The following Councils have been challenged, asked to provide evidence they have a lawful claim.
It could be so simple. If any Council had a lawful claim over your property, all they’d have to do is publish that evidence on their websites and save everyone a lot of time. They don’t provide the evidence because they have no lawful claim. If it is not in the execution of the King’s business, then they have, literally, no business in your property. Quo Warranto.
Jump to:
Australian Capital Territory | New South Wales | Northern Territory | Queensland | South Australia | Tasmania | Victoria | Western Australia |
*No. = number of owners/cases in that Shire who have challenged. Each one is a different owner. ie 3 = 3 different property owners.
The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi, shortened from Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.
If you have challenged your Council, please add the details to the form below. No sign-in required. Email address is voluntary – if you’d like to be contacted should new information be available that may help all Challenges.
Add the business name as listed on the ABN lookup, with their ABN, of any council YOU have challenged by email, letter or formal Notices (regardless of which Notices, from this website or otherwise, ANY method of questioning), questioned to provide evidence of lawful claim. The information will be published above as it is collated. We hope to use this information on any case that eventually makes it to any court.
Find your Council’s business name and ABN at https://abr.business.gov.au/
From The Annotated Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia (Quick and Garran). Page 795:
“1. Every power alleged to be vested in the National government, or any organ thereof, must be affirmatively shown to have been granted. There is no presumption in favour of the existence of a power; on the contrary; the burden of proof lies on those who assert its existence, to point out something in the Constitution which, either expressly or by necessary implication, confers it. Just as an agent, claiming to act on behalf of his principal, must make out by positive evidence that his principal gave him the authority he relies on; so Congress, or those who rely on one of its statutes, are bound to show that the people have authorized the legislature to pass the statute. The search for the power will be conducted in a spirit of strict exactitude, and if there be found in the Constitution nothing which directly or impliedly conveys it, then whatever the executive or legislature of the National government, or both of them together, may have done in the persuasion of its existence, must be deemed null and void, like the act of any other unauthorized agent.”
Quo Warranto
From Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd edition online.
“In old English practice. A writ, in the nature of a writ of right for the king, against him who claimed or usurped any office, franchise, or liberty; to inquire by what authority he supported his claim, in order to determine the right It lay also in case of non-user, or long neglect of a franchise, or misuser or abuse of it; being a writ commanding the defendant to show by what warrant he exercises such a franchise, having never had any grant of it or having forfeited it by neglect or abuse. 3 Bl. Comm. 262. In England, and quite generally throughout the United States, this writ has given place to an “Information in the nature of a quo warranto,” which, though in form a criminal proceeding, is in effect a civil remedy similar to the old writ, and is the method now usually employed for trying the title to a corporate or other franchise, or to a public or corporate office.”
#QuoWarranto #LexMercatoria
SUPREME COURT ACT 1970 – SECT 70
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/sca1970183/s70.html
Ouster of office
70 Ouster of office
Where any person acts in an office in which the person is not entitled to act and an information in the nature of quo warranto would, but for section 12, lie against the person, the Court may grant an injunction restraining the person from so acting and may (if the case so requires) declare the office to be vacant.
JUDICIARY ACT 1903 – SECT 33
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ja1903112/s33.html
Mandamus Prohibition Ouster of office
(1) The High Court may make orders or direct the issue of writs:
(a) commanding the performance by any court invested with federal jurisdiction, of any duty relating to the exercise of its federal jurisdiction; or
(b) requiring any court to abstain from the exercise of any federal jurisdiction which it does not possess; or
(c) commanding the performance of any duty by any person holding office under the Commonwealth; or
(d) removing from office any person wrongfully claiming to hold any office under the Commonwealth; or
(e) of mandamus; or
(f) of habeas corpus .
(2) This section shall not be taken to limit by implication the power of the High Court to make any order or direct the issue of any writ.