The question relating to recognition of local government/councils must be asked!

Statement #1:

The High Court of Australia ruled that “State Governments could not raise ANY TAX” and because of this the ‘State Excise on Fuel, Tobacco & Alcohol’ was removed.

It can be clearly seen that the authors of the Constitution were not allowing for any Parliament other than the Federal Parliament to impose a tax. Therefore, the only land rates/tax that can be imposed within Australia is one imposed by the Federal Parliament through the Commissioner for Taxation.

Unless we receive a “Rates Notice” from the ‘Commissioner for Taxation it is INVALID and UNLAWFUL.

Clearly in sections 51 and 52 of the Constitution and from the Constitutional Commission (1985 – 1988) report that the power of taxation is held exclusively by the Federal Parliament.

Since parliaments of Australia has no powers under the Australian Constitution to impose taxes, which has been, determined where The High Court of Australia ruled, “State Governments could not raise ANY TAX” and therefore, “Land Tax” is unlawful.  The state governments will have to lodge an appeal to the High Court of Australia to overturn the previous decision before they can legally impose such tax upon the people or have the federal Government hold a referendum to alter the constitution.

Section 109 of the Australian Constitution states:

“When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.”


Because the Parliaments of Australia are subject to the Commonwealth Parliament and also subject to the Commonwealth Constitution, the states cannot lawfully impose a ‘Land Tax’, ‘only the Commonwealth Government holds such taxation authority’.

“The very same applies to local governments continuance and application of rates and taxes issued on their behalf”

(State governments cannot be awarded powers from the commonwealth that are not theirs to hand over)

Until the State’s of  Australia can provide a legal authority either from the High Court of Australia; or from the Federal Government giving authority to raise taxes, to comply with your intentions would be in breach of the law itself, that you are bound to uphold. When you present such legal authority we will certainly provide the information you request.

Statement #2:




 18 May 1974 & 3 September 1988

The Australian Electoral Commission on their CD “Australian Referendums 1906—1999” have advised the following points:-

  1. “Under the Australian Commonwealth Constitution any powers not delegated to the Commonwealth are the prerogative of the States UNLESS THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY DENIED.”
  1. The Referendum on 18th of May 1974

Q4. Local Government Bodies – The fourth proposal sought to amend section 51

of the Constitution to give the Federal Government power to give financial

Assistance to lend and borrow money for any local government body.

  1. The people voted NO.
  1. Q4. The referendum was NOT carried.

One State recorded a YES vote (NSW), however; nationally only 46.85% of electors voted YES.


  1. The Referendum on 3rd of September 1988

                Q3: Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 1988.

Q3.To alter the Constitution to recognise local government

  1. The people voted NO.
  1. Q3. The referendum was NOT carried.

No States recorded a YES vote. However; nationally only 33.62% of electors voted YES.

  1. The legislative proposal was, “119A. – Each State shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in

Accordance with the laws of the State and empowered to administer, and to make bylaws, for their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State.”

  1. Unlike a plebiscite, a referendum is binding on the government.



The Commonwealth Government is funding Local Governments directly contrary to the Constitution.

All local government has been constitutionally illegal since 3-9-88 when there was a referendum to incorporate local Government into the Australian Constitution, and prior to the referendum, there has never been any implied legality.

This means that all local government authorities now operate without a lawful head of power. The legal bind is that states cannot retain legislation that condones any form of local government.

Thus all levels of government are operating illegally ignoring the instructions of the people.  If the government will not obey the Constitutional Will of The People and thus democratic law, why should the people obey parliamentary law?  The precedence has been set.

FURTHERMORE Local Government Rates are deemed a tax thus no GST is applicable.

Clearly in sections 51 and 52 of the Constitution and from the Constitutional Commission (1985 – 1988) report that the power of taxation is held exclusively by the Federal Parliament.  No states have authority under the constitution to impose a tax. Clearly in sections 51 and 52 of the Constitution and from the Constitutional Commission (1985 – 1988) report that “The power of taxation is held exclusively by the Federal Parliament.”  Thus Local Government Rates being a tax are unlawful and in breach of the constitution.




 Thus Councils Should Be Dismissed And Local Government Department Administrators Appointed Permanently.

1.       In no section within the Australian Constitution is there provision for the Federal or State Parliament to establish a third level of government without the permission of the people via a Federal Referendum.

2.       The High Court of Australia ruled that “State Governments could not raise ANY TAX”, and because of this the ‘State Excise on Fuel, Tobacco & Alcohol’ was removed.

3.       It can be clearly seen that the authors of the Constitution were not allowing for any Parliament other than the Federal Parliament to impose a tax. Therefore, the only land rates tax that can be imposed within Australia is one imposed by the Federal Parliament through the Commissioner for Taxation.

4.       Unless we receive a “Rates Notice” from the ‘Commissioner for Taxation it is INVALID and UNLAWFUL.

5.       Clearly in sections 51 and 52 of the Constitution and from the Constitutional Commission (1985 – 1988) report that the power of taxation is held exclusively by the Federal Parliament.

6.       The Courts of Australia have long held that council rates are a tax. Yet, under the Australian Constitution, the Parliaments of the States do not have the power of taxation.

7.       “John Winston Howard, Peter Howard Costello & ’Commissioner for Taxation’ Michael Joseph Carmody all stated before the introduction of the infamous “Goods and Services Tax”,

        Quote:  “Local government Council Rates will attract no GST because Council Rates are a tax and we can’t tax a tax”.


8.       The organizations known as ‘local government’ did not exist at the time of the federation of the states into a commonwealth.

9.       A ‘rateable person within the meaning of the local government act 1995’ did not exist at the time of the federation of the states into a commonwealth. It can be seen then, that since ‘local government’ did not exist at the time of Federation, then there can be no continuance of local government law.

10.   Since ‘local government’ did not exist at the time of Federation, then there can be no continuance of ‘local government’ law. Similarly, as ‘local government land rates tax’ did not exist at the time of Federation there can be no continuance of ‘local government land rates tax’ from that time to now.

11.   Following a recommendation of the Constitutional Commission of Inquiry (1985 – 1988) a Referendum was held in September 1988. (“The Constitutional Commission found that there was no basis in law, contained within the Constitution for the provision of ‘Local Government”). They found that barely 50% of the population even knew of the existence of the Constitution, let alone its contents, and that only a few percent of those under 25 years of age knew of its existence at all.)

12.   Question 3 from the referendum was:  A Proposed Law; ‘To alter the Constitution to recognise local government.’  Do you approve of this alteration?

13.   The specific (federal Referendum) proposal was:-

(3) Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 1988…. 119A, “Each state shall provide for the establishment and continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the state, and empowered to administer, and make by-laws for, their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the state”.

“Note; the word CONTINUANCE, implies the Australian people voted NO to the existence and continuance of local government, full stop”

14.   It was recognized that the Parliaments of the States did not have the power to establish a third tier of government via ‘local government’ and an amendment to the Constitution was necessary for them to obtain these powers.

15.   If the Constitution had to be altered to allow for the establishment of ‘local government’, before there could be a continuance of ‘local government from the time of federation, then it is clear that these powers did not exist at the time of the Federation of the States into a Commonwealth.

16.   Therefore, if the Constitution had to be altered to allow for the “establishment and continuance” of ‘local government’ these powers did not exist at the time of Federation or sections 106 to 108 of the constitution would have applied and the constitution would not have had to be altered.


17.   For the Constitution to be able to be changed, there must be a majority, (either for or against), in each state and a favourable majority must be returned in a majority of States.

The Australian Electoral Commission advice:-

“Referendum results – 3 September 1988”

“(41) Local Government”, being totally reject by 3 084 678 votes of the Australian people.

“Question 3”.

“A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to recognise local government.”

“Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

“The Constitution recognises government at the Commonwealth and State levels but makes no mention of local government. Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 1988 sought to give such constitutional recognition to local government.”

18.   “Obtained majority in no State and an overall minority of 3 084 678 votes.

19.   Therefore the continuance of Local Government in defiance of the referendum vote of the people is unlawful?  Thus the Ministers would be acting in accordance with the Australian people’s referendum results if they dismissed any local Council.  In fact it is encumbered upon them to explicitly follow the instruction of people’s referendum and dismiss all councils.

20.   No other conclusion can be derived from this result other than that Local government was not legally recognized by the people of Australia, who are the Government of Australia through their agents in Parliaments.

21.   The Parliament of the State did not have these powers before the Referendum, and they were most certainly prohibited from having them after the Referendum.

22.   This was confirmed by the Parliament of NSW Legislative Council General Purpose Standing Committee (No 5), Report 19, Local Government Amalgamations, December 2003 which states on page 51, at 4.78: “Local Government is not recognized in the Australian Constitution. In 1974 and 1988 constitutional recognition of local government was considered in referenda to change the constitution but neither referendum was successful.”

23.   The members of the various Parliaments of the States and the Commonwealth are the elected representatives of the people of Australia. They are not there as representatives of the Parliaments, but as elected servants of the people. Twice, in 1974 and in 1988 the people of Australia (the Government) told their elected representatives that they did not wish to constitutionally recognize local government.

24.   Since the people do not wish to recognize ‘local government’, and since the Constitution does not recognize or grant the power to establish a third level of government, then under Section 109 of the Constitution it was illegal for any Parliament of  Australia to enact the Local Government Act’s.

25.   The 1988 Referendum was a public act under the Federal Constitution. Sections 106 and 108 subject the Constitutions of the States to the over-riding authority of the Federal Constitution and Section 118 requires that full faith and credit be given throughout the Commonwealth of Australia to the laws and public acts and records of every State. If full faith and credit is given, there appears to be NO LEGAL WAY any States can overturn the specific outcome of a Federal Referendum

26.   The Referendum (Constitution Alteration) Act of 1906-1973 is a Commonwealth of Australia Act. The Schedule of the Referendum Act provides the wording of the “Writ for Referendum” and includes the words:

27.   “We (the Electorate) command that you (the parliament) cause a proposed law entitled… ……… to be submitted, according to law, in each State to the electors qualified to vote for the election of Members of the House of Representatives” (for each of the six states). It is clear that a “Writ” directs that a Federal Referendum must be by way of a vote state by state. This has the same effect as a state referendum, but under the Federal Act, by doing so invokes Section 109 of the Australian Constitution as an authority that over-rides any inconsistency in the legislation of the States.

28.   Since the state parliament’s of Australia has no powers under the Australian Constitution to create a Third Tier of Government, and since they were twice told by the people they serve that the people did not wish to recognize Local Government, then the enactment of the Local Government by-laws and and state government legislation relating to local government/councils is illegal.


29.   The Constitution was formatted to protect the Australian people from a number of things, and also to give the people of Australia the ability of Self Determination of Government.

I make note at this stage, that the above issue is one that has opened the door to many similar issues, as a direct result of the people being unaware of their rights, all be them confusing and hard to understand for the lay person.

The judiciary of this country make a habit of undermining what little rights the Australian citizen is entitled to, using such words “The constitution has no place in the courts” yet the constitution Act is what empowers the courts, and clearly by way of Clause 5 of the Act.


Here is a brief list of other offending statements and actions seen on a regular basis in Australian courts and parliaments, which attack the core values of our constitution.


Trial by jury

The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes.

Yet we see trial by jury denied in many cases, where indeed it can only be denied by the mutual decision of both parties to an action.


Oath or affirmation of allegiance

Every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor‑General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to this Constitution

Juliar Gillard ignored section 42, as have several representatives, which makes a mockery of our highest laws, and clearly shows many supposed representatives are not elected and or have any right to hold office. (full article on my site


Disputed elections

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.

The Parliament no longer hear such cases, and state electoral legislation now allows disputed returns to be heard by a single judge, overriding once again our constitutional protections, in a case I held in 2010, the outcome “Regardless of the conduct of an election, a general election cannot be invalidated” even when the election under common law strayed so far from the legislative protections it was not an election at law.

Going further, the aforementioned case evidenced tens of thousands of missing names, tens of thousands of missing ballot papers and over 25 offences of the protections of the act itself. (full details under the article “Democracy the whole truth” on my website


Rights of residents in States

A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.

Therefore issues like the trial of the basics card in underprivileged areas, is again legislation that offends this Act, it also implies that the bill of rights enjoyed by the Victorian residents, by way of this section, applies to all Australians, which would undermine most recent legislative changes, which all have sections that are ignorant of the protections we deserve.


Operation of the Constitution and laws [see Note 3]

This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen’s ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.

If referenda are of value to the constitution and its primary goals, then referenda results apply across the Nation in every parliament and court.


Qualification of electors

The qualification of electors of senators shall be in each State that which is prescribed by this Constitution, or by the Parliament, as the qualification for electors of members of the House of Representatives; but in the choosing of senators each elector shall vote only once.

The constitution allows one vote, not a vote that can be devalued and or passed on, without the will of the elector being known, in fact recent election conduct, has exposed that an electoral commission may “guess and electors intent beyond that they have marked” allowing a single vote to be transferred, even if the electors mark determines a different result of their will. (see result of court of disputed returns 2007 SA supreme court acting as)


Inconsistency of laws

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

Yet go to court over say a speeding fine, to find the devise that is telling the court you were committing an offence, does not comply with commonwealth legislation, but it does comply with state legislation, and the later is upheld, we indeed have issues.

Recently in the courts I proved a current devise did not comply with law, state or commonwealth, yet the outcome was the fine still stands, so has the law become an ass?


Mode of altering the Constitution [see Note 1]

This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.

But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to which the first‑mentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first‑mentioned House in the same or the next session again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first‑mentioned House will not agree, the Governor‑General may submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first‑mentioned House, and either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State and Territory qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives.

When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one‑half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.

And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor‑General for the Queen’s assent.

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.

If the people say NO, that means NO, it the constitution is to be altered, then we have the final say, we the people, the terms are simple.


Mark Aldridge Independent Candidate

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

32 Responses to “THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTIONS VALIDITY……(local government and law)”

  1. Philip Says:

    Hi Mark, Interesting Read. Philip Gilbert

  2. Danny Morici Says:

    Very interesting reading and informative.

    When is there going to be a peoples revolt against these fat cat beaurocrats??

  3. Owen Godfrey Says:

    Thank you for your wonderful explanation Mark. Our ‘authorities’ are just scammers and fraudsters who do anything they can get away with to rob the people of more and more money. They then waste the money on projects we don’t need and can definately not afford to make themselves look impressive. These people are just like drug traffikers who spend their ill-gotten gains on expensive items.

  4. shaun Says:

    It’s all commercial law folks. Study up on conditional acceptance and contact law, there’s plenty of information on the Web. Is there not a parallel system, one that works in the public and one in the private? Understanding public and private will help in understanding what remedies are available.

  5. susie Says:

    So, I guess the question is how do we make this common knowledge and how do we get people to care? It seems to me even if some people know things like this, they just cant be bothered to act, apathy of “the people” is often a large part of why this kind of knowlegde is passed by.

  6. To any Police members out there... - Page 3 Says:

    […] "LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ARE ILLEGAL UNDER THE COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION DETERMINED BY TWO REFERENDUMS 18 May 1974 & 3 September 1988" the-australian-constitutions-validity-local-government-and-law/ […]

  7. Sovereign Says:

    Bye Bye Council rates 🙂

  8. Ros Says:

    What can we do about this? Our rights are being eroded. Why aren’t more people in the legal profession speaking out about this? I ‘d imagine they are familiar with the constititution.

  9. J. Fletcher Says:

    Great stuff Mark, I have been and still am studying law and find it hard to believe that we are being robbed due to our ignorance of the law. Keep up the great work.

  10. Pam Says:

    Nice one Mark…this is going onto my Facebook profile to educate Australian residents. Thank you.

  11. marc jones Says:

    this is a good read mark but how do we get the powers that be to abide by the law…

  12. Jim Fulton Says:

    what you have shown us here is only part of the story. will give everyone the full lowdown on how we have been hoodwinked since Federation.
    I urge everyone to read, at least, the Synopsis on that website to find out why the Queen has absolutely nothing to do with Australia, why England is a power foriegn to Australia, & why all Australians are considered Aliens to the British Government.
    Also, on the point of States raising Illegal Taxes, ( the $400 Motor Vehicle Tax in NSW, for example ). If you take your fine to Court & the Magistrate upholds the fine & adds Court costs, then the Magistrate has committed a crime by raising an Illegal Tax.
    Our whole System has been corrupt since Federation, but nobody, even the Media, wants to know, or do anything about it.
    Thanks Mark,

  13. william Says:

    Thank you Mark . Im fighting the local council as we speak. They have been challenged to court on the private arena and have not supplied court. So on the 10th may 2013 i took it to the public arena ,its in the QT Queensland times on this day . Im fighting them on praking tickets,as it states i have 20 of them.Please all who read this have a look its on the net .Mark im on your side this all has to stop all our rights are being eroded away from us with out our imput and our consent. It seems that money and control is all that they want.[and our lives ] so sad that that is all we are worth,money for some one else .

  14. Tom Sucic Says:

    Again they will try to have a referendum costing 100 million dollars from tax payers money and we still have not had any real information regarding the 17 words they want to change in the Constitution.
    The wording has to be carefully scrutinized as previously they tried to sneak in changes with ambiguous wording. This is a common trick as they know a lot of people would not understand certain words within the context so they pray on the lower educated and ethnic community while advertising the false propaganda prior to the referendums.
    Why have a 3 tier Government, why hot make church and religious organizations pay rates?
    Historically these people knew that the clergy and church leaders were supposed to be the guardians of the GOD given rights stated in the Constitution and the Common Law. They were supposed to protect the people against the extreme prejudices and discrimination of the old Monarchist system where certain rulers declared they were the outright owners of all in the empire and their selected lords shared in this ownership. Where the peasants and citizens had no rights. This led to revolutions and we had the forefathers at great costs challenging these draconian rules, as a result we had the Westminster system of government formed. Lower house of commons and the house of Lords. Brief understanding in my view.
    Why was the system established in such a way? To prevent corrupt, selfish and evil people from establishing a system that was grossly unfair for the citizens. (Bribe the clergy to buy silence as if the Churches take up the cross and take the fight to the high court they would win on constitutional grounds) Why do large companies get away with tax evasion? They can afford to challenge the validity of unfair taxes in court?
    So whom pays and whom keeps the Country working? Primarily the suckers called workers. Reference to slaves has also been used for the common citizen or working class. By the self proclaimed ELITE in our society.
    We the owners pay our way and are forced to pay the way for the elite and wealthy as well as the politicians.
    By deception and non information. The best way to is not to inform as it is hard to establish an educated decision without all the facts.
    Conspiracy theories are only conspiracy theories if no supporting evidence can be found to back the theories up with.
    I ask why did Paul Keating sign Australia up with the U N for Agenda 21? Fabian Society only? NO DEAD WRONG, unfortunately we have the Masons, Churches, and Political as well as occult worshiping people from major parties and organizations within this following and with this belief including some of our largest corporate companies and their leaders. All under the misguided belief that they will be or are part of the few elite (Which number some 500 Million, most without realizing that they are being deceived while they are deceiving the rest for the puppet masters.)
    Wake up people, time to learn the truth. Do not believe me look at the facts before they manage to control the Internet websites and the content.
    I am not a strict Monarchist as the problems started with the Royal Families. However, I do believe we need a system that is fair for all and that has checks and balances.Not catering for the wealthy, Elite or Politicians that can be corrupted and act against the people. If we have a Republic, I want a fair dink um republic. By the People for the People Not a Politician elected President that can be turned into a Fascist or Totalitarian Communist dragging this nation down.
    Thanks for your time, and for reading my comment.


    • Jim Fulton Says:

      Good info mate.
      We know the Judiciary is as corrupt as the Pollies.
      Innocent until proven guilty is no longer the case.
      You can swear your innocence on the Bible or your Kids lives, but the new phrase the Police use is ” Ignorance of the Law is no excuse, ” which makes them Judge & Jury, & unless you’ve got the time & money to fight them, you’re gone.
      We can only fight on!
      We will eventually WIN!!

  15. Tom Sucic Says:

    The laws as they stand now have been placed there under a fake crown acting as an Imposter of the Queen Elizabeth.
    The fake Masonic CORPORATE crown found in most countries including Great Britain London dubbed the city of two cities. With 2 Lord Mayors one Masonic life term the other Parliament or people elected for the short term until reelections are held..
    Corporate Governments making laws under false authority and why does no one rebel?
    Perhaps there is more here than meets the eye?
    Bilderberg group, Bohemian Grove, Vatican and historical connections are all part of the conspiracy.
    However, conspiracies that have factual proof, documentation, historical and media evidence may not be conspiracies as much as we would feel comfortable believing in our comfort zones.
    Surely One World Governments and New World Order agendas would have been discovered and quashed in particular if they were going on for over 300 years and generations?

    Was the public caught sleeping or deceived for that long without attempting to correct or prevent such a move?
    NO, some were aware, others were not, others are still not aware or simply do not believe this could happen. How could another NAZI regime start right under our eyes with communication being what it is now?
    Deception is easy as long as people are kept happy enough and busy enough or develop the feeling of hopelessness “We can not go against the Government, what can we do”?
    Additionally, we are often led to believe that we and our families will be safe. That we do not fall into the endangered bracket so we have nothing to worry about. Division is a powerful tool. Moreover, getting those that are the outsiders to think they are actually part pf the safe group plays on our discriminant nature that tells us self preservation is more important than acting irrationally to assist the others so we go along with it.
    Remember General Mac Arthur during a foo fighter attack stating that the next great war will be in between worlds. Hoax documentary. Perhaps, but it would drive home the reason/s for a one world government. Amongst many other reasons.
    Establishing a united world government would require unilateral and similar global laws and regulations. With strict Policing.
    Something the Elite have learned from previous world conquest and unification attempts is that a strictly military approach through wars has always failed. The cost is too high and maintaining the control too difficult.
    However, controlling the global financial system is easier and more attainable. Buy the politicians control the leaders and make them change the laws to obtain power through what seems like legit legal reasons and make the majority of people believe the deception so to filter out the ones that will object. That is a more controllable environment.
    Almost a perfect plan?

  16. Annie Says:

    Thanks Mark – I stumbled across you as I’m gathering info – I’m writing a courtesy letter to local council about refusing to pay rates & charges until i have received just evidence of authority – when no act put in place can overrule our constitution.. I have also listened to Brian Shaw from Weribee , Larry Hannigan’s Australian page and has good reading too….and Anne Bressington on agenda 21

  17. Ian Says:

    Thanks Mark for your eye opening information regarding our continual rip off by local councils and other tiers of government. Why is this information not brought to the publics attention? If more people knew what was happening, I am sure there would be a revolt.
    Let the people know.

    • susie Says:

      Ian please spread this website around and encourage peole to sign up. I am not affiated with them other than i am supporting this class action against local “government”.

      • Jim Fulton Says:

        At the time of my last posts, i was of the opinion that England was a Foreign Power, & had nothing to do with us. How wrong could i be.
        It is now obvious that we started out, in 1900, with a Constitution written by the British, therefore, without referendum, we are still under British law. this includes the Magna Carta, & Common Law. Not long after Federation, our Government brought in the Australian Government. This Australian Government proceeded to bring in Statute Law, the Laws we have to abide by today. But make no mistake, the Common Laws that we had at Federation still exist today, it’s just unfortunate that most Judges are corrupt, & refuse to accept them.
        Some examples:- You cannot be fined for ANYTHING, unless first convicted by a Court, you don’t need a licence to drive a car, ( a commercial vehicle, yes, you do need a licence ), you have the RIGHT not to incriminate yourself, ( breath tests )
        The amount of our rights they have taken from us are staggering, we just have to fight to get them back.
        Are you willing to fight?
        For heaps of info, go to, it’s a start.

      • Ian Says:

        I am willing to fight and everyone who has received my email feels the same way so yes, lets fight for our rights and stop this blatant corruption.

  18. susie Says:

    good one jim and ian. if everyone printed off 20 or 30 flyers that they have and delivered to letter boxes, we could spread the word faster??

    • Ian Says:

      I agree, I have been passing all this info to family and friends who are passing it on.

      • Jim Fulton Says:

        I have just been back to the site, & there is so much conflicting info that i don’t know where we stand. Basic fraud are saying that the Queen, & britain have absolutely nothing to do with us. I have asked them to explain, that if this is the case, then our Common Law, v, Statute Law is out the window, & the Australian Government has us by the short & curlies. Will get back to you on this, but go & have a look at

  19. Richard Says:

    Gold 😊

  20. Jeff Sill Says:

    Jeff Sill Wodonga Vic
    We will see this Government take over and control us all, we need to pool all our resources and support independent candidates at the next elections, do it before its to late. I took the my Government on by refusing to vote in the last elections they sent me a fine, I refused to pay, I spent 12 months fighting the so could Infringement Court with threats to send the so called Sheriff around to take my car etc. to the value of the fine, in the end I forced the so called Infringement Court to send the case to the Wodonga Magistrates Court, to be heard late March, 14 days before the hearing the Council sent me a letter saying they are dropping the charge. I have them on the run I have also refused to re-register my dog Eckles that case is due in court in the next month or two. The case like the last one will be defended using the Commonwealth Constitution Of course the Magistrates Court is the first hurdle. first the Magistrate has not been sworn in using the 1869 Promissory Oaths Act. he is not sitting on a Queens Bench he is sitting in a Star Chamber and the list goes on. Another good idea is to write to your Council stating that all the rates you have payed to Council turns out to be unlawful and you want them to pay it all back. I’m loving all this. Have a good day. Jeff .

  21. Winifred Says:

    I’ve learn several just right stuff here. Definitely price bookmarking for revisiting.

    I wonder how much effort you place to create this sort of fantastic informative site.

  22. Darren Says:

    Sadly Mr & Mrs Average Aussie are too concerned with the footy, Who Wants to be a Millionaire and Flase Flag “Terroism” to give a second thought about the Australian Constitution. They are quite happy living their lives believing they are already “free” in “the greatest country on earth” (their words, not mine). I mean, if your prison cell has hot and cold running water, 896 Channels of mind-numbing TV and Air Conditioned bars (in the latest pastel shades) why would you believe you are not free?? They get day release 5 days a week to go and create Tax revenue. They even get a money surplus which they are free to spend repaying loans and mortgages…and get two days off for good behavior. Why wouldn’t they think they were “free”. How can you not “be free” when you have no concept of what real freedom is? I know plenty of sheeple, sorry people, that know they are free because not only did they hear it on TV but it was confirmed on a T-Shirt they once saw (incidentally made in China with slave labour).
    I have challenged the Constitution validity with a number of councils and their standard response is always “Councils are legal because the States were given the power to make laws under the Constitution and one of the Laws they made was to create Local Councils” (case closed, now stop asking questions and go away). My response to that has always been “well if the Constitution gave those kinds of Law making powers to the States, why didn’t the States just make a law that says ‘The Australian Constitution (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 – to give it its full title) is no longer valid in *_________ and be done with it? Then there would be no question or argument. The States should simply pass their own Law at State level banning the Federal Constitution from existing in (insert State here).
    Funnily, I’m yet to get an answer to that one. People in large comfy leather reclining chairs all go quiet and suddenly are too busy to respond. If you really want to hear crickets and tumbleweeds bring up the FACT that a Company called “The Australian Government” is registered with the Security and Exchanges Commission in Washington DC and has been since 1934. Or why is our “coat of arms” (SIC – the one with skippy and the emu standing either side of a shield) a Registered company logo? What ever happened to the Lion and Unicorn (The Great Seal of Australia)?
    The people of this country ONLY EVER ACT when something effects them DIRECTLY in a harmful way. In the early 1960’s the vast majority of people were quite OK with wars that happened overseas to someone else and only became “Anti Vietnam” when it was THEM or THEIR SONS dying in battle. The whole question of Council validity is exactly the same. Chances are if changes to the Constitution allowing local councils to be a valid 3rd tier of Government were put now the mass media spin machine would brainwash the population into voting for it and it would pass. A short time later, when huge additional taxes and conditions started to directly effect them, you would hear the outrage and the people would FINALLY realise they have been duped with the two-card trick and there would be sweet FA they could do about it. Yes, the general population in this great land of our ARE that stupid I’m afraid. “People get the Governments they deserve” and no truer is this than in the Land of Oz.
    We indeed are the lucky country – luck we haven’t YET got a fully fledged Police State….well not one that’ll openly admit it. If it walks like a duck…..

    • Owen Godfrey Says:

      We at the are in complete agreement with the fact that people are being duped into automatically paying ‘speeding’ fines without first appearing in a court of competent jurisdiction. This is a scam of the first order and we encourage everybody to go to court to get the evidence that they are purporting to indicate you have committed an offence. You should always ask for evidence that the speed measuring device has been pattern approved under the National Measurement Act – none are! They will claim that they don’t have to comply however the question then should be ‘Why are all breathalysers pattern approved under this Act. The reason of course is that all speed measuring devices are so faulty that they could never pass a pattern approval audit. Please join us to help our cause.

  23. Alan l Says:

    All I can say is, if you feel so strongly go to the Supreme or High Court and make a challenge and see if you can succeed where many have failed. No case has yet succeeded and I dare anyone to prove me wrong. Believe the diatribe here and you could lose your home.

    • markmaldridge Says:

      You appear to lack a firm understanding of how our judicial system works, firstly the cases were all filed by amatuers, and the high court is no place any person uneducated on such matters. But as a primary concern is getting into the high court on a matter such as this, if they think a person could have the nouse to win, they wont let it get that far. I have offered for some time, even threatened, but unless you are taken to court, there is nothing to fight. I am trying my in on another matter, but been 12 months since the matter was heard in the district court, so unless I lose there, no appeal, and I doubt any arttourney will support an appeal not stopping past full bench of supreme, and that is not a place to find justice.

  24. Alan l Says:

    So, you are saying that the Courts have got it wrong or those going to Court are incompetent. There have been more that the odd one or two who have tried to succeed in such unfounded arguments. Lets see you not pay your rates and then go to the Supreme Court and fight your case. Are you willing to back your house against your principles? Have you read the judgement handed down in Hoxton park Residents’ Action Group v Liverpool Council [2010] NSWSC 1312 or Vorhauer & Anor v The Queen S305/2002? Again, I repeat, NOT one case brought before the Courts have won the arguement regarding Local Government as being unconstitutional… NOT one.
    Let us know when you are testing your case.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: