruding into to the carriageway or overhanging. I also said if you can show me that I'm incorrect, I am more then happy to pay all 3 fines right now at the cashier.
    She smiled and walked of with my infringement to prove that I was wrong and said, give me a few min and I will look into it.
    10 min passed she comes back saying I have spoke with her manager and we will have to get back to me on this.
    This was a Wed morning, she said give me a few days to look into it.
    5 days passed I got a email saying, I haven't forgotten about you Mr Bilic our legal team are reviewing it.
    After viewing that email I decided since there legal team is reviewing it I should send the 10 unanswered questions that they have bothered to skip around with and these questions have nothing to do with free man of the land and proving there legitimacy, they are honest questions about my appeal e:g (why is the description of the offence not verbatim to there Parking and local laws act.
    I said there description of the offence 3.2 (2) (a) is all jumbled up to create a description to suit them with also deleted words in the paragraphs, is it led to believe that the rangers when writing up the ticket in there vehicles can write what ever they want.
    funny enough they replied
    The City of Stirling Parking Infringements is issued from an electronic system the offences and fees are preloaded and are not able to be altered by the issuing officer.
    I replied thanks for that but you haven't answered why is it not the same as its written in your parking and local laws.
    So to me this proves that somehow that ranger Dan can alter the description on his laptop wile printing it out,
    or there electronic system has dyslexia issues.
    So as I wrote this new email asking for more clarification, I also referred to a link from my you tube video where they can view the description that the range wrote.
    So 5 days have already passed and now another 8 days have passed with no response to my clarification, then I get from there lawyers this defamation concern letter.
    So yesterday I decided to send another email stating they have 7 more days to respond to my appeal and questions or the matter will be classed as withdrawn.
    Further more

    1. Confirms that the offence 3.2 Parking and local Laws is invalid to infringe me under this offence.
    2. Confirms that the City of Stirling is wrong and is unlawful.
    3. Confirms that you ranger issuing the fine is incompetent.
    4. Confirms that my terms and fees will be met.
    5. Confirms that the issue is/will be withdrawal.

    If none of the above requirements are complied with by the due date shown, 17/July/ 2019

    A final Demand Notice will be issued which will incur additional costs.

    Below is my first response to the city of Stirling, and as a company I sent my terms and fees before my appeal

    To: City of Stirling ABN: 26 744 398 382

    Address: 25 Cedric Street Stirling 6021

    NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO: Parking Infringement No: 40113435 & 40113436

    This is the first I have seen or heard of this Notice.

    I hereby give notice WITHOUT PREJUDICE to clear up matters regarding this Notice of Breach which your officer/ranger attached to my automobile.. I do not know of the Corporation on the Notice. I also object to any claim you may deem to have against me.

    Further more the offence clause P3.2 (2) (a) under the City of Stirling Parking local Laws 2014, is completely different of arrangement of wording then on the infringement notice on my automobile. This is clearly a deception from the city of Stirling on behalf to write there unlawful laws as they see fit when they see fit to do so. Without the proper wording and the clear deception to change the wording of the description on the infringements, makes these infringements null and void.

    No contract exists between us and I reject your offer of contract. Should you continue to illegally pursue this matter to charge a tax/fine/penalty/ or ongoing costs, then you are required to supply to me via Registered Mail within ten working days from the above date, the following information so as to determine whether I take it further to a court of competent jurisdiction.

    A sworn affidavit under threat of perjury, and documentation that substantiates your claim

    Irrefutable proof that there is a binding contract between the owner of the said automobile and the City of Stirling Parking Enforcement Dept. or any other party that directly or indirectly forms part of your Corporation/Company.

    Irrefutable proof that the automobile was parked at the time and place you claim.

    Pursuant to Question 3 of the 1988 Referendum, state your valid authority in law to issue such fines/penalties etc.


    This is my counter offer – I enclose a copy of my Schedule of Fees and Notice of Communication should you wish to continue with this matter. If I do not receive your response within 10 business days via Registered Mail then it is accepted that you;

    a) admit and agree that the requested documentation cannot be produced.

    b) agree that Section 109 of “The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia Act” 1901 prevails.

    c) agree that you also are bound by Clause 5 of the same aforementioned Act.

    d) agree that you knowingly, wilfully and intentionally failed to provide proof of claim within the specified time herein.

    e) the conditions required are not vexatious nor frivolous

    f) agree you are prohibited from taking any further action in this matter directly or indirectly in any way or via any other party

    g) you further agree that any attempt to do so is a serious breach of Section 43 of the Crimes Act 1914

    h) If you, an Officer or authorised representative of the City of Stirling Parking Infringement Dept. a Private Corporation ABN 26 744 398 382 agree with the above terms and conditions and contract offer within the specified time for response, or answer any of the above points incompletely, then simply do nothing and my fee for this letter will be waived.




    They have 6 more days to respond, I'm not sure what the outcome will be but if I can prove that the city of Stirling have no claim on the infringement and can prove the ranger is incompetent, I can also prove that I'm the victim here getting harassed and it will sure look better for me in the defamation noticed.
    Once again Thanks Rod for your time
     
  8. Rob Legat - SBPL

    LawTap Verified

    Joined:
    16 February 2017
    Messages:
    1,988
    Likes Received:
    422
    I’m going to do you a favour by pointing out a few places where you’re going wrong. I’m not covering everything, and I’m fully aware you may likely disagree. Please also be aware you are getting this for $0.00, so you’ll get the $0.00 explanation. If you want justification, I’m happy to do so at my hourly rate.

    You don’t get to make this determination. They will likely have an appeals process but, whether they do or not, seven days’ notice is generally unreasonable unless an emergency (and I don’t think this qualifies). You also can’t unilaterally ‘withdraw’ their infringement notice. It’s theirs to withdraw – not yours.

    I would bet the “City of Stirling” is a lawful government entity and, even if it somehow wasn’t, the laws would be fixed to retrospectively make it so. Otherwise, the area and its residents have bigger problems that your infringement.

    You likely don’t have a legal basis upon which to base your demand and, accordingly, it will be ineffective. You also likely don’t have a legal basis on which to charge ‘costs’. Think of it this way: Does the Ranger have a right to charge you an appearance fee for appearing in your video? Of course not. Now apply that logic to your ‘demand’.

    This is no doubt a ‘freeman on the land’ conceptual argument. The council is not a corporation. It’s a legislated local government entity.

    So? The wording on the infringement refers to the requirement and contextualises it for apparent ease of reading. It’s not the exact wording set out in the local law – probably because local law 3.2 deals with a lot more that what your infringement notice covers.

    They could just refer to local law 3.2(2)(a) without the explanation; and they haven’t omitted the local law reference. Essentially here you’re ‘splitting hairs’, and current judicial reasoning and determination will not side with you.

    The infringement notice doesn’t misrepresent the content of the local law in any way that I can see. The relevant main elements are still presented in a consistent manner: ‘two-way carriageway’, ‘parking’, ‘not in parking bay’, ‘parallel with the left boundary of the carriageway’, ‘headed in the direction of traffic’.

    More ‘freeman on the land’ rhetoric. This isn’t a matter of contract, it’s a matter of legislated regulation. If there’s any ‘contract’ here, it’s the social contract that we live in a society under the rule of law and we abide by those rules as a whole package. We don’t get to pick and choose. If you participate in, and gain advantage from society, we abide by the rules. If not, we suffer the consequences.

    Nope. They’re under no obligation to do that.

    This made me chuckle. There’s ‘irrefutable proof’ in your own video.

    The Referendum question didn’t pass, so the question itself is not relevant. Further, the Commonwealth of Australia was formed by the States, and only has the powers ceded to it be the States. State governments have the power over local government. Accordingly, the Commonwealth Constitution has nothing to do with the matter.

    You can’t deem someone else to have done something simply because they don’t comply with your demands unless there’s a solid legal basis for it, and I’m not aware of any such thing in your circumstances.

    I’ll see your section 5, and raise you sections 51, 107, and 118. Local government is not a reserve power of the Commonwealth.

    The Crimes Act only applies to Commonwealth jurisdictions – this isn’t one. In any case, my understanding of section 43 is that it applies to proceedings before a court or tribunal, which this isn’t. Further, that charge would have to be against a person.



    In any case, the video clearly shows that you’re sticking out onto the road. That’s a hazard. Council isn’t attacking your personal freedom; they’re simply trying to make the roads a safe environment so far as reasonably possible. Your sticking out on to the road could be a contributing factor to an accident.

    You’re probably lucky they don’t also get you for whatever their version is of obstructing a public thoroughfare (the nature strip between the road and your property).
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  9. pierre

    pierre Active Member

    Joined:
    10 July 2019
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    you are getting this for $0.00, so you’ll get the $0.00 explanation.
    Thanks Rob this one made me chuckle, I am very grateful for you or anyone on this forum for taking there time to respond to me. I don't assume to know everything and most of my so call knowledge of the freeman of the land has just started from the first fine dating 15 may 2019.

    You don’t get to make this determination. They will likely have an appeals process but, whether they do or not, seven days’ notice is generally unreasonable unless an emergency (and I don’t think this qualifies)
    So I have no rights? this has been going on for 2 months. The seven days notice was an extension from the nine days that have passed from there last email.

    I would bet the “City of Stirling” is a lawful government entity and, even if it somehow wasn’t, the laws would be fixed to retrospectively make it so. Otherwise, the area and its residents have bigger problems that your infringement.
    Rob are you a betting man? Even thou I'm not a lawyer, and only have a year 9 education, I would take that bet on to Prove that they are Unlawful, and I chuckled again from your comment (even if it somehow wasn’t, the laws would be fixed to retrospectively make it so.) Laws or Legislations? The Question is fixed by who? we the people or we the corporation of Australia?


    You likely don’t have a legal basis upon which to base your demand and, accordingly, it will be ineffective. You also likely don’t have a legal basis on which to charge ‘costs’. Think of it this way: Does the Ranger have a right to charge you an appearance fee for appearing in your video? Of course not. Now apply that logic to your ‘demand’.
    Rob they have a ABN Yea? So my company can't contract with them?? The Difference here Rob is that they are already on the books and getting paid by me as a so called public servant, wouldn't it be double dipping.

    This is no doubt a ‘freeman on the land’ conceptual argument. The council is not a corporation. It’s a legislated local government entity.
    Here is what I, lol as a freeman found.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY ACT 1983 – SECT 4
    4—Establishment of the Authority

    (1) The Local Government Finance Authority of Western Australia is established.

    (2) The Authority—

    (a) is a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal; and

    (b) is capable in its corporate name of acquiring, holding, dealing with and disposing of real and personal property; and

    (c) is capable of acquiring or incurring any other rights or liabilities and of suing and being sued in its corporate name; and

    (d) has the powers, authorities, duties and functions prescribed by or under this or any other Act.

    (3) In any legal proceedings, an apparently genuine document purporting to bear the common seal of the Authority will be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary, to have been duly executed by the Authority.

    (4) The Authority is a statutory authority established for the benefit of councils and other prescribed local government bodies within the State. It is not part of the Crown, nor is it an agency or instrumentality of the Crown.
    (5) The Authority cannot be brought under the operation of the Public Corporations Act 1993 .

    Queensland Consolidated Acts


    STATUTORY BODIES FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT 1982 – SECT 74
    Register about approvals for a statutory body

    74 Register about approvals for a statutory body
    A statutory body must keep a register of the Treasurer’s approvals under this division for the body’s exercise of a power.
    Ask your local councilor for such records – hmmm

    Here is the full “Act” STATUTORY BODIES FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT 1982


    STATUTORY BODIES FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT 1982 – SECT 48
    Investment documents to be held by statutory body or as approved

    48 Investment documents to be held by statutory body or as approved
    A security, safe custody acknowledgment or other document evidencing title accepted, guaranteed or issued for an investment arrangement must be held by the statutory body or in another way approved by the Treasurer.


    They could just refer to local law 3.2(2)(a) without the explanation; and they haven’t omitted the local law reference. Essentially here you’re ‘splitting hairs’, and current judicial reasoning and determination will not side with you.

    splitting hairs’ Lol isn't this as you guys say Law? and its defiantly not easier to read, if anything it is harder to read and to understand, But you are missing the point 3.2 Is (Parking and Stopping on a Carriageway) how can this not be in the description? Better yet how can they state a description 3.2 and not show any reference on the ticket of the law they are referring, all they have on top of the ticket is
    Local Government Act 1995 and Local Government (Functions and General) Regulation 1996 which is supposedly there Authority. I wasted so much time looking under these Acts to find 3.2 (2) (a) in the end I had to call the council to find out it was Parking and Local Laws 2014, how hard is it to put that on the ticket, there is a front and back side with a hole lot of other information.
    How many just pay and cant be bothered to look? Clear deception

    The infringement notice doesn’t misrepresent the content of the local law in any way that I can see.
    Once again if it doesn't state the Parking and Local law 2014 on the ticket and 3.2 clause is Parking and Stopping on a carriageway, then it sure is a misrepresent the content of the local law.

    More ‘freeman on the land’ rhetoric. This isn’t a matter of contract, it’s a matter of legislated regulation.
    Don't Think so Bud, If they are unlawful than this is all contracts.

    Nope. They’re under no obligation to do that.
    No lawful authority, Yes I can

    This made me chuckle. There’s ‘irrefutable proof’ in your own video.
    Lol there is now, but at the time of sending this request the video was not made.
     
  10. pierre

    pierre Active Member

    Joined:
    10 July 2019
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Referendum question didn’t pass, so the question itself is not relevant. Further, the Commonwealth of Australia was formed by the States, and only has the powers ceded to it be the States. State governments have the power over local government. Accordingly, the Commonwealth Constitution has nothing to do with the matter.

    Really Rob the Commonwealth Constitution has nothing to do with the matter?

    HISTORY LESSON – Prior to 1900, there were no States, they were known as Colonies and were all independent, under British military law. Those independent Colonies had agreements for trade, etc under the Federal Councils of Australasia Act 1855. As free settlers began to grow in number, the People decided to unite under one form of government. Years of conventions and referendums were held and in 1898–1900 culminated in the Draft Constitution of the People which went to England for ratification. On July 9 1900, Queen Victoria signed the amended draft Constitution and returned it to Australia.


    It was approved by the people and The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (UK) was brought into Australian law on 1st January 1901 and became the Founding and Primary law for all now named States and Governments, Courts, Police and People, over and above anything in previous State or Colony laws.

    Here are some extracts from your Local Council Rob following my questions including asking for their legitimacy of authority.


    1 – The States already have sufficient legitimate authority to grant a range of powers to Councils across Australia including the power to levy rates and charges. There have been no alterations to the Local Government Act legislation as a result of the April 2016 COAG meeting.


    2 – Council issues rates under the Local Government Act 2009 and the Local Government Regulation 2012


    3 – Council can charge interest as set out in the Section 133 of the Local Government Regulation 2012.


    4 – Ultimately, if the rates remain unpaid for a peroidof3 years or more, the Council can sell the property at public auction to recover the overdue rates, Those gems were signed by the “Rates Team Leader”


    Here are some extracts from the Queensland Minister for Local Government


    1 – The defeat of the1974 and 1988 Referendums did not make any change to the Australian Constitution, nor did it invalidate the State system of Local Government.


    2 – Under Sect 2 of the Constitution Act 1867 and Section 8 of the Constitution of Queensland Act 2001, the Qld Parliament has the power to make laws for the peace, welfare and good governance of the State in all cases including taxation……


    3 – Section 70 of the 2001 Act ( Qld Constitution) specifically states that there is to be a system of Local Government in Qld.


    Anyone who thinks and investigates knows that in 1900 the Referendum was accepted by the people to unite under one Government. All previous State legislation was allowed to continue EXCEPT anything which was in conflict with the new CONSTITUTION OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1901. That is clear in Section 109. Today, Local Councils have no place in our land. So why did the power hungry try in 1974 and 1988 with the Referendums asking for a 3rd tier of Gov’t , specifically Local Government if it was legitimate ??? It was NOT legit and the people clearly said a big fat NO.



    I’ll see your section 5, and raise you sections 51, 107, and 118. Local government is not a reserve power of the Commonwealth.
    The Political Parties have had their 3 attempts at getting the Local Governments through and failed, BUT they still want it.


    This shows the utter contempt that these Politicians have as they don’t recognize us.


    A Federal Referendum of the people is an explicitly binding Act on all Governments.


    This also proves that these Australian Governments don’t represent the people of the Commonwealth of Australia as established UNDER the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901 as Proclaimed and Gazetted.
    When Governments don’t listen to Referendums they enact TREASON upon themselves.


    The Crimes Act only applies to Commonwealth jurisdictions – this isn’t one. In any case, my understanding of section 43 is that it applies to proceedings before a court or tribunal, which this isn’t. Further, that charge would have to be against a person.
    Claiming a “Commission from the Government” is an admission of TREASON
    The 1999 Referendum removed the Australia Act 1985 and 1986 and all Acts regarding Local Government, and the attempt to establish a Republic. All Council Staff, CEOs and Councillors are accessories to the Crime and guilty of Misprision of Treason.
    3 x Referendums = cannot have another Local Government Referendum. That is a Fact of Unequivocal Law:



    In any case, the video clearly shows that you’re sticking out onto the road.
    LOL sticking out onto the road. everyone is sticking out on the road when they park regardless of which way it faces. the fact that it doesn't stick out as far as a parallel parked car should be a good thing. My car is more likely to be clipped, like it has been before and broke a mirror from being parked parallel.
    Also I'd like to state that I am parking it like that to reduce the congestion for passing cars. but the fact still remains that I'm not 3.2 parking or stopping on the carriageway. In western Australia it is not against legislation to park on your nature strip/verge, unlike in other states like Vic.
    So obstructing a public thoroughfare is out of the question.


     
Loading...

Share This Page

Loading...
gt;