jondoe Posted September 2, 2009 Who can provide an explanation for the forced sale of private homes for the non pament of rates ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mac Posted September 2, 2009 (edited) I printed out info for a bloke on this subject but did not bookmark the link, im fairly sure there were a few documented cases from the supreme court ill try to give him a call later & update once i speak with him Edited September 2, 2009 by mac Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
incognito Posted September 2, 2009 im figuring you would have to owe ALOT in rate$ for this to happen??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Torsten Posted September 3, 2009 most councils put a caveat on the title so that any outstanding rates will be paid to them at time of sale, however unless it is a really big bill chances are they won't force a sale just for that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jondoe Posted September 4, 2009 I printed out info for a bloke on this subject but did not bookmark the link, im fairly sure there were a few documented cases from the supreme court ill try to give him a call later & update once i speak with him Were you referring to this case in Queensland A Queensland court of appeal hearing provided this opinion from the judges in the Bone -v- Mothershaw case some years ago at paragraph 23. [23] This brings me to what is really Mr Bone's fundamental complaint about the whole process of vegetation protection that has been imposed on his land under chapter 22. It is that, by the Council's action in making the order, his land has been struck with sterility in relation to the uses he can now lawfully make of it. Except with Council approval, there is practically nothing he can do with it except continue to grow vegetation and perhaps walk on it. His refusal or failure to recognise that this state of affairs now prevails has already cost him $20,000 in penalties, to say nothing of legal costs, his own as well as those of the Council. For this severe limitation on his rights as owner, he has received and will receive no compensation, although he continues to enjoy the privilege of paying the rates that the Council levies on his land. The action taken by the Council was no doubt undertaken in the public interest, as it claims, of the citizens of Brisbane; but it is not they who will bear the financial disadvantages of the action taken in their interest. It is of little consolation to him to learn that, as the Council proudly proclaims in some of its material, it is the only local authority in Australia that provides this service (or some stages of it) to a land owner who is targeted completely free of charge. Deos this mean that the payment of RATES is VOLUNTARY ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
B. Loco Posted September 4, 2009 Your highlighted text only illustrates a statement made from a judge, not the wording of the legislation concerning the subject. While I think land rates/strata fees are often a fucking rip-off, they do contribute towards the maintaining of services such as garbage collection, street cleaning, the upkeep of your local park or reserve etc. What gets under my skin is that the rates differ from council to council. For example if you live in the Ryde district (NSW), they are quite a lot more expensive than neibouring councils. Why is that, when it roughly costs the same for each council to employ workers ? Strata fees are also a joke - I saw an ad a few years ago for an apartment in Chatswood, the fees were $1000 per quarter. What the hell is that all about ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jondoe Posted September 4, 2009 Your highlighted text only illustrates a statement made from a judge, not the wording of the legislation concerning the subject. While I think land rates/strata fees are often a fucking rip-off, they do contribute towards the maintaining of services such as garbage collection, street cleaning, the upkeep of your local park or reserve etc. What gets under my skin is that the rates differ from council to council. For example if you live in the Ryde district (NSW), they are quite a lot more expensive than neibouring councils. Why is that, when it roughly costs the same for each council to employ workers ? Strata fees are also a joke - I saw an ad a few years ago for an apartment in Chatswood, the fees were $1000 per quarter. What the hell is that all about ? Strata fees are another issue but, if you are in this position you did agree to purchase the property under the terms and conditions set out in the statute in relation to this type of classification. If you pay both strata fees and rates you paying to entities to provide management services for your property They are a fu--ing rip-off as you say and the wording of the legislation is no help at all. They have deliberately drafted it in a manner that requires adjudication in their pretend courts if the this issue is ever raised. I am aware of two case in Qld when the general rate has not been paid, but only the other charges for the services provided have been paid, and the court has not ruled in favour of the Council. In the other case the Council has not taken the resident or land owner to court. We did also have a referndum on the Constitutional status of Councils so that also restricts their alleged authority if you dont consent to the general rate which is only a fee for the provision of Management Service as is indicated in the Bone -v- Mothershaw case. What do you mean by legislation ?, do you mean laws passed by the Parliament that have the force of law after they have received Royal Assent in accordance with the Commonwealth Constitution or are you referring to soft laws, Terms and Conditions of Public Policy approved by the elected members that have never received Royal Assent and have only been commenced by publication in the Gazettee or News Paper as is the case with the Biky legislation in NSW. Under the provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution, which created the States, the Parliament of the State is required to have the proposed Bill passed by both Houses and then the Governor is to issue Royal Assent. This Instrument is a official Government Instrument allegdly issued by the Governor under his hand and if he is alleged to be doing this for and on behalf of the Queen, he must sign his name and also use the official SEAL to authenticate the Instrument as being on behalf of the Sovereign. We are alleged to be a Constitutinal Monachy with a Democraticly elected Parliament and Upper House. In Queensland this is where the problem lies, these formal government Instruments are bogus, counterfeit and forgeries as the only thing that appears on the document is a mark which appears to be a signature, there is no name of anybody that can be identified, no Title referred to and no Public SEAL of the State. The seal on the document attached is the SEAL of the Parliament of Queensland this is used by the Clerk of the Parliament to authentic his signature and statement that the Bill has passed the vote in the House. Then the Bill is alleged to go to the Governor for the second step in the process but as you can see it does not really happen. That is why I refer to this as SOFT LAW, terms and conditions of the public Policy set out in the Bill passed by the Parliament, or the members of the board of the crporate entity who cant make law with force. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mac Posted September 4, 2009 (edited) Fee Simple is what you need to look into as well as property rights, my m8 who has looked into this extensively also recommends putting up trespass signs on your land to keep the sheriff away, there seems to be a new surge in people going down this path for many different reasons A large percentage of properties in Australia are held in FEE SIMPLE. By LAW, these properties CANNOT be 'levied' or 'charged' underANY description! some links that may be of help http://phorums.com.au/archive/index.php/t-77283.html http://www.slashlegal.com/showthread.php?t=70443 Ill have a look on my old hard drive im sure i bookmarked alot more info on this subject Edited September 4, 2009 by mac Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
B. Loco Posted September 4, 2009 Strata fees are another issue If you pay both strata fees and rates you paying to entities to provide management services for your property Not really 'another issue' then. A variation on the same theme. They are a fu--ing rip-off as you say and the wording of the legislation is no help at all. What do you mean by legislation ?, do you mean laws passed by the Parliament that have the force of law after they have received Royal Assent in accordance with the Commonwealth Constitution or are you referring to soft laws, Terms and Conditions of Public Policy approved by the elected members that have never received Royal Assent and have only been commenced by publication in the Gazettee or News Paper as is the case with the Biky legislation in NSW. Neither, really. My comment was based on what must be a misinterpretation of your entry. I thought the quote in post #5 was your perception of legislation. Clearly it's not. It's the statement of 'a judges opinion'. Gets me to thinkin'.... A judge or magistrate would look at me with utter & complete disdain as a human being, even outside of the court room. Fortunately those who play Overlord in the court process rarely formulate policy or legislation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jondoe Posted September 4, 2009 Neither, really. My comment was based on what must be a misinterpretation of your entry. I thought the quote in post #5 was your perception of legislation. Clearly it's not. It's the statement of 'a judges opinion'. Gets me to thinkin'.... A judge or magistrate would look at me with utter & complete disdain as a human being, even outside of the court room. Fortunately those who play Overlord in the court process rarely formulate policy or legislation. Yes it was the Justice's opinion and that is all that matters regardless of what is provided by the politicians in the Parliament prior to the hearing as we are alleged to have some form of precedent created common law. If they did not agree with this opinion they could have amended the terms and conditions of the policy set out in the Local Govt Bill. If you want to consider it as law with force that is entirely up to you, but I consider it policy just like an insurence policy, terms and condition of a contract or agreement and any issue in dispute is dealt with under contract law. If they continue to claim that the decision of this court of apeal is valid based on these opinions of those three Justices who have judged this matter and which are supported by other justices in other decisions in other courts in all States, it would appear that what they say is correct. For this severe limitation on his rights as owner, he has received and will receive no compensation, although he continues to enjoy the privilege of paying the rates that the Council levies on his land He agrees to pay the rates levied, its not an impost under law with force, he does consent to enjoy the privilege when he does not have to. With this agreement to pay the fee levied it is implied that he also consents to the severe limitation on his rights as owner as he has never stated that he reserves all rights as an individual who holds land under fee simple title. This particular case is used in all States of Australia in relation to these issues of land clearing and the jurisdiction of the Council which we give to them on a platter when we agree to have this body corporate charge us a fee to provide management services for our land which we thought was held in fee simple title. If we accept the offer that is sent out to the land owner in advance, dressed up as a RATES NOTICE and we dont reject or attempt to vary the terms and conditions of the offer and we agree to just pay the claim in the offer, this is when we have elected to waive or vary our fee simple title RIGHTS to the use of our land. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hutch Posted September 4, 2009 This "fee simple" has got me very intrigued! http://www.saveoz.info/index.php?title=Fee_Simple It's a funny thing (or not) but about 3 months ago in our local rag within the letters to the editor was one about land ownership. Now this guy claims that land ownership in it's self is unjust and a waste of resource and one day in the future all land will be owned by the State and shared around. My first thoughts were that this guy is a fruit loop and maybe he is but he is a regular contributer who even has his own small column and most of the time I agree with what he has to say. Maybe he is just a disgruntled renter I am now living where I will spend the rest of my life. I have put my roots down on this 25 acre hobby farm up near Bundaberg and most of my plants are in the ground for that very reason. I ain't going nowhere! Let them come and try and take my place from me. Hutch Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
B. Loco Posted September 4, 2009 Yes it was the Justice's opinion and that is all that matters regardless of what is provided by the politicians in the Parliament prior to the hearing as we are alleged to have some form of precedent created common law. What? The legislative process has fuck all to do with the judges/magistrates that administer punishment penances. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jondoe Posted September 5, 2009 (edited) What? The legislative process has fuck all to do with the judges/magistrates that administer punishment penances. Why do you say only that, are you not capable of constructing more than one sentence. Who do you believe authorises the magistrate's exercise of power when administering punishment penances ? It aint the defendant/victim the Police have draged in, or is it ? You have used the term penances, are you a Roman Catholic ? If you are, you would walk fee from the magistrates court ever time, the Roman Catholics run the LEGAL SYSTEM and the Public Service from top to bottom. Edited September 5, 2009 by jondoe Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
B. Loco Posted September 9, 2009 Why do you say only that, are you not capable of constructing more than one sentence. Posts #6 & #9 suggest otherwise. This isn't a personal attack, friend. I just get too drunk and high sometimes and become passionate without any particular substance to back up my words. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Garbage Posted September 15, 2009 (edited) Is it like the states where there is no law,but if you do not pay protection money then the hoodlums come knocking... It's a Defacto state of affairs designed to curtail a legal challenge. I add some more,No taxation without representation. Obviously if the tax became a law then Americans would demand representation,so no law was made and no representation offered. Other laws permit the ruining of those who do not pay those who do not represent them. Is that the Australian way? Is it anyones way? It's DC's way. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/t...icenseplate.jpg Edited September 15, 2009 by Garbage Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mountainmaniac Posted November 22, 2009 Fee Simple is what you need to look into as well as property rights, my m8 who has looked into this extensively also recommends putting up trespass signs on your land to keep the sheriff away, there seems to be a new surge in people going down this path for many different reasons some links that may be of help http://phorums.com.au/archive/index.php/t-77283.html http://www.slashlegal.com/showthread.php?t=70443 Ill have a look on my old hard drive im sure i bookmarked alot more info on this subject Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mountainmaniac Posted November 22, 2009 About the "Trespass" Sign, In general yes can be placed on Rural properties for Insurance and other legal protection.As for All properties though.From what i can gather.By law.you must allow a clear and unobstructed path to your front door.As for keeping out the Sheriff, I feel that would be as useful as Tits on a Bullfrog and would have no legal binding. To answer other questions about rates. yes it is legal to collect rates,this is wher local government obtain revenue in order to build roads ( council ) swimming pools ,library's, garbage collection and water supply ext,. I once gain legal ownership from a deceased estate after council failing to find a living relatives and all i did was pay the 15 years of outstanding rates. In Nth Qld, a Council served a Motel owner with notice of intention to sell the property because of years of unpaid rates. The Council gave the extension and they ( The motel owners) managed to find the funds and pay. I am in full agreement of Rates,as to the amount, you will have me debating. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
