Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by john vella on May 9, 2010 at 7:15am

Norm

Appreciate your link and will study the interpretation given. To answer the extent of my knowledge on Just Terms I will try to answer your question this way " Just - is a desire of truth, ones belief that we as civilized humans apply equality to each other without favour or regard for ones self. Just is justice works in the same manner having full respect without reservation; Terms - is the conditions, the agreement, the contract, the arrangement... and where by the terms we must obey.

The way of understanding Just Terms is by good conscience unfortunately lawyers and Courts put many different leans on the meaning. There can only be one meaning regardless to any argument one may desire.

No Law or Court can remove Just Terms from our liberties and when they do they falter in truth and in justice.

Hoping you understand my reasoning.

john

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lynette McDougall on May 9, 2010 at 7:26am

In Queensland when your property is being resumed by the Government, this is what you are entitled to claim compensation for:

- Market value of the property (and if the market value has dropped because of the detrimental affect of the proposed project, it is market value before the project was announced).

- Costs associated with buying a replacement property, such as stamp duty, mortgage fees.

- removal costs

- public utility reconnection fees

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Norm Martin on May 9, 2010 at 12:22pm

Hi Lyn !

Interestingly enough, Biscoe J was quite generous with disturbance. The owner had to first rent premises while seeking one to purchase, and then incurred further costs moving to that property. Also all service connection costs.

Regards

Norm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lynette McDougall on May 9, 2010 at 1:21pm

The Land Court tends to be rather generous to dispossessed owners. You can't be too greedy, but you can get more if you let the court decide.

Friends of a friend were served an NIR and were rather upset about it. I told them to seek good legal advice (which is also claimable) to find out what they were entitled to claim. Once they found out what they could get they couldn't sign the agreement quickly enough.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Norm Martin on May 19, 2010 at 10:25pm

Hi All !

Below is the quote from Spencer re Magennis

MR KING: Pye v Renshaw I think, with respect, in the Federal Full Court it was treated as a knockout blow but before Justice Emmett his Honour took a different view. His Honour thought that, with respect, and we would adopt what his Honour has to say about this, that Magennis still had teeth and your Honours - - -

HIS HONOUR: It now clearly does.

MR KING: Now your Honours have held that it clearly does.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR KING: So we will certainly be relying upon ICM and what your Honours had to say in that case. This evidence, your Honour, which is objected to solely on the ground of relevance in relation to special leave, we respectfully submit, addresses issues of public importance and also the basis upon which the matter has general or specific relevance to the administration of justice. I am now using the terminology in section 35A of the Judiciary Act.

That is our position, your Honour. We are not arguing that this material will necessarily or, indeed, at all be received on the final appeal if special leave is granted but on the questions of public importance and the issues of administration of justice, we respectfully submit that they have relevance. We can put together, as I have said, a convenient compilation bundle and - - -

HIS HONOUR: I think it may come to this – and I will see what Mr Markus says – your complaint at the end of the day really is that you should not have been summarily dismissed.



Norm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Harrison on June 5, 2010 at 2:53pm

At common law these are called Grand Juries.

The fact we don't have any common law system is why some people are trying such thing by other means.
The common law is those laws (the Law of the Land) the people have so chosen. These laws are so chosen by jurors in Trial by Jury. Where a statute law is upheld by jury it remains a Law of the Land; if it is upheld time and again it becomes the Law of the Land.
How? If a jury find the evidence and or facts are true, but find no crime i.e. return a finding of not guilty, then the law under which the prosecution used to lay the charge is void and of no account as though it never was. The accused acted against a claimed law that was insensible to the jurors.

Doug Harrison

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Harrison on June 5, 2010 at 3:39pm

YES. An alternative. ( there are many alternatives -- some see an alternative unnecessary; others complain - its just people are too lazy to put their minds to the task; or are told one is incapable of doing so, usually by the ultra-conservative power moguls)

A people's COMMON LAW Constitution for the Commonwealth of Australia.

In simple terms its means overlaying the present Australian Constitution with a COMPACT of the people of Australia. It would involve a courts system of Common Law administered directly under the people, and all common law courts would superintend any other types of courts. It would be a right for an accused to have a jury trial.
The COMPACT would include a Charter of Liberties and a Charter of Governance. May be a Charter of the Family?
Where, in our present Constitution, can you find what are our rights and privileges? Most people of British stock assume some such rights and privileges, but more than 25% of the community have come from countries where rights and privileges are unknown.
Every person accused of a crime should be able before a jury, holding forth the COMPACT and its Charter of Liberties. Whether the jury agrees is a matter of argument and conscience of the jurors. Note: it has NOTHING to do with the people in power, or the judges.
We should clearly note, Australians born in Australia have only a slightly clearer understanding of their rights and privileges, and mostly likely no better idea of how they are available and or put into practise.
Not surprising if we have no system of common law courts.

Doug Harrison

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Doug Harrison on June 5, 2010 at 3:58pm

Carol,

Under Common Law a jury may declare for the landowner, even where the evidence says he has cleared land (in contravention of the Act) NOT GUILTY,
The said Act is then totally VOID.
Ordinary people have already WON!

That's the sovereignty of the People at work

Doug Harrison -- Vic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka on January 23, 2011 at 4:34am

I am NOT a lawyer and do not give legal advice but as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, Attorney, Professional Advocate, Author, Consultant I have canvassed the issues regarding FEE SIMPLE, the Queensland Burns case, etc. You will find you can download the 9-3-2009 ADDRESS TO THE COURT (Part 2) FREE OF CHARGE from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati and other documents that deal with adverse acquisition.

Gerrit

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by janina mcmahon on January 23, 2011 at 11:07am

Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka said:

I am NOT a lawyer and do not give legal advice but as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, Attorney, Professional Advocate, Author, Consultant I have canvassed the issues regarding FEE SIMPLE, the Queensland Burns case, etc. You will find you can download the 9-3-2009 ADDRESS TO THE COURT (Part 2) FREE OF CHARGE from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati and other documents that deal with adverse acquisition.

Gerrit

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka on January 23, 2011 at 12:53pm

janina mcmahon said:

Gerrit Hendrik Schorel-Hlavka said:

I am NOT a lawyer and do not give legal advice but as a CONSTITUTIONALIST, Attorney, Professional Advocate, Author, Consultant I have canvassed the issues regarding FEE SIMPLE, the Queensland Burns case, etc. You will find you can download the 9-3-2009 ADDRESS TO THE COURT (Part 2) FREE OF CHARGE from my blog http://www.scribd.com/InspectorRikati and other documents that deal with adverse acquisition.

Gerrit

Mr G. H. Schorel-Hlavka

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) on January 24, 2011 at 1:29am

Wow...it seems my first post has disappeared. Is that so? Was it removed? That would be something of a first to be censored from the very first post. I am getting the updates on this thread and the only way that would happen is if my post made it and was then removed, wouldn't it?

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 10
• 11
• 12
• 13
• Next ›
• Page