PETER OLNEY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND UPDATE 13122013

Constitution and Local Government .. “UPDATE” – 13 December 2013. Rule of Law to govern must be contrasted against the “rule” of tyrants and dictators! So, what (how many?) federal and State statute laws of “Parliament” are unlawful from a constitutional perspective – thereby causing Parliamentarians to be seen as the dictators? Remember, the Framers of the Constitution in the 1890’s were clear – they held that upon Federation NO Parliament will be ‘sovereign’ over the people. With the constitutions of the States subject to the Commonwealth Constitution (at S 106) then where are all the referendum/s to change both federal and State constitutional settings since then? Standing of the courts. State courts are not usually respectful of the Commonwealth Constitution. Why not? Well, it has not suited the State to do so! They get away with that because not enough people can challenge that in the High Court (it takes a wad of money!), but, also, whilst the High Court refuses to allow specific challenges through its gates to be “heard” (to maintain constitutional governance) we all have yet another problem. The issue now centres on the standing and/or capacity of the courts to do what is right by the people, and by the law of the land, for courts to not be dictated to by “government”. That leads me to a likely problem for any Class Action in the biased courts !!! Consider the comments and case extracts below in relation to court and tribunal matters: COAT CONFERENCE 13 SEPTEMBER 2013 INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION AND TRIBUNAL CRAFT – PANEL DICUSSION. The Hon Jennifer Boland AM Chair, NSW Nursing and Midwifery Tribunal said, using a UK quote: “It should never be forgotten that tribunals exist for users, and not the other way round. No matter how good tribunals may be, they do not fulfill their function unless they are accessible by the people who want to use them, and unless the users receive the help they need to prepare and present their cases. (Carnwath LJ Senior President of Tribunals [UK], Commonwealth Law Conference 2001 “echoing Leggatt L” (in his report “Tribunals for Users – One System One Service”) The right of access to a court or tribunal. It is important to start with a basic premise. That is, it is a fundamental tenet of our common law system that a citizen has (subject to statutory provisions which may declare a litigant to be vexatious) a right of access to a court or tribunal. (see Coco v R (1994) 179 CLR 427 at 446; Re Attorney-General (Cth); Ex parte Skyring (1996) 70 ALJR 321 at 323). “The court must never shy away from the determination of a point sought to be argued simply because it may have major ramifications” Further, it is most important to consider the High Court has made it clear that although a Self Represented Litigant’s [SRL] case may not be clearly articulated, it is the duty of the judicial officer to ascertain the true nature of the case of the SRL. This is explained by the High Court in Neil v Nott (1994)121 ALR 148 as follows: A frequent consequence of self-representation is that the court must assume the burden of endeavouring to ascertain the rights of the parties which are obfuscated (confused, or in the way of their efforts) by their own advocacy. RVI developing “principles for council conduct”. This year the RVI has been working at the question of improving council conduct and a set of principles has been developed. There will be more about this in later ‘Updates’. RVI working to get insurance matters sorted out. Councils have more recently required public liability insurance if using public venues. On top of that the new Incorporated Association Act seems to imply there is need for certain liability insurance to cover office bearers. NOTE: This is not compulsory!!! RVI is looking to see what might be the best way to balance these issues with groups of people in their respective localities, and to offer an overall package to which any sub-group of RVI can be part of. Please discuss these matters with me, or Jack Davis. Peter’s unpaid rates! Whitehorse City Council is still out to “get Olney’s rates”, despite other matters afoot. The saga continues with “unpaid rates” as it is now apparent the Council has acted with “abuse of process” to cause a default judgment against Olney without holding to the point an unresolved dispute needs to be first settled. This is exacabated by the court not giving respect to there validity or invalidity of certain statutes – thereby precluding the M/court from jurisdiction. Registrar (Allen) has been requested in writing to withdraw and cancel the two “Orders”. If he does not soon then “Olney” will take the matter to the Attorney-General .. for system corruption is then clearly involved. There is another issue in that the federal constitutional issues placed on the court table are only able to be handled by a suitable Magistrate in accord with S 39 of the Judiciary Act 1903. The Principal Registrar has totally avoided my request for documentation relating to the authority Magistrate Dunn had in the court on the day to meet the law requirement. So, where does that take us in relation to S 34 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) when error of this nature occurs, and the Magistrate is left open to a charge against him? Happy Christmas, and have a great New Year. Ok, OK, it is that time of the year again. I am more than pleased to wish you all a very Happy Christmas as you consider the ‘reason for the season’, with God’s love shared. As for the New Year … it has its challenges to cope with, and, I trust His strength will be in your heart as you attempt to manage through it all. Web sites, etc. Google www.realaussienews.com/site3 for the latest from me. Otherwise, look up Ratepayers Victoria web site for a bit more from there too. I look forward to keeping you "in the loop". Meantime, keep in touch with me. Contact: Peter Olney .. peterjil@iinet.net.au Ph: (03) 9874 0784. RVI sub-committee Chair .. “Constitution & Local Government”. If you do not wish to receive updates please reply with 'unsubscribe' in the subject line. A very important ‘rights’ issue for us - the community of Australians. Lawless Association Disestablishment Bill 2013 (Qld) S 3. Definitions. In this Act— association means any of the following— (a) a corporation; (b) an unincorporated association; (c) a club or league; (d) any other group of 3 or more persons by whatever name called, whether associated formally or informally and whether the group is legal or illegal. Mark Aldridge Community advocate & Independent Federal candidate for Wakefield SA writes: WHEN THE GOVERNMENT & POLICE SERVICES ATTACK THE RIGHTS OF ALL AUSTRALIANS, IT IS THEY WHO OUGHT TO BE DRAGGED BEFORE THE COURTS Latest attempts to tackle crime in Australia, are in themselves being exposed as a crime against justice. Laws of association, laws that dictate where a person can work, what they can own, what they can wear, where they can go, and how a judge must act, are unacceptable in any supposed democratic nation. Mark also said ”Bike riders in QLD that have even joined in on charity rides are now finding their names on the list of associates, so at every level, the actions of the government and the police are worthy of criminal charges. “From the equality of rights springs identity of our highest interests; you cannot subvert your neighbours’ interests without striking a dangerous blow at your own.” Carl Schurtz The high court has already dismissed as invalid previous attempts by state governments to introduce similar legislation, but his case goes further, because in essence the police themselves are being asked to partake in criminal actions.” “Bad law will never replace lazy policing, we have laws in this country to address criminal actions, and we don’t need laws that entrap the innocent. If the police cannot prove guilt by way of a person’s actions, then that person is innocent until proven otherwise.” I hope you appreciate the above as a parting word for the year 2013, and, do something about it too. Regards, Peter.