View Full Version : 'Councils', rates, Property Rights and Fee Simple 1

phill s
22-11-2004, 11:03 PM
Check This Out For Fee Simple Recent Court Case.

----- Original Message -----

From: Les Banki

To: Ray Platt

Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 2:29 PM

Subject: Re: 'Councils', rates, Property Rights and Fee Simple

Greetings to all,

I consider the following message to be of great importance!

The National Coordinator for the Australian Patriot Movement, Kevin
Thompson, at our last Clayton Forum meeting on the 2nd of November,
announced the following [exact quote below, as it is printed on page 3 in
the October issue of the monthly newspaper, "The Strategy". If you wish to
read the whole 1/4 page message, 'Reproduction of Document'...and the main
article "PROPERTY RIGHTS AND FEE SIMPLE" (An interview with Senator Len
Harris, Senator for Queensland One Nation Party), you should contact "The
Strategy" and acquire a copy of the October issue.

Email: strategy@net-tech.com.au , or phone (03) 5182 6002]:

"The Australian Patriot Movement has had an interesting ruling made in the
local court hearing, Davis v Port Stephens Council, over land rates. Mr
Davis has been informed that he will have another mention date, the third
mention date, to be followed by a fourth mention date. His refusal to pay
land rates will never be heard in a court of law because of fee simple on
property title, also the Uniform Commercial Code ruling - HCA/88 and the
Federal Referendum 1988.

This is a victory for the movement, stand up and be counted, join the fight,
ring Kevin Thompson

(02) 6685 1719"

Kevin W.D. Thompson

National Coordinator

Further, he suggested that ALL Australian 'rate payers' could/should now
write to their 'councils', informing them that ALL 'rate' payments will be
with-held (not the same as refusing to pay) until the 'courts' have handed
down the final decision on this issue.

Adding my own comments to this: Most of you are probably aware of how the
'courts' operate.

It will be a lengthy process.

Considering the importance of the issue, they will stall it as long as they
possibly can. I would say 2 - 5 years, perhaps longer. Of course, everyone
needs to realise that the final decision will need to be in favour of
'councils', otherwise their 'system' will collapse overnight!

However, it won't matter.

If ALL payments are with-held, ALL 'councils' will be BANKRUPT and long GONE
before the "courts" finish arguing!

So, all you 'suckers' (hurting "rate payers", that is) out there, here is
your chance! Without getting into any trouble, start writing those letters
and with-hold your payments!!

(To those who wish to retain their 'councils', by all means, stay with them,
pay them but STOP complaining about being screwed!!

Remember, despite all appearances to the contrary, EVERYTHING is

If you don't use this excellent opportunity to fight, I guarantee you that
you will NOT OWN ANY PROPERTY in 10 years time, as I explained in my
article: "Abolishing 'councils'". Please read it again.

(For the ones who are new on the list, I attach it once again.)

Best regards,

Les Banki

Ps. Pasted below is an article written by Peter Gargan, titled "Taxation".
Please read that also.



Firstly, what is a State?

A state is a group of people who by mutual consent have agreed to band
together for certain purposes, like defence, provision of social services
etcetera and do so usually in accordance with a document or instrument. This
is known as the Constitution of a corporation, or body corporate, and the
Australian Constitution if considered in this light is valid, in full force
and a marvellous document.

It must also be considered in the light of the underlying matrix of laws,
which were in place when it was made as an instrument at law. The Australian
corporations created by the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900,
and its 9th section, it is not a Schedule, but an intrinsic part of the
entire instrument, occupy the geographic area defined in Section 8, and are
made up of the voting members or shareholders in these corporations.

You, as a citizen, or subject, who vote, are, subject to your right to
judicially review whatever legislation is passed by the Parliaments, are
bound by legislation made on your behalf by delegates. If it is outside the
boundary, or mere stones governing the subjects which the legislature can
enact, it is ultra vires ( outside power,) and is not a Law.

Pick up your Constitution and look at Section 52 Placitum (ii) the Taxation
power. and it says: Taxation, but so as not to discriminate between States
and parts of States. You as an individual are an intrinsic and essential
part of the State of NSW, and also of the Commonwealth, the seventh State.
You cannot be discriminated against, and any legislation that discriminates
is outside power, and need not be obeyed. In this way, you put them on
notice to prove to you, and not only you, but by Section 80 Constitution, to
prove to 12 similar parts of the State, that the current taxation regime
treats you the same as it treats everyone else.

Despite pretences to the contrary, and the fiction that we are already a
republic, all prosecutions must be conducted in the name of the Crown. The
DPP is simply an agent of the Crown, of somewhat dubious ancestry, but even
it is bound by the decisions of the High Court, and the High Court has made
it clear that what is called the golden thread, runs through the law of this

The Golden Thread is that the Crown, in prosecuting a citizen, must strictly
prove every element of the offence in order to succeed. One of those
elements is the validity of the creation of the Australian Tax Office,
because if it is not validly created it cannot direct the DPP to prosecute.

The next element that must be strictly proved, ( beyond reasonable doubt) is
that the Income Tax Act is valid. It was expanded in the second World War,
when the special powers granted in wartime, under section 51 placitum (vi)
provided the head of power, to support it, and when challenged in 1946, the
High Court held that it was still valid because the war still had to be paid
for. It has not been challenged since.

I believe you must ask the ATO to strictly prove that the current Tax Act
does not fall foul of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. The High Court is in denial that this is validly legislated, but the
evidence is overwhelming.

In 1981 Fraser incorporated it into Australian Law with a five year sunset
clause, in that it lapsed unless confirmed in five years. In 1986, the then
Labor Government enacted it into the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act
1986 as schedule 2. They then passed the Australian Bill of Rights and a
Bill to repeal and relocate the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights . neither of these two Bills were submitted to the Governor
General but the operative part of the Bill of rights, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights remains as schedule 2 to the Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Act 1986. The ATO must prove, ( which they
cannot) that this Act was never passed to continue to prosecute you in a
Magistrates Court. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
is authorised under the foreign affairs power.

If the ATO cannot prove the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights is not law, and with it being defined as the Covenant in the
Criminal Code Act 1995 Dictionary, and the Criminal Code Act 1995 being the
only Act that governs criminal prosecutions, then you cannot be tried
summarily, but MUST be indicted, and Section 80 Australian Constitution
comes into play.

That means that the Commonwealth must strictly prove to 12 ordinary
Australians just like you, that the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights is not a law, and that the Tax Act does not discriminate
between different classes of Australians. Of course it cannot prove that,
because it levies different levels of Tax depending on your income, so the
whole Act is invalid. Section 51 Placitum (ii). There are other laws that
impact. As a Schedule the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights is law by reference to section 12 and 13 Acts Interpretation Act
1901,(CTH). By Section 9.5 Criminal Code Act 1995 once you claim your right
to be indicted no single justice has any further part to play except to
commit you to trial before a Judge and jury. You must by article 26 ICCPR
be treated the same as a rapist or murderer, and tried in exactly the same
type of Court.

I am prepared to prepare all the authorities you will need to rely upon,
High Court and other authorities, and make available all the legislation, or
show you where to find it.

Section 64 Judiciary Act 1903 ( Cth) declares the Commonwealth to be in
law, a juristic person equal in every way to every other. I promised that
dill Ruddock and told that other loser Latham, that there would need to be
Tax reform on the agenda this Parliament, irrespective of who won.

I do not know if you are a Christian, but I am and am appalled at the
destruction of a system we, as Protestant Christians developed over 700
years, has been destroyed in 30 years since 1972. Her Majesty ELIZABETH THE
SECOND, is the representative of the Lord. As such She owns everything, and
in wartime, can take it all, provided she pay for it , for defence. In
peacetime, she must not take your property, by the Habeas Corpus Act 1640
(16 CAR 1 c 10) (IMP) ( one of the underlying matrix laws,) unless She first
asks a jury of your peers if She is entitled to it. You see, the Habeas
Corpus Act 1640 (16 CAR 1 c 10) (IMP) in section 3 says the Queen and Her
Privies, ( which includes the members of parliament and all judges,
magistrates and public servants who work for Her, ( The Crown) ) shall have
no jurisdiction over any mans Estate.

The disregard of this led to the secession of the American Colonies, but it
is still law here, because , despite its purported repeal in 1970, its
repeal is forbidden by section 128 Australian Constitution and Sections
106-109. It became Australian Law by Section 118 Australian Constitution on
the 9th July 1900, along with the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act

Whenever this is put to the ATO they find an excuse to not proceed further.


Peter Gargan. 95185505 0401 884 920

31-01-2008, 01:27 AM

01-02-2008, 04:33 PM
As soon as he finishes him time.

( can you lose the CAPS ? )

03-02-2008, 11:09 PM
ok ,so i see you are a forum troll and much appologies if CAPS offends , so is the orgininating scribe incarcerated ?

05-02-2008, 07:59 PM



Principality of Range View

If a government contravenes the fundamental rights of its citizens, it abdicates government.
The citizens are then absolved of their allegiance to that government.
This has happened to all Australian governments by virtue of the application of the Bill of Rights, 1688.
The Bill of Rights cannot be dispensed with by a parliament (refer Statute of Monopolies, 1623), nor by the executive (refer Petition of Rights, 1628), nor by the judiciary (refer Habeous Corpus Act, 1640).
Section 118 of the purported Australian Constitution reads: Full faith and credit shall be given, throughout the Commonwealth to the laws, the public Acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of every State.
The citizens have the right to secede and come out from under the usurped jurisdiction of the abdicated government, by virtue of Article 1.1 of the Internationl Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, which is the law of Australia by virtue of the application of Sections 3 and 6 of the purported Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, 1986.
Once seceded, citizens have the right to form a new nation, or join a new nation, by the virtue of the application of Article 5 (d) (iii) of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965, which is the law of Australia by virtue of the application of Section 3, 6 and 7 of the purported Racial Discrimination Act, 1975.
However, as documents used to appoint Australia’s purported Governor General have been illegally issued, this means that the purported Governor General has held no valid executive legal power whatsoever, to swear in elected members of parliament, members of the judiciary, or to appoint any Commissioners.
A citizen has every right to form a new nation, or join a new nation.


Secession is the formal separation from an alliance, country or federation etc.

24-11-2008, 03:00 PM
Dear Les,
Your articile on the councils is very interesting. Once we get these ashholes off our backs then I will be joining Mr Davis in his fight to get ride of rates that are imposed on us Illegally, and hopefully we will be able to not only get ride of Councils but other organisations that impose their supposed misleading laws on us Illegally.
We are in a shit fight with our Local Council also and am in court with them, our next appearance is on 19th Dec, 2008. Re: they are trying to force us to get a Kennel Licence for our dogs as they claim we have too many dogs (above 4)and we are required by their laws to have kennels. It is all a matter of $$$ to them. We disagree that we require Kennels, as the dogs are our pets we do not board in outsiders.
Seeing we would not comply with their regulations now they are taking us to court and trying to fine us around the $252,000 mark for not complying. They are a joke, they actually are fining my husband $124,866 and me $124,856 when we are both on the one title of ownership of the property. This is called double jepardy. Trying to get their maxinin fine from both of us for the one property.

There was an articile printed in the Gold Coast Sun newspaper on page 9 on the 5th Nov, 2008 in regards to our situation.

It seems that you know a fare bit about councils, if you can help me fight these ashholes off then I would be eternally grateful.

I hope to hear back from you soon.

Cheers Virginia and Family

24-11-2008, 03:28 PM
Dear Les,
You say in you last letter to the forum that you have an article "Abolishing 'councils'" that you have posted, I am new to the forum, can you please send this article on to me as I have not read it and am very interested in reading it, as I have previously noted above that I am in conflict with our Local Council at the present time and am looking for anything that may help me, pin them with their Supposed Fake By-laws.
I can be contacted directly on [email]ape5@optusnet.com.au
Phone 07 55618057 Mob:0143 266497
Cheers Virginia