THE REGULATOR HAS OBLIGATIONS TO BE HONEST WHEN PROSECUTING LAWYERS

http://lawyerslawyer.net/2013/06/29/legal-services-commissioners-obligations-of-fairness/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lawyerslawyer+%28The+Australian+Professional+Liability+Blog%29 Legal Services Commissioner’s obligations of fairness Posted: 29 Jun 2013 06:41 AM PDT I have previously reported Justice Finkelstein’s views about the obligations of those who prosecute proceedings for a penalty (‘‘I would hold that a regulatory body that brings a civil proceeding to recover a penalty is under an obligation similar to that owed by a prosecutor to an accused.’). Barristers who are briefed by the Legal Services Commissioner in disciplinary proceedings have the same obligations as barristers briefed to prosecute criminal proceedings. But until tonight I was unaware that VCAT’s predecessor, the Legal Profession Tribunal, had actually indicated that the regulator himself (as opposed to his lawyers) owe obligations. In Victorian Lawyers RPA Ltd v Kaine [2001] VLPT 16, Senior Member Howell, Victoria’s most experienced decision maker in legal disciplinary matters, said of the Law Institute (which was for a while formally named ‘Victorian Lawyers RPA Ltd’) that it owed: ‘the obligations normally owed by a prosecutor, such as the obligation to bring to the attention of the Tribunal or to the attention of the practitioner any evidence that might be favourable to the practitioner’. This is what he said, more fully: ‘The role of an RPA in disciplinary proceedings: Mr. Senathirajah of counsel, who appeared for Victorian Lawyers RPA Limited, described the role of an RPA in the present proceedings as involving in general terms the investigation of a complaint by Mr. Milder, the formation of a view as to whether there was a reasonable likelihood that the Tribunal would find Mr. Kaine guilty of misconduct and, being satisfied that the Tribunal would make such a finding, to bring a charge before the Tribunal and to present evidence in support of the charge. In substance, Mr. Senathirajah contended that, having formed the view that there was a reasonable likelihood that the Tribunal would make a finding of misconduct, Victorian Lawyers RPA Limited was obliged to bring a charge of misconduct before the Tribunal and to assist the Tribunal to hear and determine the charge. Mr. Senathirajah contended that Victorian Lawyers RPA Limited had done nothing more than carry out its statutory obligations, and that no special circumstances had arisen. I do not see the role of an RPA during the hearing of disciplinary proceedings to be to assist the Tribunal. The Tribunal welcomes assistance, but I see the role of an RPA in disciplinary proceedings to be that of a prosecutor. Of course, that role assumes the obligations normally owed by a prosecutor, such as the obligation to bring to the attention of the Tribunal or to the attention of the practitioner any evidence that might be favourable to the practitioner.’

ARE YOU IN LINE FOR COMPENSATION BY CLRG

http://www.clrg.info/2011/08/are-you-in-line-for-compensation/ AN EXERCISE IN LOGIC The Australian Government has published a document entitled Finance Circular 2009/09 and you may access it here: http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/finance-circulars/2009/09.html Logically speaking, if the Australian Government fails to administer its Acts properly, the victims are entitled, under the CDDA Scheme, Scheme for Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration, Attachment A, ( There is No Attachment A, but there is Appendix 1. This is a claim form. The Australian Government by S 61 has the executive power of the Commonwealth vested in The Queen, but that is qualified by S 62 and 63 which requires the Governor General to act with advice from the Executive Council, and the Executive Council is required to administer the Constitution. If it fails to do so in accordance with its duties under S 51 Constitution, and that failure of administration causes loss or detriment, then logic dictates that the Australian Government must compensate the victims of its negligence. The People of Australia have charged the Australian Government by referenda, on some 46 occasions, including the first in 1899 with the responsibility expressed in s 51 Placitum (vi ) Australian Constitution, to take over and control the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth, and when they have failed to do this, the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 applies. The Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 may be accessed and read here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fmaaa1997321/ S 33 of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 authorises the Finance Minister to approve Act of Grace Payments, when administrative deficiencies have caused detriment to any Australian subject of Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second our Queen. It says: FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 1997 – SECT 33 Finance Minister may approve act of grace payments (1) If the Finance Minister considers it appropriate to do so because of special circumstances, he or she may authorise the making of any of the following payments to a person (even though the payment or payments would not otherwise be authorised by law or required to meet a legal liability): (a) one or more payments of an amount or amounts specified in the authorisation (or worked out in accordance with the authorisation); (b) periodical payments of an amount specified in the authorisation (or worked out in accordance with the authorisation), during a period specified in the authorisation (or worked out in accordance with the authorisation). Note:See also subparagraph 65(2)(a)(ia) (which allows regulations to be made about the Finance Minister considering a report from specified persons before authorising a total amount that is more than a specified amount). (3)Conditions may be attached to payments under this section. If a condition is breached, the payment may be recovered by the Commonwealth as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction. Note:Act of grace payments under this section must be made from money appropriated by the Parliament. Generally, an act of grace payment can be debited against an Agency’s annual appropriation, providing that it relates to some matter that has arisen in the course of its administration. The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet has the primary Administrative Responsibility to take over and/or control the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth, and has failed to do so, by allowing the Police forces of the States to continue as independent entities, and by defective legislation, allowed the Parliament of the Commonwealth to legislate without effect, because S 8 Australian Federal Police Act 1979 is not effectively administered, and the High Court, Federal Court of Australia, Family Court of Australia and Federal Magistrates Court of Australia are ineffective with regulations made to close them to all comers, and only allow a selected elite, called Lawyers, or Australian Lawyers, to access their services, and failed to ensure the integrated and unitary Legal System provided by Ch III Constitution is maintained throughout the Commonwealth. Logically everyone who has been administratively disadvantaged by the exercise by any Judge or Magistrate, Tribunal or VCAT, QCAT CTTT, AAT, SSAT or any other feral animal created in breach of s 79 Constitution which mandates “judges” anytime in the past 30 years, has a claim and should investigate the remedy. This includes persons disadvantaged by the Child Support Agency, maladministration and corruption by the Insolvency and Trustee Service of Australia and Trustees in Bankruptcy, The Australian Taxation Office, and other agencies that have been running riot, because the Australian Government Solicitor is essentially corrupt, and fails to abide the Model Litigant Guidelines published under5 S 55ZF of the Judiciary Act 1903. The liability is huge, but all people who have suffered or are suffering legal harassment by Shire Councils, Government Departments both State and Federal, Police or any other Civic Compliance Agency, should have their remedy. This includes the 183 litigants who took part in the Class Action in the County Court in Victoria at Geelong, where the Commonwealth was the defendant. Look into it and consider its consequences. Community Law Resource Group Rating: 10.0/10 (5 votes cast) Rating: +2 (from 2 votes) Are you in line for Compensation , 10.0 out of 10 based on 5 ratings

RESPONSE FROM BAR COUNCIL OF MALAYSIA STATING THAT I AM ELIGIBLE TO MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION AS A MALAYSIAN LAWYER

RESPONSE LETTER FROM HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONER DATED 8.3.2013

AFFIDAVIT OF ROGERIO CRISTOVAO TELLING THE HIGH COURT TO STOP THE CONSPIRACY PREVENTING HIS ACCESS TO JUSTICE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA No. of 2013 PERTH REGISTRY In the matter of an application by Rogerio Martins Cristovao for leave to issue a proceeding EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO ISSUE A PROCEEDING 10 1. The Applicant applies for leave to issue the attached proceeding. 2. On 22.3.2013 Justice Kiefel directed the registrar to refuse to issue the proceeding without the leave a justice first had and obtained by the party seeking to issue it. GROUNDS: 1. The grounds of the application appear in the supporting affidavit of Rogerio Martins Cristovao sworn on June 2013. 20 Signed ………………………….. IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA No of 2013 PERTH REGISTRY In the matter of an application by Rogerio Martins Cristovao for leave to issue a proceeding EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO ISSUE A PROCEEDING ________________________________________________________________________ AFFIDAVIT 10 1. I, ROGERIO MARTINS CRISTOVAO, of number 4, Bellier Place, Hamilton Hill in the State of Western Australia, Butcher by Trade, being duly sworn make Oath and say as follows: 2. I am a Self-Represented litigant Applicant above named in this action. 3. The facts herein are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Where I identify the source of facts stated, as other than from my own personal knowledge, I believe such facts to be true and correct. 4. I swear this affidavit in support of my Application for the purpose for leave to issue a proceeding from the High Court of Australia. 20 5. I refer to the attached documents to this Affidavit as itemized under the heading: 5.1. SCHEDULE OF DOCUMENTS 5.1.1. Amended Writ of Summons dated 7th June 2013. 5.1.2. Exhibit “RC-1” Letter from Deputy Registrar Carlsund to the Applicant rejecting the Originating Process dated 4.4.2013 in 2 pages. 5.1.3. Exhibit “RC-2-” Letter from Registrar Carlsund to Applicant dated 10.4.2013 in one page. 5.1.4. Exhibit “RC-3” Letter from Applicant to the respective Associates of 30 Justice Kiefel and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia dated 14.4.2013 in 3 pages. 5.1.5. Exhibit “RC-4” Response letter from Registrar Carlsund dated 16.4.2013 in one page responding to the Applicant’s complaint letter dated 14.4.2013 in one page. 5.1.6. Exhibit “RC-5” Letter from the Applicant dated 23.4.2013 to the Principal Registrar of the High Court for a Show Cause Application in Form 21 in 21 pages. 5.1.7. Exhibit “RC-6” Letter from the Registrar of the High Court to Applicant dated 30.4.2013 in 3 pages rejecting the Form 21 Show Cause Application as indicated in item 5.1.6 above. 5.1.8. Exhibit “RC-7” Cover Letter from Applicant dated 9.5.2013 in 2 pages attaching Affidavit of Applicant filed in PTW 3009 of 2002 in 17 pages sworn 8.5.2013. The latter includes the case of O’Bryan & Ors v Commonwealth (Matter C1-06-03878) CLRG COMMONWEALTH; it indicates, inter alia, the laws of Australia that an originating process of any court of competent jurisdiction in Australia cannot be stopped on the 10 pretext of a perceived abuse of process and that the judiciary must not be involved in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice under the penalty of the provisions of Crimes Act, 1914 (Comm.). 5.1.9. Exhibit “RC-8” The response letter dated 15.05.13 of Registrar Carlsund accepting item No. 5.1.8 and requesting the Applicant to make this Ex Parte Application for leave to issue proceeding in the High Court pursuant to Rule 6.07 of the High Court Rules, 2004, in 2 pages. 5.1.10. Exhibit “RC-9” Letter from Applicant dated 22.05.13, in 2 pages to the Deputy Registrar Carlsund of the High Court, refer to D R refusal to accept Applicant’s to Show Cause Application in Form 21. 20 5.1.11. Exhibit “RC-10” Letter from Applicant dated 23.05.13, in 2 pages to Deputy Registrar Carlsund of the High Court refers to Show Cause Application in Form 21 returned by Federal Court Registry accompanied by an unidentified handwriting slip note. 5.1.12. Exhibit “RC-11” Letter from the Deputy Registrar of the High Court to Applicant dated 27.05.13 in 1 page in response to Applicant’s letters dated 22 and 23 May 2013 indicating inability to add any information other then D R letters dated 15.05.13 and 30.04.13. 30 1. The GROUNDS FOR LEAVE TO ISSUE PROCEEDINGS are as follows: 1.1. The Originating Process as in the Amended Writ of Summons in item 5.1.1. above, is neither frivolous nor vexatious and is therefore not an abuse of process of court; it is a process to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to provide me with a proper remedy of a fair trial and equality before the law (the Proper Remedy). 1.2. Both the Defendants have an obligation under Article 2 of the ICCPR to provide competent judiciary for the Proper Remedy (the ICCPR Obligations). 1.3. The original BPC Fraud in the Family Court of Western Australia (P) PTW 3009 of 2002 dated 21.3.2003 is the cause of the conspiracy of the agents of 40 both the Defendants in terms of the State and Federal Judiciaries as one of the three branches of the Government of Australia in failing to provide the Applicant with the ICCPR Obligations (the Source of the Fraud). 1.4. The Applicant is the aggrieved person authorized by Section 15F of the Crimes Act, 1914 (Comm.) to commenced proceedings against the Defendants in any court in respect of any act or omissions that is punishable as an offence against the Act (the Proper Plaintiff in the Originating Process). 1.5. The Defendants are the Corporation Aggregate granted power by its articles of Association, the Constitution of Australia to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Australia by s.51 Placita 1-39 (The Proper Defendants in the Originating Process). 1.6. In 1979 and at other times since 1900, The Proper Defendants in the 10 Originating Process have made illegal or unauthorized laws purporting to confer jurisdictions to make Rules on the High Court and restricting the types of matters that the High Court will hear in its original jurisdictions and they are altogether contrary to the Constitution and they do constitute an offence against the Crimes Act, 1914 (Cth) (the Perversion of the Laws on the Administration of the High Court). 1.7. S.45 of the High Court of Australia Act, 1979 constitute an admission by the Defendants that it had caused the Perversion of the Laws on the Administration of the High Court (the Admission of the Defendants). 1.8. The Proper Plaintiff in the Originating Process against the Proper Defendants in 20 the Originating Process is based upon the Admission of the Defendants to give the former the right to proceed in these proceedings for the purpose of obtaining the Proper Remedy in order to enable the ICCPR Obligations to be fulfilled (the Entitlement of the Proper Plaintiffs). 1.9. The administration of the High Court is deficient in that it no longer issue process in the name of the Queen as required by s.33 of the High Court of Australia Act, 1979 and this constitutes an offence by the Proper Defendants under the Crimes Act, 1914 (Comm.) (the Deficient High Court Administration). 1.10. The Proper Plaintiff as the representative of the populace is being aggrieved by 30 the Deficient High Court Administration but the offender is not the High Court itself but the Proper Defendants who have merged the High Court and the Commonwealth thus fusing the Executive and the Judiciary Branches of Government thus compromising the political integrity of the courts of Australia. This has resulted in all the Magistrates and Judges of all the courts of Australia dancing to the tune of their political masters thus prejudicing the independence of the Judiciary of Australia. Thus the Proper Defendants as a Corporation has to pay a proper penalty to the Proper Plaintiff (the Penalty). 1.11. Section 41, 42 and 43 of the Crimes Act, 1914 (Comm.) renders it a statutory offence for the Proper Defendants to conspire to bring a false accusation, conspire to defeat justice and attempting to pervert justice respectively in respect of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth and this offence carries a penalty of $170.00 per units in accordance with Crimes Act 1914 Section 4AA for 2,000 penalty units in accordance with Crimes Act 1914 Sect 4K totaling $340,000.00 each offence. Since the Defendants are a Corporate Body Aggregate, the fine would be five times of $340,000.00 in accordance with Corporation Act 2001 -Section 1312 (1) which is $1.7m for each of three offences. These crimes have been committed against the Proper Plaintiff by the Proper Defendants since the date of the rejection of the BPC Fraud by the various judges where there is clear evidence before them acting as agents for the Proper Defendants (the Penalty). 1.12. The Proper Plaintiff is entitled to the Penalty against the Proper Defendants 10 as from the date when the former as an Innocent Plaintiff self litigant was unsuccessful in achieving the Proper Remedy caused by the Conspiracy of the Proper Defendants or its agents to merge the Perversion of the Laws on the Administration of the High Court which had resulted in the Judiciaries of Australians lacking in integrity caused by the Judiciary losing its independence as a separate branch of Government of Australia to the Executive Branch of the Government of Australia. This entitlement to Penalty arises from 24.2.2005 when improper costs orders were made against the Proper Plaintiff by Registrar Ellarda of the Family Court of Western Australia (P) PTW 3009/2002. This was followed by other improper costs orders made in 20 the District Court Case No 1874/05 and the Supreme Court of Western Australia in, 56 of 2006, 42 of 2008, 108 of 2009, Federal Court TAD 56 of 2010, Western Australia Magistrates Court 1691 of 2010, Western Australia Supreme Court of Appeal CACV: 88, 89 and 90 of 2012, (the Entitlement of the Proper Plaintiff to the Penalty). 1.13. On the 11th day of March, 2013, the Proper Plaintiff attempted to file the Originating Process in the High Court of Australia for prerogative writ orders against the Proper Defendants as granted by section 75(ii) Constitution, namely a proceeding between a subject and the Commonwealth. 1.14. On the 22nd day of March, 2013, two public officials, one Deborah Carlsund as 30 Deputy Registrar and Justice Kiefel, in contempt of the Constitution and the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth, with intent on behalf of the Commonwealth to prevent proceedings issuing and contrary to ss. 41, 42 and 43 of the Crimes Act, 1914 (Comm.) refused to issue the proffered proceedings (The Contempt of the Administrators of the High Court). 1.15. At that point in time, the offence against the Crimes Act, 1914 (Comm.) was complete and the Proper Defendants i.e. the Commonwealth and the State of WA is liable for the penalty that Parliament of the Commonwealth has prescribed to it in terms of the Penalty as described above. 1.16. In addition, the Proper Defendants will be obliged to make restitution to the Proper Plaintiff in the amount claimed against the former in the Amended Writ 40 of Summons by reference to Section 20(1)(a)(ii) of the Crimes Act, 1914 (Comm.) i.e. the reparation and restitution referred to as the Penalty. 1.17. The Proper Defendants by reference to section 64 of the Judiciary Act, 1903 (Comm.) is no different to any other corporate offender. Sworn by the Deponent ) Rogerio Martins Cristovao ) at in the State of ) Western Australia this day ) of June 2013. ) ___________________________ Before me, In the presence of an authorized witness for the Taking of Affidavits in Western Australia: _______________________________ Experienced Lawyer / Justice of the Peace

REFERENDUM FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN AUSTRALIA: PETER OLNEY

Constitution and Local Government .. “UPDATE” ..  5 June 2013.

Rule of Law to govern must be contrasted against the “rule” of tyrants and dictators!

In Australia the Rule of Law established for our country 110 years has been corrupted by party politics without our consent – that means the political party system is corrupt. The correct way to fix it should be through the courts, but, the State courts are also corrupt!!! Decisions are often based on the corporatised style of “government” called the Australian system of government which causes our constitutional freedoms and rights to be refused.

Please ask yourself: “Who then are the tyrants and dictators in this country?”

Also ask: “What am I doing about that, and how do I join other concerned people? 

Constitutional change to S 96 … to bring “Local Government” into the Constitution.

The federal government has just released the following Bill into Parliament. (Quote):

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (LOCAL GOVERNMENT) Bill 2013.

96 Financial assistance to States and local government bodies

During a period of ten years after the establishment of the Commonwealth and thereafter until the Parliament otherwise provides, the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State, or local government body formed by a law of a State, on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.  (End of quote)

The underlined part is to be added to the constitution if referendum approval is provided in September. The Bill says it will start after “Royal Assent” is provided!  BUT …

Consider whether the Bill is legitimate in that there is no lawful Parliament - Lower and Upper Houses – nor is there a lawful G-General. Since 2003 the act of the WA Governor to prorogue Parliament is deficient due to the fact he stands there in “power” without a WA constitutional change authorising his appointment in a new WA constitutional setup which (now) supposedly exists without the lawful/constitutional Crown (of the UK).

[Check the Acts Amendment and Repeal (Courts and Legal Practice) Act 2003 (No 65 of 2003) in WA, and, check what requires a referendum in WA if repeal of a constitutional setting of this nature is proposed in WA!]

Corruption of Commonwealth constitutional arrangements is a consequence of the WA changes as the (now!) “Governor” is not lawfully there. He had no authority to prorogue the Senate members of Western Australia in the Commonwealth Parliament in either the 2004, 2007 or 2010 leadup to elections. Why is this corruption not discussed by media?

What does this mean to you and I as we try to live in Australia?  Further …

What are the likely consequences if the proposed constitutional change is approved?

1. Power to Canberra to make conditional grants on their terms. It’s a power grab!
2. The door is opened to constitutional recognition of “local government”.  BUT … do we actually have true “government” at this level? NO!   Are we not going to muddy the waters with THREE “levels of government” arguing about who does what! It’s a mess with TWO level of “government” without a third one!
3. People do not trust the councils! Transparency and efficiency is doubtful to say the least. More power to councils through federal funding is a serious issue!
4. Grants of federal funds to State governments occur now .. with some terms and conditions, so, why not grant money through the States to the councils now?    The need for the proposed change must have some other motive! What is it?
5. We are over governed now! So, why cement into the constitution a third tier we all rejected in referendums held in 1974, and again in 1988. It doesn’t make sense!

The Attorney-General would have us believe nothing else will change, but I have no confidence in his statements to the public, nor in the push to get more federal power.

Councils in the action – unlawfully.  Public money for political purposes is not allowed.

Is your council giving to the Municipal Association of Victoria [MAV] to support a YES vote?  If so, how lawful is that, and, what are you doing about it?

I have emailed the Whitehorse City Council Mayor, placing this before him:

Last week the Leader newspaper provided detail of an intended payment of $50,000 from council to the MAV to support a YES vote in the upcoming referendum.

Given the statutory constraints on council in the LGA, Section 3 - to serve the community - then Whitehorse Ratepayers & Residents Assoc. says this money spent hardly serves the community!

It is a discriminatory attitude to support one side of the community argument, and it is unacceptably "political" to spend ratepayers public money in this way.

I would appreciate your attention to this as a matter of public concern for the Protected Disclosure Act 2012 enables people to make a "disclosure" about improper conduct by Councillors and Council officers. One such disclosure is listed as:  • A substantial mismanagement of public resources.    I look forward to your response within 7 days.

Australia Local Government Association (ALGA) “Local Government NEWS - on   29 May 2013” – President Mayor Lewis has an article which says: (Quote)

“Without direct funding from the Australian Government for local roads and community infrastructure, councils would not be able to provide all the services that our communities need,” Mayor Lewis said.

“Councils simply can’t afford to fund the growing list of services that have been passed on to local government in recent years without Commonwealth support. We need the vote of every MP to ensure the Constitutional Alteration Bill is passed and every Australian has the opportunity to vote on this important issue at a referendum.”

To allow councils to continue to receive federal funding directly without it having to be administered by State Governments, the Federal Government is proposing to include the following additional words in Section 96 of the Constitution:

…the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State, or local government body formed by a law of a state, on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit.

“It is acknowledgement of the reality that the Commonwealth partners with local governments to deliver local roads, sporting fields, libraries, child care and other community services,” Mayor Lewis said.” (End of quote)

Ask why States cannot be provided grants with terms and conditions to permit local roads and community infrastructure .. and for ALL the services that our communities need?

Ask why should councils try to afford funding a growing list of services that have been passed on to local government (by other governments?) without support from them?

Ask why should the State be removed from administering funds to its own department? Don’t forget, municipal councils are creatures of statute of the State. And, the State should remain totally responsible for them.   VOTE NO to the referendum.

Municipal Association of Victoria [MAV] has improper part to play.

It is reliably reported that at the 2012 State council of the MAV it was resolved to issue a "voluntary levy" on all member Councils as a contribution to funding the national "Yes" campaign in the event that the referendum were to proceed. The methodology used for calculating the levy for each Council is based on population and revenue.

So, are my “rates” also a “voluntary levy”?  What happens if a council does not pay?

Public Meeting on 25 June 2013 … “Voting, democracy and transparency”. Whitehorse Ratepayers & Residents Assoc. has arranged for Mayor Munroe to speak at a public meeting on 25 June 2013.  

Discussions on council TRANSPARENCY,  Council elections, S 96 referendum, etc.

It will be in the MU Hall, 8 Main Street, Blackburn at 8.00pm.  Diary date it, and, tell others to be there. Support the efforts of this organisation, be ready with questions for the Mayor, and make sure a good number attend as this is an important public event.

Rates. Tell me if you (or a friend) are facing council legal action, being taken to court for not paying “rates”. If you are unable to pay rates, or have chosen not to, let me know too.

There are workings by RVI towards a Class Action, and, it will be of interest to you.

It is important you send me your email to get on the Class Action interest list, and get to see your friends are added there too.  Send details to:  peterjil@iinet.net.au

This will not commit you to financial obligation, however, finances are needed at the moment to kick initial legal directions into proper place.

Support funds can go into the Commonwealth Bank BSB 063146 A/C 10274393 and will only be spent on the work to move this CA forward – and particularly, with my approval.

Whitehorse City Council [WCC] .. my “rates” issues.

Consider the CEO has told the Rates Manager “make sure Olney pays his rates!”

Council lawyers gave until 31 May 2013 to me to make payment of rates and charges. BUT … I made an offer to council which is responding to council calling me “owner”. For more info.  … Google www.realaussienews.com/site3

I am still waiting for WCC to answer my specific questions – including how it establishes I have “liability” – before I pay “rates” this year.  Council’s legal hounds were provided  a letter of concern as council has not been transparent at this stage.

Agenda 21.  Environmental sustainability agenda by UN forces affecting councils. This is done through ICLEI, and a recent ICLEI gathering reported “attendees dismayed over growing grassroots opposition to Green agenda”. Well, I hope you consider the impact of Agenda 21 and stop it in its tracks. Check to see what your council is committed to with “sustainability” in its agenda, and for why?

RVI …VOTE NO campaign.

Ratepayers Victoria is active with a Vote NO campaign. The material below is for your use as ONE way to discuss the issue with other family members and friends. At present not too many people are aware of the constitutional change in mind, so it is very useful to get the message out at an early date and to share wise thoughts across the nation.

Use ‘Facebook’, ‘Twitter’ and any social media means to spread the message for a NO vote on the day.

Consider carefully why it is the federal government is not properly using State means to provide funds to councils now!  There is NO NEED for this constitutional change.

Pass on this ‘Update’ to others in your connections, and more widely.

     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.

REFERENDUM - 14 SEPT 13 .. VOTE  NO .. VOTE  NO.

Why is the federal government wanting to have power to pay directly to councils?

What is the consequence of approving the government referendum proposal?

How can we stand against unfettered federal power?   Vote NO.  Vote NO.

A third tier of government was refused in 1988 at referendum - the people spoke!

This will be the third attempt by the federal power hungry politicians to alter the constitution – Ie. 1974, 1988, and now!

If this new referendum is passed:

1.      a means for federal power to over-ride State power is established!

2.      the legal door is opened to a third level of “government”.

3.      the door is also opened to the ultimate demise of the sovereign States as our life experience is that “he who pays the piper calls the tune”.

4.      what “terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit” will likely be tied to the federal funds provided to councils?

5.      there is NO guarantee of certain federal funds to councils!

Remember well:

1.      the federation of States has a purpose – to protect you from tyrants!

2.      States can be provided federal money through S 96 now, so why the power grab?

3.      there is NO reason for federal power to be exercised in State affairs.

4.      a Westminster system of government does not hold councils as government!

5.      the Constitution sets out there are only TWO levels of government.

6.      the deception/s provided by government/s is a sad legacy in this country - we have to be wise and more than careful about this matter.

Ratepayers and residents are involved – all property owners will be affected.

A submission was made by Whitehorse Ratepayers and Residents Association Inc. to the Expert Panel last year. See the Expert Panel Final Report - submission 240.

www.localgovrecognition.gov.au/sites/localgovrecognition.gov.au/files/ExpertPanel-FinalReport.pdf

Ratepayers Victoria Inc. supported the submission. To the above thought provoking

and important aspects to the referendum proposal must be added an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Chris Berg – which gives far-reaching material!!!

www.http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/freerein-proposal-by-canberra-should-be-hobbled-before-the-pass-20130504-2j00s.html

Chris highlights government tyranny “The bill authorises the government to spend money on 415 areas of public policy without having to ask Parliament for permission ever again” So, the question has to be asked about intentions and transparency of federal Parliament? Put another way, Don Chipp of Australian Democrats continued saying we have to “keep the b………. honest”. The only way to do that is to again VOTE NO.

For more vital material to use on councils then Google www.realaussienews.com/site3

Contact:  Peter Olney.  1/21 Cobham Road, Mitcham, 3132    Em:  peterjil@iinet.net.au

TWO KINDS OF LAW ON THE EARTH: BY JORDAN MAXWELL

Donna Aussie	12:41 PM (3 hours ago)
to bcc: me

BANKS, GOVERNMENTS, CORPORATIONS, UCC and YOU...by General Maddox - Real News Australia...

 

"There are TWO kinds of law on the earth that  rule the whole earth (alleged rule - they are now ALL foreclosed), but most people don't know that... All over the world all (alleged) "governments" are ruled by what is called (alleged) "Roman Civil Law" which is called in all (alleged) countries the "Law of The Land",,,BUT (big but here) there is a SECOND LAW law that also operates all over the earth identical - its called UCC - Uniform Commercial Code...that is the (alleged) "law of god" in the WORLD of business...if you have a company, if you have a corporation, if you are doing business where you buy and sell and make (alleged) money...you are operating on this earth under something called UCC because if all countries worked on a different commercial code then no body could do business with any body. The most severe law in this world is called UCC, its the "bible of business" on the earth...UCC is based directly on the (sinister ecclesiastical) Vatican Code of Cannon Law..." - Jordan Maxwell

 

 

WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN YOU ASK?

 

Well the ramifications of this are staggering. What this means is that everything you’ve come to understand as the “Australian Government” is not actually government but a corporate entity masquerading as government. Essentially our government was hijacked and corporatised. As it turns out this type of large scale deception goes on all around the world. That sort of statement no longer shocks people as we’re so desensitised to it now.

 

But what’s worse is that people are willing to go along with it and do nothing.

 

ENTER ONE PEOPLES PUBLIC TRUST (OPPT).
Here’s an easy to understand synopsis by Andy Whiteley of Wakeup-world.com:

Understanding that corporations, governments and banks are one and the same, an “Order of Finding and Action” was filed against the “the debtor”, a legal entity created via the UCC process which encompasses all corporate entities. The filings claim that the Debtor “knowingly, willingly and intentionally committed treason” by “owning, operating, aiding and abetting private money systems” and “operating Slavery Systems used against… citizens without their knowing, willing and intentional consent”.
UCC filings are public records, and follow standard administrative processes. When facing a claim, an entity (in this case “the Debtor”) is given the right of rebuttal. If a rebuttal is not received within the required timeframe, a default action then applies, followed by termination of that entity; in this case, on the grounds that it failed to rebut charges of treason by “the One People”.
The important thing to understand here is that a UCC filing stands as law if it remains unrebutted. And in this case, the OPPT Trustees ensured they created a legal situation in which the individuals and entities that form “the debtor” had no ability to rebut. How could they? The claims of slavery and fraud are true.
Of course, no rebuttal was received.
The ‘Debtor’ is therefore guilty of treason.
As remedy, corporations are foreclosed and their assets re-claimed.
The wealth of our planet is returned to “the One People”.
All corporate debt is erased.
“The system” is terminated.
The public record shows it.
The UCC filing stands as international law.
By the system’s own terms, it no longer exists.
We are free!!

Make sense?
Of course the system is doing its best to ignore it and hoping it will just go away. No main stream media has even touched this extraordinary issue. The system simply continues the status quo.
Heather Ann Tucci-Jarraf one of the trustees of OPPT and former lawyer from within the inner circles of the banking elite, had this to say:

“In every code, statute, law on the books around the globe…a declaration unrebutted stands as absolute truth… the boys on the hill (Washington D.C.) to the other side of the pond (London) to the mountains (Switzerland) to the east (China) have been trying to find a loop hole… a way to rebut… but since July 25th, 2012 when the BE’ing and BE’ings value were duly secured… if they haven’t found it by now… they won’t… but i wait for the attempt by duly verified sworn rebuttal, made with specificity and particularity… meanwhile, isn’t it time we all moved on to BE’ing and DO’ing with systems that assist our BE’ing and DO’ing?”

I couldn’t agree more.
General Maddox

 

................

 

 

BIRTH CERTIFICATE - U.C.C - STRAWMAN...by Jordan Maxwell (6 mins)...

@ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVpso2ewo18 

 

PROOF by Scott Bartle - all Australian banks are using UCC law...(scroll down page)

@ http://realnewsaustralia.com/2013/04/13/oppt-banks-governments-corporations-and-you/

 

PROOF by Scott Bartle - this diagram UCC Collateral WESTPAC BANK illustrates how we’re all tied into the slavery system...(scroll down page)

@ http://realnewsaustralia.com/2013/04/13/oppt-banks-governments-corporations-and-you/

 

 

 

One Spirit...One World...One Humankind...

 

The One People :)

2 attachments — Download all attachments  

Cwlth vs Fed Reserve NY UCC 2008077211.pdf 59K   View   Download

UCC Collateral COMMONWEALTH.pdf 104K   View   Download

YouTube - Videos from this email