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

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now
Status
Not open for further replies.

pierre

Well-Known Member
10 July 2019
16
0
76

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.
 

Rod

Lawyer
LawTap Verified
27 May 2014
6,591
915
2,894
can we use there Defamation act 2013 which has been reformed? instead of our 2005 Act?
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rob Legat - SBPL

pierre

Well-Known Member
10 July 2019
16
0
76
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
 

Rod

Lawyer
LawTap Verified
27 May 2014
6,591
915
2,894
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 use saying 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.
 

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
4,166
597
2,894
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.
 
Last edited:

pierre

Well-Known Member
10 July 2019
16
0
76
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.

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.
Sammy Sammy
Lol what is it called when you completely look away at the issues that I'm complaining about and fabricate a different story to one i was trying to explain? Talking Crap?
You can Assume all you want, lol
And great Dan the man just going about his daily job.
When Ranger Dan came to my door, that was the first time I have ever spoke to him, he already stuck a infringement on my truck, without any correspondence with me, even tho a ranger before him said it was ok to park like that. Now if he already spoke to me and I didn't comply, then ok i can see where your coming from. Now once again to ASSume that I'I'bmlockong the footpath and old mate going to hit my towball, oh under your Assumption that i even have one in my story is hilarious.
I don't even know why would you bother with a long response of ASSuming if your not even a lawyer.
TROLL MUCH?
And if you are planning to be one, Fuk me, we are all doomed.
BUT that saying it might work, with the imaginative story telling you have.
Either way the system is rigged and there is no honest lawyer anymore who will, as they say "risk it for a biscuit " lol
Update:
I didn't remove the YouTube clip and responded to the city of stealing legal team with a fantastic letter 3 days before the 28 days passed. After combing through the 2005 defamation act, I found a way out.
I emailed the firm and sent a copy by registered post and to this day, I've had no response from them.
I'll tell you one thing, I made a second YouTube video and this time, I learnt we are all human and we all make mistakes, yes he was only doing his shitty job and probably taking authority a little bit to heart and yes I did over react in some ways, from frustration.
My wife just passed away months before ranger Dan came knocking, she was 39, died in her sleep and 11 months later, the Coroners finding was " cannot find a cause of death" my 6 and 8 year old and myself will never get any closer, as 10 days prior to her death, she was admitted to hospital for a horrific knee injury and 4 hours later discharged, and the forensic pathologist can not formulate a cause. Coincident ?
Yea right!!
anyways thats another story.
back to the update.
So I don't regret anything, if anything I have learned so much, who would have thought I would be reading the deformation act, and learning constitutionl law. And in the last 8 months only learned more.
So my second video was made 8 months ago, and I believe i tried to stick to the facts this time.
I'm about to make a third one.
I really wanted to have my day in court, and all they were saying after rejecting my appeal on there intent of the law was pay or elect to go to court.
BUT BEFORE I could do THAT I wanted more information. Like times and dates when all the rangers have come out and spoke to me regarding my truck parked the way it was.
And would you believe they refused to give that to me?
I was shocked, why not??
All I wanted is to be prepared when i went to court, nothing worse when you can't recall dates and times.
So I pretty much said, if you won't respond to my request, I won't either.
I informed the city of stealing i cannot formulate a dession untill i have that information to go to court or pay.
So I said if you don't I'll return to sender there email and emails will be forwarded to spam.
Lol now its referred to fines and inforcements and I can't ever have my day in court. I honestly believed i would be summoned to court only after finding out that's only for criminal cases.
So this is the lovely corrupt system we have atm. And lawyers and political parties are to blame. So innocent before guilty doesn't comply?? = corruption.
This is how our corrupt council are? ,lol council, I will not call them that, corporations is more fitting.
So what do i have left?? What has this system left me with, that will be there biggest downfall?
The one and only book that still gives me rights, and I'm not talking about the green revised addition.
MY 1901 COMMONWEATH CONSTITUTION
And this path seems to be the path I'm meant to be on.
All those unlawful judges sitting up there in treason that have not taking the path of elegance will end up in jail.
Times are changing, there constant enslavement to the people will come back and bit them in the ass.
I WILL have my day in court and I will not need a corrupt lawyer that is on the take.
I WILL say thanks to the lawyers here that have been helpfully even tho the truth hurts.
The awakening has just begun.
 

sammy01

Well-Known Member
27 September 2015
4,166
597
2,894
Now old mate - I've spent an hour or so writing this. So please come at it with an open mind.
Hey, so I did post on youtube that I saw about your missus passing away. Must be tough... Sorry to hear. Mostly I post on the family law forum with a bit of an emphasis on helping blokes fight the family law system. Respectfully, parking fines and local council is nothing in comparison to fighting to see your kids in the family law courts.

Nope not a troll either - Mate I just disagree with you and I'm gonna have another go at trying to explain why you are wrong... So lets start.
You had a go at me for assuming you have a tow ball.
You wrote:
"old mate going to hit my towball, oh under your Assumption that i even have one in my story is hilarious. "
You do have a tow ball.
Google Maps
I did my research. It has a tow bar. Still hilarious?

And I reckon it is illegally parked. You disagree. I'll get back to this later.

ok so some thinking for you. BTW I'm not a fan of local councils - I found a youtube clip of a guy getting fined for riding a bicycle on a beach in Stirling? wow. Can't ride a bike? what harm is that causing anyone... Anyways - why do you think they gave up on the defamation threat? I'm gonna hazard a guess or two and let you be assured Dan is well upset about this too. See the defamation laws in AU are pretty weak. Council would have to spend thousands of $$$ taking this to court. (I do think you'd almost agree with me that you owe Dan an apology - you came pretty close to saying the same in the second video). So council take you to court over this wasting all that $$$. Rate payer's money. Not their money. It is a bad look. Even if they win they lose. So they made the call not to pursue it. Dan of course can pursue it himself at his own expense. So Dan has been screwed over here too.

Next you wrote:
"BUT BEFORE I could do THAT I wanted more information. Like times and dates when all the rangers have come out and spoke to me regarding my truck parked the way it was.
And would you believe they refused to give that to me?"

Of course they refused. Why should they provide you with information they've already given you? The dates are on the tickets. The other visits, where someone came out to explain. They don't wanna go tracing back through all their records. To help you? Maybe (I doubt it) but maybe they'd do it for someone else as a favour. BUT not for you. Not after what you've posted on youtube. And they don't have to.

"So I pretty much said, if you won't respond to my request, I won't either."
Here is my problem with this one. They have the legal authority according to law to give you a due date with which to pay the fine / seek an appeal. You don't have the legal authority to demand they give you dates.

They have the legal authority to issue the fines. God bless this country, you had an opportunity to appeal. God BLESS THIS COUNTRY.

YOU could have had your day in court.
YOU could have walked into a court shown the judge the photo of the car - like the one on the google map that I linked. That also shows the wall in-front of the house and the tow ball hanging onto the road. The judge could have made a call and YOU would have had your day in court. BUT YOU chose not to. HELL YOU could have gone to court and asked for an adjournment and an order from the judge for council to supply the dates. Maybe the judge would have granted it... Maybe not. But YOU didn't try.

So let's move on to the legal authority argument.
You wrote:
"This is how our corrupt council are? ,lol council, I will not call them that, corporations is more fitting."
And
"The one and only book that still gives me rights, and I'm not talking about the green revised addition.
MY 1901 COMMONWEATH CONSTITUTION "

So let's look at the 1901 constitution. The Constitution which came into effect in 1901 contained two provisions explicitly relating to Aborigines. First, s. 51(xxvi), the 'race power', gave the Commonwealth Parliament power to make laws with respect to 'the people of any race, other than the aboriginal race in any State, for whom it was deemed necessary to make special laws'.

So the 1901 constitution gave the states the right to make their own decisions about indigenous Australians. It gave the federal govt the right to make laws about other races. One of the very first pieces of legislation the Federal govt passed was the White Australia Act of 1901. That law got revoked – hence we now have people from every country on the planet living on our island. Effectively the federal govt considered indigenous Australians as nothing to do with them. That got changed in the 1967 referendum.

So the 1901 version has been updated via a referendum. So that is how the constitution has been changed.

But section 51 of the constitution outlines the responsibilities of the federal govt and the states. It hasn't been changed.. Let me summarise a few bits:
Federal law over-rides state law / local council law… There isn’t a federal law in relation to how you park your car.
The states can make their own laws, so long as they don’t conflict with the laws of the federal gov.
The state govt according to section 51 are within their rights to pass laws. Each state has passed a law called the local govt act. An act of state parliament the devolves some of their responsibilities to local councils. So according to section 51 of the constitution the states can pass laws. They passed a law giving authority for some stuff to local councils. Local councils make rules about stuff like bin night, parking etc etc. All good. All inline with the constitution.

Your questions on notice - Question details

Why didn’t the original constitution mention local councils? With a population of less than 4 million 2 tiers of govt seemed enough. As the population grew and times changed it became apparent that a third tier of govt was required. So let’s think back to 1901. Council bin night wasn’t a thing. People burnt their rubbish in their back yards or inside. As population grew (and we became a hugely wasteful society) we needed bin nights. More people using the roads in cars. More land divided for housing development. All got LAWFULLY delegated by the states to local councils. Leaving the states to deal with bigger issues like education and hospitals. And the Federal govt to deal with the really big issues like defence, immigration, international affairs.

You should read this: Local government and the Commonwealth: an evolving relationship – Parliament of Australia

Now every once in a while a politician or two has suggested a referendum to include a reference to local council in the constitution. Stupid really because the end result is nutters like Wayne Glue among others making outlandish claims which have never ever been established as fact. A few have tried taking this crap to court and they have all failed. Nice fellas like you get caught up in this because you feel aggrieved about the fines. BTW I kinda understand. The thing is parked out front of your house. Is it really harming anyone?

But I do think it is technically illegally parked and council is entitled to write up tickets. You have the right to challenge that in court. I reckon, maybe, a decent judge would have thrown it out because of this thing called common sense. But we will never know because you decided against taking it to court. Now whose fault is that??? YOUR'S.

I wish you well.

Final thing.

You wrote:

“All those unlawful judges sitting up there in treason that have not taking the path of elegance will end up in jail.
Times are changing, there constant enslavement to the people will come back and bit them in the ass.”

I disagree. Over all Australian’s are a pretty apathetic lot. The Captain of the cricket team is more important that our PM…. That is a good thing. It means the system is working pretty well. People are not inciting revolution. WHY? Because it is a good country, the laws are fair. The judges are legitimate and we are not enslaved. Let me prove it to you… You have freedom of speech. You can post on youtube. I can disagree with you. You can appeal the parking fine. You have rights.

Pay the fines. For god sake, don’t lose your licence / car registration only to wait for the cops to do you for driving unregistered because you’re not gonna win.
 

Tim W

Lawyer
LawTap Verified
28 April 2014
3,577
693
2,894
Sydney
@lawanswers Admins....

I believe that that the collective patience of two lawyers here has been exhausted.
There's no helping @pierre... he doesn't want reliable advice, he wants validation of his own tin foil hattery.
I most strongly suggest that he no longer be heard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.