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

    Anyways back to Defamation or I could go on all day.
    Being a self Govern Colony of England can we use there Defamation act 2013 which has been reformed? instead of our 2005 Act?

    The signature reform in the defamation act of 2013 is to be found in section 1 which imposes a threshold of seriousness on defamation actions, it provides the defamation actions will no longer be permitted to proceed unless the claimant has suffered or is likely to suffer serious reputational harm, or in the case of a body the trades for profit serious financial loss.
    it's a reform about trivial defamation actions, it may ultimately be of more symbolic than practical import caught it already in recent years develop principles and procedures for weeding out relatively trivial defamation claims.
    None the less the provision will serve to deter and fortify courts in bringing to an end defamation claims of marginal merit.
    in my view the most important reform in the new law is likely to prove to be the new defence of honest opinion which replaces the ancient common law of fair comment which is abolished by the defamation act of 2013.
    The new defence is much more liberal than the defence of replace, it's capable of protecting honestly expressed opinions as opposed to assertions of fact on any subject matter.
    The defence appears to be capable in some circumstances of protecting the expression of opinions that could have been held by an honest person even on the basis of an incomplete or distorted view of the underlying fact or on the basis of fact that would not known to the publisher at the time of publication and upon which the opinion was not based in each of those respects.

     
  2. Rod

    Rod Lawyer
    LawTap Verified

    Joined:
    27 May 2014
    Messages:
    6,114
    Likes Received:
    850
    No.

    There is no need to address the rest of your comments about defamation because you cannot use the British Defamation Act 2013 in Australia.

    If I was in WA looking at your defamation matter, and considering I haven't watched the entire video carefully, or read the concerns notice, my guesstimate is you do not have a slam dunk winnable case. Now they get to choose which court, could be a local court or WA Supreme Court. Do you really want to go to the WA Supreme Court and face having to pay their expensive legal costs if you lose? Remember the court can order that you pay $1 plus legal costs. Legal costs in the Supreme Court are not cheap and start at multiple tens of thousands and go up from there.

    There was a defamation case in NSW in April 2019 where an employer defamed a young ex-employee to 35 people. The employee received $230K + legal costs. Do you really want to risk your home and relationship over this issue?

    And please stop reading freeman of the land articles. It confuses people and is just wrong. Another way to view their rubbish is to let's just pretend we are in fantasy land for a moment, and the freemen adherents are right about something fundamental and local government doesn't exist or is a company registered in Delaware USA.

    It is not enough to be right. The right has to be supported by courts and judgments made proving they are right. The High Court is likely to step in and overrule any such decisions made by lower courts that throws into disarray our whole system of local government. If the High Court doesn't do this, then each State Government will review their laws and pass retrospective legislation 'fixing' the problem.

    Now, it just so happens that attempts by people to have local or State governments declared illegal in courts has been tried and failed many times before. One such case in the QLD Supreme Court is R v Stoneman [2013] QCA 209 (30 July 2013).

    The Freeman of the land people use pseudo-legal language to dress up logical fallacies because they just don't like the laws they have to abide by. Cth referendums are completely irrelevant to the existence of local government but are an excellent example of Freeman talk using pseudo-legal arguments in an attempt to run an argument as to why they shouldn't pay rates or fines levied by local governments.

    Many people left Europe and colonised the USA because they didn't like the laws and discrimination they faced in their own country. Trouble is nowadays there is nowhere you can go to escape government control. You are always free to attempt to emigrate elsewhere, maybe even Britain.

    Seriously mate, give up the freeman nonsense and concentrate on your defamation matter. Get real legal advice, and quickly. You have a time limit to make an offer of amends before they decide to take action regardless of what you do. ATM you have some control over the situation, come 28 days of the date of the letter, control passes totally to the other side.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    #12 Rod, 12 July 2019
    Last edited: 12 July 2019
    Rob Legat - SBPL likes this.
  3. pierre

    pierre Active Member

    Joined:
    10 July 2019
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks Rod
    So I cant use British Defamation 2013, but I can still refer to there cases ??
    If I am able to use Legal aid, does this change anything? eg the way they can recover costs if I lose? and what court?
    And regarding the freeman, in my option its a growing concern that this country has major connotational issues. And with social media it doesn't take much for people like me to jump on board.
    I feel victimised as it is out-front of my home and for 6 years there wasn't a issue until one person decides to take my street as a thoroughfare and complains.
    I did get a response yesterday from the council stating, It is the intent of the Local Law that part of a vehicle `overhanging' the carriageway is to be considered as being on the carriageway in order to avoid causing a dangerous obstruction to other road users.

    Intent what a load of rubbish, yea this would make sense if nobody is allowed to park on the road, or if I stuck out further then a parallel parked car. And there consideration is not Law.

    6.9 Stopping on a path The driver of a vehicle (other than a bicycle, an electric personal transporter or an animal) shall not stop so that any portion of the vehicle is on a path.
    "So that clearly states any portion of the vehicle."


    6.10 Stopping on a verge
    (1) A person shall not stop -

    (a) a vehicle (other than a bicycle);
    (b) a commercial vehicle with a GMV in excess of 2.5 tonnes, or bus, or a trailer or caravan unattached to a motor vehicle; or
    (c) a vehicle during any period when stopping of vehicles on that verge is prohibited by a sign adjacent and referable to that verge, so that any portion of it is on a verge
    .
    (2) Subclause (1)(a) does not apply to the driver if he or she is the owner or occupier of a premises that abuts the verge or is a person authorised by the owner or occupier of those premises to park the vehicle so that any portion of it is on the verge.

    (3) Subclause (1)(b) does not apply to a commercial vehicle when it is being loaded or unloaded with reasonable expedition with goods or materials collected from or delivered to the premises that abuts the verge on which the commercial vehicle is parked, (but in any event not for any period exceeding 3 consecutive hours between the hours of 7am and 6pm WAST and not at any other time), provided no obstruction is caused to the passage of any other vehicle or person using a carriageway or path.

    (4) Notwithstanding subclause (2) and (3), clause 4.2 applies.

    6.11 Driving over a residential verge
    A person must not drive a vehicle over or across a residential verge adjacent to a length of carriageway to access a private driveway or an adjacent verge.

    6.12 Obstructing access to a path or crossover
    (1) A person shall not stop a vehicle so that any portion of the vehicle is in front of a path or in a position that obstructs access or egress by other vehicles or pedestrians to that path, unless -

    (a) the driver is dropping off or picking up passengers and shall not remain for longer than 2 minutes; or
    (b) the driver stops in a parking bay and the driver is permitted to stop in the parking bay under this local law.

    (2) A person shall not stop a vehicle on or across a crossover or other way of access for vehicles travelling to or from adjacent land, unless -

    (a) the vehicle is dropping off, or picking up, passengers and shall not remain for longer than 2 minutes;
    (b) the vehicle stops in a parking bay and the vehicle is permitted to stop in the parking bay under this local law; or
    (c) the driver is the owner or occupier of the premises that abuts the crossover or is a person permitted by the owner or occupier of the premises.

    (3) A person shall not park a vehicle on a crossover if any portion of the vehicle obstructs a footpath or prolongation thereof.

    once again, the intent comment is rubbish, out of all these section where they could states something about any portion of vehicle on the carriageway, they did not. so basically there making there so called Laws to fit.
    That's why Rod the system is broken, people have nowhere to go other then social media. The court that they will take me to regarding this matter or any is unjust and the court will always have a duty to protect the system.
    Do I get a fair hearing? No chance.
    So here I am on a Saturday morning left to ponder what the outcome of this will be?
    option 1 Pay and enjoy getting f****d in the ass by the system with my pants on.
    option 2 Elect to go to court and get f****d in the ass with my pants on and pay additional costs

    mmm tough one
     
  4. Rod

    Rod Lawyer
    LawTap Verified

    Joined:
    27 May 2014
    Messages:
    6,114
    Likes Received:
    850
    You can refer to some of their cases. Where their law is different to ours, the case reference is not going to be of any value.

    I can't see WA legal aid helping with a defamation claim, but worth a try.

    Social media is fine to say the system is broken and needs fixing. What you can't do is say Ranger <insert name> is a dipsh.t (or insert profanity/derogatory phrase of choice). Do not name individuals, or do/say anything that can identify individuals.

    I make no comment about the WA road rules. We have tax cameras here in Vic masquerading as 'safety cameras' and these are a pet dislike of mine.

    But this is the system we have. Some people in the council may even be sympathetic with you and your fines, but I'd not expect them to come out and say so. They are bound to support their employee. After all this dies down and you've paid your fines, they may have a quiet word in the ears of certain rangers, but that is unlikely to help you. It may be that one of your neighbours has made a complaint and the council is obliged to follow it up else they become partly liable if someone kills themselves on your vehicle while it overhangs the road.

    I'd go with option 1 on your fines. It least you get to keep your pants on.
    I'd make an offer of amends on the defamation matter.

    Then consider changing vehicles to a short wheel base or moving to a location where you don't have this issue.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  5. sammy01

    sammy01 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    27 September 2015
    Messages:
    3,419
    Likes Received:
    495
    Mate Dan is a legend. You owe him an apology. He could have chosen to leave as soon as you informed him you were filming. He didn't... He calmly explained the rules. In response to that you make a youtube clip full of potty mouth.
    So I note that you think that sort of language is ok. The law disagrees with you.
    https://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/...8eff39c467f4d74d48257019001698b8?OpenDocument
    Fine? up to $6000.
    Go and get your Macquarie dictionary, look the C word up again. Sure, can be positive, can be neutral, but, I think you need to keep reading, I'm sure it says something about how the term can be used in a derogatory fashion. It seems very obvious which way you're intending it.... So let's put it to the pepsi challenge. Go stand by a mirror and repeat this phrase "you are a dumb C$*T." Go on dare ya, go and get your pint sized pocket Aussie Dictionary and write out the whole definition from your dictionary and post it here.... Dare ya.
    So as to the defamation due to the offensive language. Guilty. What I find truly amazing about this is that you stated that you felt victimised? Poor you, some bloke came and explained politely, that according to his employer you need to do something with the car. He was polite, he was calm, he had to repeat himself several times. But he not once broke a sweat from the frustration, all the while you're filming him... You then post that stuff on a public forum where you use disparaging rude and offensive comments about legend Dan.... But you feel victimised. You are more than a little precious.

    But - there is this thing I like. It is called common sense. Your vehicle appears to be poking out onto the road, it also appears to be obstructing the footpath. At about 5m 30 sec. I can't see but I reckon the thing has a tow ball. Have you ever hit your shin on one of those suckers? OUCH. So old mate in his mobility scooter can't get through on the footpath because of YOU. And IF old mate on his mobility scooter had to use the road to get past, you have made that more dangerous for him too. All the worse if ol' mate on his scooter is out after sunset... Now I wanted to check my facts here. So I found your vehicle on google maps
    Google Maps

    So in the video it appears to be further forward towards the road than on this view. Footpath seems pretty bloody narrow. I reckon the way the car appears in your video would make it hard for ol' mate in his scooter, possible a hazard for the postie. Oh and there doesn't seem to be lots of cars parked on the road, so can't use the "No where else to park" defence. So, yes it is a potential hazard to other punters.

    Now I'm willing to bet Shirley, the local busy body down at number 8 has been onto council and if they don't follow up on Shirley's complaint, then no doubt she will make their lives hell. So ol' mate Dan the legend has come to explain. Shirley has a right to complain, Legend Dan has an obligation to investigate the complaint and you can choose this hill to die on if you want and if you do, I'd love to know how you go... But you are in the wrong.

    So at about the 6min mark you whinge about needing to 'identify the driver'. Mate they just wanna know who put the car there so that person can cop the fine. No conspiracy, just them wanting the right person to be held responsible. Seems to me that you're spending an awful lot of time trying to justify something / find excuses to get away with it. You could have moved the car in 1 min - how long did the 25 min youtube take?

    The rules state that you've gotta park park your car parallel, and in the direction of the flow of traffic. What I find truly bazaar about the lengths you're going to is that there appears to be plenty of parking on the road, right out front. What is the big deal? Let the bomb leak oil on the road rather than on your drive-way...

    Now, lets think about your approach here. You seem to agree about the reflector thing hence you put the witches hat there. But the law doesn't say 'unless you put a witches hat near by." Seems to me by putting the witches hat there, you're agreeing there needs to something with reflection and without it, the thing would be dangerous. Why else put it there?

    Now as to the bit where you question their authority to fine you... Seems to me that you're grasping at straws. You're not gonna win and I reckon you are totally wrong... The council are responsible for roads, garbage utilities. Seems to be that your house / car has these things. So you're happy to utilise the facilities that are provided by council but you're not wanting to abide by their rules. Turn your water off. Don't use the garbage service, don't use the road or footpath. While you're there don't use medicare, or send your kids to school or any other govt funded service. See the premise to our society is really well communicated in a book by a guy called Rousseau. Living in a free society comes with some give and take. John Stuart Mill said it best. Let me paraphrase it. Your right to park your car ends when it obstructs my ability to use the footpath... Or something like that...

    Happily we live in a free country. The comparison you appear to be making at the end of the youtube is that somehow a parking ticket is comparable to years of imprisonment without trial as is the case in Guantanamo Bay. That is a huge stretch. So the injustice felt by YOU here is equivalent with being forced to wear Orange, oh and be deprived of your freedom? Wow - You're being a little bit precious.

    Have your day in court, you will not win... Get back to us once that happens. And give us some lame justification about the inhumanity of it, the corruption, their failure to understand that you're a big boy with a big car and that makes you more entitled..... Or move the car.
     
    #15 sammy01, 15 July 2019
    Last edited: 15 July 2019
Loading...

Share This Page

Loading...
gt;