Documents related to the Magistrates Court proceeding of 16th December 2009 before His Honour Mr. B. Fitzgerald.
The story of the deception and conduct of this court is here.
Thes documents and comments should be considered after reading the story at the above link.
1/ The Complaint.
This document falsely states that the purported rates and arrears were due on property owned or occupied by me.
2/ The Crooked plans of subdivision.
These plans were contrived to facilitate avoidance of section 9 of he Sale of Land Act 1962. Details of this are set out on the avoiding section 9 page of this website.[here]
These plans show the allotments being Lot 1 on Lodged Plan 135199, Lo 2 on Lodged Plan 135200 and Lots 3-6 Lodged Plan 135201
At the bottom left hand corner of each plan there is an endorsement that a Notice of Requirement related to the plans, consequently the Registrar of Titles was prevented by law from approving the plans until such time as the council notified the Registrar that the requirement had been complied with ir lifted.
The requirement never was either complied with by the developer or lifted by the council so the council was at all times manifestly aware that the allotments never existed as "land", "rateable land", "rateable properties" or at all.
3/ The Parent Title.
The "property" being the parent land is the land being Lot 1 on Plan of subdivision 134684 and described in certificate of tile Volume 9408 Folio 064.
4/ Rate Notices for the period 1983 to 1991 on the nonexitent land.
These rate notices expressly state that they relate to Lot 1 on Lodged Plan 135199, Lot 2 on Lodged Plan 135200 and Lots 3-6 Lodged Plan 135201. These lots never existed a "properties", "rateable land" or "rateable properties"
Up until the rating year 1987/88 the Council's computer truncated the description to only the first two lots.
Note the site value and capital improved values of $34,800 and $36,000 respectively until revalued in 1989 when both the site and capital improved values become $90,000
5/ Rate Notices showing double rating.
The parent property referred to in the letter was in my name and was lot 1 of lodged Plan 134683 and which plan was for a 2 lot subdivision where the greater part of the land was situated on Trentham Rd at Kyneton and lot 1 (the present parent property) was about 4 acres in area
Dung the period about 1983 to 1987 the council rendered Rate Notices which described the subject property as being in my name and as being Lot 1 of Lodged Plan 124604 and being 4 acres situated on the Trentham Rd. This description was correct for the Parent property save for the 2nd and 5th digit of the plan reference number.
A Titles Office search revealed that lodged plan 124604 related to a subdivision of land situated in the Parish of Dumbalk, County of Buln Buln in Gippsland. (see plan here)
The certainty is that the Macedon Council was not rating properties in Gippsland and I was led to believe that the rated property was in fact the parent property referred to in this letter. .
6/ Rate Notices subsequent to 1991.
Here is a single Rate Notice for the year 1992/93, I have lost/misplaced the notice for the period 1991/92.
This Rate Notice expressly describes the parent "property", namely Lot 1 on Plan of Subdivision 134684.
Note the valuation year 1989 and the site value and capital improved value of $90,000 which is identical to the values for the six alotments.
The Rate Book for 1991/92 shows that the supposed arears for the nonexistent allotments was wrongfully carried forward as arrears and interest on the parent property. In the rating year 1990/91 the rates shown on the Rate Notice are arrears $1676.04, general rate $373.50 and extra rate $82.80. These total $2132.34 which is identical with the supposed arrears set out as arrears of rates in the Rate Book for the year 1991/92 in relation to the Parent property.
The council squarely and unlawfully carried forward and applied the supposed arrears and value for the six allotments and applied or attributed them to the parent property.
Other Rate Notices subsequent to 1991 are attached to the certificate of the council's CEO Mr. Peter Johnson. (See below.)
7/ My Defence.
My defence was wide and included conduct in and of previous courts however paragraph 34 of my defence set out the irrefutable fact that the six allotments never existed and could not be either owned, occupied, or rated.
This link is to my paragraph 34.
8/ The council's Reply to my defence.
Paragraph 5 of the Council's Reply to my defence replies to my paagraph 34, here the council asserts.
At is paragraph 5(a) the Council asserts that the land being the six allotments RELATES to the land described in the parent title.
As set out in my letter to the Members of Parliament this asertion is simply deceptive and misleading obfuscation intended to decieve the court and obtain a wrongful judgment. .
The supposed "properties" being the six allotments had no relationship at all to the parent "property"
9/ The Council's Outline of Submissions.
At paragraph 4 the Council defines the "industrial land" as the land in the parent title.
At paragraph 7 the Council sttaes that I was issued with Rate Notices in relation to the industrial land since 1983. This asertion is false. The Notices between 1983 and 1991 specifically describe the six non existent allotments.
10/ The Certificate of Peter Johnson, the CEO of the Macedon Ranges Shire Council.
The certificate of Peter Johnson purports to be a certificate signed pursuant to section 242(2) of the Local Government Act 1989 which provides that courts will take the things said in the certificate as evvidence of those things.
The certificate of Peter Johnson exhibits various Rate Notices for the period 1990 to 2009 and various extracts from the Rate Books for the period 1983 to 2000.
In relation to the Rate Notices Peter Johnson states that they are for the parent property and that the parent property was previously described as the six allotments. These assertions are false. Some of the Rate Notices expressly define the six purported allotments by lot number and lodged plan number while the remainder expressly define the parent property by its discrete lot number and title details.
In relation to the Rate Book extracts Peter Johnson states that they evidence rates rates payable on the parent property and that the parent property was previously described as the six allotments. These assertions are false. Some of the Rate Book extracts expressly define the six purported allotments by lot number and lodged plan number while the remainder expressly define the parent property by its discrete lot number and title details.
At the time of signing his certificate Peter Johnson must have been aware that while they all relate to "the same land" (according to the scheme defined in my letter) the six allotments never existed as rateable properties/land and even if they did exist they would be separate rateable properties/land to the parent property which in any event could not co-exist with the six allotments.
At the time of signing his certificate Peter Johnson must have been aware that the Rate Notices and Rate Book entries for the peroid 1983 to 1991 are NOT for the parent property and the parent property NEVER was known as or described as the six allotments. Peter Johnson's assertions are aberrant deceptive nonsense and in the face of the evidence squarely before him and exhibited by him.
11/ Landscape oriented copies of the Rate Books exhibited by Peter Johnson.
I provide these for ease of reading.
12/ Rate Notice 2000
This shows that the valuation dropped to $40,500 which is less than half the valuation of the six allotments in the 1989 valuation and less then half the valuation wrongly used at least until 1995 and perhaps 2000
The Rate Books show that there was a new valuation in 1995 however the valuation remained unchenged from the valuation wrongly ascribed to the parent title after 1991 when the council ceased purporting to rate the six allotments.
13/ My written submissions that the certificate of the council's CEO, Mr. Peter Johnson cold not be true
See in particular paragraphs 11 to 14. My allegations and supporting argument that the certificate of Peter Johnson could not be true were squarely before the Magistrate. The decision of the Magistrate upholds Mr. Johnson's represenations and efectively holds my allegations to be "misconceived".
14/ Oral evidenc of Ms Lisa Kennedy.
The following is a partial transcript of the oral evidence of Ms. Lisa Kennedy. During this evidence Ms. Kennedy stated to the effect that the council at all times rated "the same piece of dirt" and that it had at all times rated the land being the parent property. On the face of it this evidence by Ms Kennedy is false with no reasonable basis for belief by a person schooled in the notions of "rateable property" and "rateable land"
The evidence of Ms. Kennedy is in accord with the representations made by the CEO, Mr. Peter Johnson which was "produced" into evidence by her.
Ms Kennedy must have been fully aware that the council rates "properties" and/or "occupancies", not "pieces of dirt" which may relate to one or other properties or occupancies.
Ms. Kennedy's evidence is uneqivocal and in accord with the "scheme" described by me in my letter to the Members of Parliament.
Ms Kennedy's oral evidence under oath.
Mr. Harris. If I call Lisa J Kennedy. [Ms Kennedy then sworn in]
Mr. Harris: Are you familiar with the property which we are concerned with here with respect to the outstanding rates.
Ms Kennedy :I am
Mr. Harris: Can I hand to you this document, it is behind, your honour tab 10 in Court Book 2, do you produce that document on behalf of the plaintiff
Ms Kennedy: Yes
Mr. Harris: I tender that your honour, it is a certificate signed by Peter Johnson the Chief Executive Officer
Mr. Harris: Ms. Kennedy, I wish to ask you a few questions about that……
Mr. Harris: The certificate exhibits notices, rate notices and also extracts. Can you tell me what the position was in respect of the Council retaining rate notices prior to 2000.
Ms Kennedy From 1983 through to 2000 they didn’t keep rate notices as such…….they produced a printed annual rate books as the rates are struck they print a rate book.
His Honour: they printed
Ms Kennedy: a rate book which detailed the rates struck for each and every property within the shire.
Mr. Harris: You heard Mr. Thompson indicate that the rates that have been levied on this particular land ought not to have been levied, as we gather, because the land didn’t exist, what do you say about that?.
Ms Kennedy: The Local Government Act says that we have to rate all land ….. The description used is council sealed a plan of subdivision, it was able to be taken to the Titles Office so the rate office
His Honour Bearing in mind I know nothing about this, you might have lived with the case
Ms Kennedy: When Council sealed the plan of subdivision, the subdivision sealed plans were handed over to the developer or the owner at the time and council’s Rate Office then starts to use that as a new legal description, still the same piece of dirt, for the want of another word. Its still rateable under the Local Government Act. Once it was identified to us by Mr. Thompson that those titles were never issued we reverted back to the original parent title thus the lot one on that plan, new plan of subdivision, 134684.
His Honour: I am told by Mr. Thompson that the plans of subdivision could not be sold.....(indistinguishable) ---
His Honour: So during the interim period, while the Council rated according to the plans of subdivisions the subject then was lot 1 …….errrrr, can you tell me….
Mr. Harris 134684.
His Honour: 134684.
His Honour: for how many years was the land rated under
Ms Kennedy: I think it was 1990, 91 that that we changed to the parent title. so it was from, probably about 7 years.
His Honour: So are you saying it reverted to the parent title in about 1990
Ms. Kennedy: Yes in the first instance we were rating the lots from the new subdivision plan
His Honour: From when?
Ms Kennedy: From 1983 through to about 1990 I think we changed. I can verify that from these rate books.
His Honour
Ms Kennedy. From 1983 through to 1988, 89 and 1989 90 it was the multiple lots on the plans from the new subdivision that was sealed and from 1991, 92 it was the Lot 1 on plan of subdivision 134684Glenn Thompson: Sir May I? …. There is one point that needs to be clarified. Its really very simple but quite crucial.
Glenn Thompson: I thought it was sorted out, Miss Kennedy said that they were using the legal description, that is the lots, you know, Lot 1,2, but she said that it was still the same piece of dirt meaning the parent title. what they were in fact rating was the parent title, now just a little bit later she said rating the lots, now I really wish to be clear on what they say they were in fact rating. Was it the same piece of dirt?.
Ms Kennedy: Yes, It was the same piece of dirt.
Glenn Thompson: So you were in fact rating 9408 064, That’s the Parent Title.
Ms. Kennedy: Yes
Glenn Thompson: Yes: Thank you.. That’s all sir.
Glenn Thompson: They say that they were rating the parent title.
His Honour: My understanding here is that up until 1990 the area covered by the relevant survey was rated as part of a larger area from 1990 ummm from 1983. I’m sorry I will start again.
His Honour: The way I understand it. Up until 1983 the area of land covered by the relevant survey was rated as part of a larger title, from 1983 until 1990 it was rated as part of,… as one lot of a plan of subdivision from 1991 to the present it was rated as ….. indecipherable
Glenn Thompson: To make it absolutely clear. What I understand the Council to be saying is that they were not rating the lots on the plans of subdivision
Glenn Thompson: They were not rating the individual lots.
Ms Kennedy: Individual Lots. No.
Glenn Thompson: [Discussion on aggregation.]
Glenn Thompson: Now what needs to be precisely clear here is that my understanding from Miss Kennedy at the moment and my clear understanding from Peter Johnson is that what they are saying is that they were rating the Parent Title all along and just misdescribing it.
Ms Kennedy: That’s exactly right, yep
Glenn Thompson: Thank you. That says it. They were rating the parent title all along, prior to 1991 they were misdescribing it. OK. Very crucial.
15/ The letter of 11/06/09 from the Executive Director, Local Government.
This letter is referred to in my letter to the Membes of Parliament. It is irrelevant to the Magistrates Court proceediings.
.