Thursday, September 3, 2015

Melton a new and illegal state within Victoria


WE would like to think that Australians should not struggle with geography when it comes to their own back yard, as many have been indoctrinated by the public school system, where the basics are taught.

Basics like how many states we have, you know; New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia.

The likes of how many territories we have which could be a bit tricky if one wants to include islands, but generally most people would be inclined to say the Australian Capital Territory, which geographically sits within the state of NSW, and the Northern Territory, which sits above S.A. One should also include the lesser known territory of Jervis Bay.



Whilst Wikipedia is not a current official law resource ‘book’, it can be quoted as stating that in Australia, there are six States, which is not untrue.

In Australia there is a department of the state called a municipal office, or city council as defined in the UK Act called Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act [1900].

Over time these ‘city councils’ unlawfully became ‘businesses’ with ABN’s and trading names.

Currently according to government records, the in the example of SHIRE OF MELTON it is trading under the name of Cafe CommuniTea, where previously it was Summersault.


The current CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of the SHIRE OF MELTON is Mr. Kelvin Tori.

So where’s this Shire of Melton for the overseas viewers?

It's in the outer north west of Melbourne, as shown in red in the map of Victoria below.



 And a larger picture showing the boundaries of the old 'shire' and the new 'state'.



Very briefly, in order for a new state to be formed, it must follow dues process of law, where  a referendum is to be held.

This has not occurred, in this case.

So here is the document stating that the SHIRE OF MELTON is a state.



A transcript of the document is as follows:


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION

No: (P) VID1167/2010

MELTON SHIRE COUNCIL
Applicant

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Respondent

ORDER

JUDGE:                                Justice Gordon
DATE OF ORDER:              18 March 2011
WHERE MADE:                  Melbourne

THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT THAT:
1.      
 A declaration that the applicant is a ‘State’ for the purposes of s 114 of the Commonwealth Constitution.

2.       A declaration that, by reason of s 5 of the A New System (Goods and Services Tax Imposition-General) Act 1999 (Cth), no tax payable under GST law ( within the meaning of A New System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999) is imposed on the property of any kind belonging to the Applicant.


3.       The parties bear their own costs of the proceeding.

Date that entry is stamped: 18 March 2011.
Deputy District Registrar.

End of transcript.
  • Is there anything that these ‘crims’ will not get away with?
  • Is this newly created state for tax dodging purposes?
  • If one 'city council' got away with it, how many others will too? 

It is acknowledged that this document has been provided by a government researcher who wishes to remain anonymous, where permission was granted to post this on the 'internet', as this information was not available on the 'net.

Please note also that the court functions by consent.

We urge EVERY AUSTRALIAN to take a copy of this order and take it to their local M.P. for clarification.

6 comments:

Phillip Kahle said...

"THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT THAT" the operative sentence like you mention.

It seems the Judge has winged a way to stop GST on the Council, using something that is obviously not going to stand with real scrutiny but effective.

Reshared on House of Freeman.
https://plus.google.com/110726133622139939719/posts/DQR8jFwbY6v

Wayne Morgan said...

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 124

Formation of new States
A new State may be formed by separation of territory from a State, but only with the consent of the Parliament thereof, and a new State may be formed by the union of two or more States or parts of States, but only with the consent of the Parliaments of the States affected.

Don't recall this happening.

Phillip Kahle said...

@Wayne. It's a scam, and most likely a conspiracy before it got in to the court room or the judges' quarters when making the order.

How can a State share a State in regards to jurisdiction. It's an oxymoron. Obviously you have ACT in NSW, but it's a cut out, not sharing state rights.

Mr. Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka said...

There appears to be a misconception her as there is absolutely nothing wrong with s114 being used by any municipal/shire council when it is acting by delegated powers of the State, However, it cannot claim that all properties Melton or any other council own are State crown land kind of possessions. If you check out my 12 September 2015 correspondence to Tony Abbott then you may understand what I am on about.
When is a municipal-shire council entitled to claim s114 of the constitution to be applicable?

The document can be downloaded from:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/280276320/20150912-G-H-Schorel-Hlavka-O-W-B-to-Mr-TONY-ABBOTT-PM-Press-Release-Re-s114-of-the-Constitution-And-Other-Issues

Phillip Kahle said...

@Mr Schorel-Hlavka There's a difference between a private body carrying out government tasks legislated or commissioned, and that body being its own.

I don't find it extraordinary that a court would class government service providers as unison in duty. Consider an Army with hired troops, it's still one force, one condemnation, one respect, even though the hired force has capacity to be autonomous and or leave.

Shire-Councils are international jurisdictions, not National, nor States of the nation.

Mr. Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka said...

The High Court of Australia already in Sydney Council v Commonwealth in 1904 accepted that councils using delegated powers of the State are having a s114 standing. That applies only to the exercise of State delegated powers and not as with Melton to properties owned by Melton council. the ATO was wrong and the court order has no legal validity as the parties cannot consent to undermine or overrule the constitution.