Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 6, 2012 at 8:06am

Page 1 of comment from original discusion publish by The then PRA chairman Ron Bahnisch on the 8th January 2010.

 

Replies to This Discussion

Reply by Nikki & Peter Mahony on January 8, 2010 at 5:57pm

Behind this discussion piece from Ron stands a treasure of knowledge about the long and tiring fight for property rights that has only really in the last 12 months - and especially with Peter Spencer - become a mainstream talking point. And yet it is an issue relevant to every single Australian.

Peter Spencer has been successful because he remains articulate and concise in his points. Like farmers in general who work hard, face real difficulties day in and day out and say what they mean he strikes an obvious chord with the average Australian.

However the last few weeks have seen every political party, the power generators and tax payers in general (through facing a large unpaid bill) alienated in the frenzy of excitement. These are powerful enemies and as true as many of the allegations may be the realpolitik of making such enemies is all too obvious in today's Australian.

 

 

Reply by Ron Bahnisch on January 10, 2010 at 5:33pm

It’s good to hear from you, Peter and Nikki. I don’t know whether distance renders enchantment to the view but your assessment that the real politic of making such powerful enemies was obvious in The Australian is totally accurate.

Twas ever thus however. It’s the reason we have to look after Barnaby Joyce.

The last few days have again proved that farmers historically wedged between the struggling titanic political forces of the Big End of Town on the one hand and Extreme Environmentalism on the other hand are once again absorbing collateral damage.

We are innocent and helpless road kill. Unless and until industry representatives realise the name of the game, and in advocating the interests of their members refuse to be duchessed by governments into being useful innocents in helping to sign off on their constituents demise, we will be destined to more of the same.

As Winston Churchill said, “Feed the crocodiles only to find they eat you last.”

In Africa a breed of cattle live safely in lion parks. If one of their number is killed, the whole herd relentlessly pursue and kill the perpetrator. They have no horns and trample their victims to death. The consequence of harm to their species is certain death. Similarly, unless severe consequences are experienced by our tormentors, we will continue to be a soft target.

In the Spencer court case to prove a “taking” by the Federal Government to obtain just terms for compensation was always going to be a long shot and I hope the financial contribution from the NFF Fighting Fund covered that risky endeavour.

In every arena that this subject has been canvassed, now for 49 days, the consensus is that Peter, together with thousands of other landowners have lost property rights and consequent detriment to their bankable equity.

The verdict of the court of public opinion is in and Peter has been backed by two judges who have declared that the remedy is political. Both Justices Jagot and Rotham have ruled that Spencer is enduring an injustice but they can only rule on the material presented in relation to the law as it stands and express sympathy for his plight.

Apropos the Brigalow Corp, when Professor Suri returns from sabbatical leave at the end of February, I will ask him to elaborate.

In the meantime, let me recommend a speech I picked up at Property Rights Australia office the other day: Agenda 21 – A Critique by Tom de Weese, “The Wrenching Transformation of America.” He starts
I believe the American people, and their every action, are being ruled, regulated, restricted, licensed, registered, directed, checked, inspected, measured, numbered, counted, rated, stamped, censured, authorised, admonished, refused, prevented, drilled, indoctrinated, monopolised, extorted, robbed, hoaxed, fined, harassed, disarmed, dishonoured, fleeced, exploited, assessed, and taxed to the point of suffocation and desperation. America is drowning in a sea of rules and regulations, particularly under the guise of saving the environment.” And so on for 15 pages.

It could all be just another right wing conspiracy theory??

You can hear the speech which was delivered in late March 2009 at www.americanpolicy.org. The audio is the one called Firestorm – the Spokane speech.

Please, if you can, attend the rally at Saarahnlee tomorrow and help persuade Peter to rejoin us.

 

 

Reply by Laurel V on January 17, 2010 at 1:05pm

the quote above from usa... hmm its because they are now coming to have the very laws we here have had foisted on us for many years. they have a constitution, but thats been slowly and carefully undermined over the years. the new HR laws there are what we have they are now getting mandatory NAIS and are furious, we got NLIS and our protestes were for naught. as we have NO constitution for the peoples protection.

 

 

Reply by Rob Moore on January 9, 2010 at 9:37am

Ron and Peter- wise words. Got to stay focussed on the root cause-keep the message simple and clear and while all support from any quarter is welcome- the tail can't wag the dog.

This is Peter Spencer's show- we must listen to him! Nobody can claim to know more about any of this then him.
Frank Smolle has an excellant phone audio on the "Australian" gutter journalism where Spencer gives a thorough genuine explanation and makes no excuses-like the man that he is.

It's not for me to say but if the press were to use it it would back fire on the muckrakers as the average person would be horrified if the world knew what they were getting up to when they were 18 years old.

################################################

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 6, 2012 at 8:14am

Page 2 of comments from the original publication of this discussion.

 

Reply by Suzi Lilburn on January 14, 2010 at 2:01am

I am interested in your comments on the Brigalow issue, as the data I have read is well supported with legislation details and the person who runs the cases is in regular contact with the Constitutional QC that has been a supporter of Peter Spencer. My understanding is that the two teams share info.

I also see on their website that they carry a lot of information on the details of fee simple title deeds, trespass etc, all of which should be info that your group would agree with surely. I have also noticed that your site does not carry any of that info, which I thought would be standard offerings for a Property Protection site. Do you only offer that info to members?

And although they have had losses in the courts, so has Peter and everyone else that has been battling land issues, however these people do not charge anything for their help, but fund much of the work from their own pockets. Why would they do this, at their own expense, year after year, if they did not think they were on the track of something important.

I would also like to point out that Grant Goldman first mentioned the Brigalow info on his programme, and stated that he had run it past the station's lawyer, who had agreed with it. He then brought it up with Barnaby Joyce who also agreed with it using the words communism. Goldman later said he was nervous about bringing it up with Joyce for fear of Joyce laughing it down and of course that did not happen.

I know of Suri Ratnapala's reputation, but has he actually seen all the data this group has? or just the overview that is in the public, because i have taken the time to get in touch with them and there is a great deal more that they have not put into the public area.

i also note that your comments on the their court loses, in another posting are exactly the same as the reply most people have gotten from the QLD govt when they have asked questions about Brigalow. I would like to ask whether you have actually done any personal research on this data for yourself or have simply assumed it is false?

 

 

Reply by Ron Bahnisch on January 14, 2010 at 9:24am

Our barrister has said there is nothing worse than bush lawyers waxing on about the legal system.

I’m not going to ask him for an opinion on the Brigalow Corporation. He is preoccupied. Two days ago we sought leave to appeal to the High Court after our first loss in fourteen appearances in court.

In law as in other things you tend to get what you pay for. In 2006, Property Rights Australia commissioned a leading law firm in Brisbane to get an opinion from Bob Gotteson QC on the chances of a successful challenge in the High Court to the Qld Government’s actions in disallowing a landowner’s rights to manage vegetation on their land. The verdict was “little or no hope”.

This has since been corroborated by an eminent retired Qld QC.

We paid the solicitors $15,000 and Gotteson $25,000.

You don’t pay good money and ignore the advice.

Property Rights Australia in Qld that year staged a protest truck rally in Charleville at a Beattie Government Cabinet meeting with a line of trucks bisecting the town. We held ten town meetings attended by 2000 people, including a monster rally at Gin Gin of 500.

We staged a street march of 500 angry farmers at Exhibition time through the Brisbane CDB in their lunch hour. We followed that with a march of 350 in Rockhampton at another Beattie country cabinet meeting.

These events were protesting exactly the same cause as the Tower of Hope Hunger Strike. We did this without any help from other organisations.

Property Rights Australia members are drilled in how to react to a visit from VM officers. The Qld vegetation Management Acts were designed specifically to make your position indefensible. That is their boast.

Your defence virtually has to rely on sloppy administration of the law.

This repressive regime has been in place for 10 years and with the help of green preferences, succeeding governments have been able to avoid any electoral retribution.

The success of the ETS campaign, the Tower of Hope and Noel Pearson’s onslaught in the Give Us a Go, Let Us Grow campaign to which Property Rights Australia has made a substantial financial contribution, leads to new hope after years of frustration.

Professor Suri Ratnapala is regarded by the extreme environmental opposition as a hopelessly compromised right winger and after supplying him with two lots of information on the Brigalow Corporation his answer is still the same – no foundation whatsoever. I repeat if you can come up with evidence from lawyers with equal standing I will suggest the board spend money to sort it out.

Otherwise we don’t need the Brigalow Corporation Red Herring.

 

 

 

Reply by Brent Cameron Melville on January 16, 2010 at 9:02am

Ron: From what I have seen EnviroWild has compiled a very large body of research on the loss of property right violations. Most, if not all of them are not in the legal fraternity, although lawyers, barristers and judges have been consulted in their research. You say you have won most of your cases, well that's good. Perhaps you could release to the wider property rights movement what those cases were so we can see what precedents have been set.
From what I have researched on the property rights issue, the Queensland Government has set in place a "corporate government" structure called the Brigalow Corporation with "all the privileges and immunities of the Crown". Concurrent with this they have illegally changed the Constitution without referendum and upon that have built a web of legislation that grants its own bureaucracy eg vegetation officers, council officers etc unlawful powers way beyond what our Commonwealth Constitution allows. So, you have the situation where judges choose to follow the state's statute law to the letter and great injustices are done. The Bone v Mothershaw case was particularly repugnant, with the judge claiming governments and councils have the right to walk over you and deprive you without compensation. However, in Dillon v Plenty the High Court ruled in favour of Plenty who told the police to get off the property and even threatened them with a piece of wood, bad form as it was. How can you say Qld bureaucrats have virtually unlimited power to threaten, harrass and enter property? Do they not do it because they bluff people into thinking they can do it? There are ways of dealing with these people - eg the private administrative process under commercial law.

 

 

Reply by Dale Stiller on January 16, 2010 at 3:27pm

Its a bit rich quoting EnviroWild. Is not one of the leading figures behind this organization an ex policeman who has tried to represent clients in court? Has this person won any their court cases?
You will be hard pressed to find a person more eminent & qualified in constitutional law than Professor Suri Ratnapala. If you read what PRA chairman Ron Has said throughout this posting, PRA presented the evidence on Brigalow Corp to the Professor & he rejected it.
End of story.

The reality of the situation in Qld & elsewhere on vegetation management laws are scary enough without bringing these falsehoods in.

 

 

Reply by Brent Cameron Melville on January 17, 2010 at 12:00am

Dale: EnviroWild and PRA are not at cross purposes. They are fighting for the same cause, but have arisen in different circumstances. David Walter I believe is a former Commonwealth Police prosecutor, who has a good understanding of the law and yes, he has lost cases but for what reasons I don't know why. I do know court rulings can be complex and vary from judge to judge. Perhaps you can tell us what cases have been won by PRA and how they affect the on-going battle to defend private property and/or fee simple title. I saw somewhere PRA has won more than a dozen cases, which sounds like our enemy is on the run. Is that a fair comment?
In regard to the matter of the Brigalow Corporation, such an entity actually does exist under the Lands Legislation Amendment Act 1992 and it has been given "all the privileges and immunities of the Crown".

 

 

Reply by Lee McNicholl on January 17, 2010 at 7:01am

Brent, as I commented in an earlier post to EnviroWild supporter Damien Rodgers my father retired as an Inspector in the Qld Police. He record shows was very successful in enforcing the laws of the Queensland Parliament and had a very good working knowledge of same. He never got to the point of deluding himself that he was a constitutional expert as has the ex Northern Territory police prosecutor behind the "red herring" EnviroWild outfit.
I think it's about time that EnviroWild supporters so inclined stopped "verbaling" various sources to promote your views on the Queensland Constitution . Your view appears to have NO support by any constitutional authority . If it has please name your source.

To date EnviroWild supporters have been very "tricky" in verballing Ron Banisch in saying that PRA does not disagree with your views on the Brigalow Corporation.
On behalf of the PRA let me say again in the most unambiguous way that the PRA totally disagrees with your wild allegations about the so called constitutional powers of the Brigalow Corp.

With regard to Damien Rodgers devious attempt say that he spoke to Peter Spencer and that Peter has included the Brigalow Corp. issue in his campaign, this has been shown to to be a total fabrication through a recent conversation between Dale Stiller and Peter Spencer.

In conclusion let me say that the PRA will vigourously resist and expose any questionable group that tries to attach themselves to Peter Spencer's cause without Peter Spencer's approval.

If EnviroWild wishes to promote their "cause" might I suggest that the ex police prosecutor involved considers finding his own wind tower and initiates his own hunger strike. That way potential clients may save them selves some money and legal grief at least for the duration of the hunger strike.

 Lee Mc Nicholl Vice Chairman PRA

#################################################

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 6, 2012 at 12:29pm

Page 3 of comments from the original publication of this discussion

 

Reply by Brent Cameron Melville on January 17, 2010 at 9:40am

Lee, I am not an official supporter or member of Envirowild, but why are you so antagonistic towards them? EnviroWild is going as far as the High Court this month to seek to unravel the situation that has brought about the gross abuse of government powers over land, particularly in Queensland. Why do you seem to think they are at odds with what you are doing?
I spoke to David Walters about 5 years ago when I learned of the gross property rights violations happening in North Qld, and have received a few of their newsletters and other email correspondence. I don't ever recall David Walter referring to himself as a constitutional expert. He did tell me he had a good understanding of "jurisdiction", having worked between Federal and State authorities, which I have no reason to doubt. He is entitled to represent people in court as an advocate or "McKenzie's Friend".
However he, Sue Maynes and others who have become aware of the gross injustices committed against land owners in recent years have come together to collate extensive research on the relationship between state and federal governments in relation to property rights. About 18 months ago David and Sue spoke at a meeting on the Gold Coast.
I am simply trying to find out more about PRA's activities - for instance the court cases you say PRA has won. I have heard nothing about these cases. I would also like to know if Agforce supports you, and if not, why not.
In regard to the Brigalow Corporation, as far as I can determine it does appear to be a part of this picture because it was changed from its original purpose in the Lands Legislation Amendment Act 1992 into a new corporate entity which "represents the Crown" and has "all the privileges and immunities of the Crown". I am curious to know why Prof. Ratnapala apparently considers this matter irrelevant to the state and/or land matters in Queensland. Perhaps you Lee, or Prof. Ratnapala, enlighten us on this? Can you answer these specific questions Lee?

 

 

Reply by Christopher Leeds on January 17, 2010 at 2:59pm

One legal fact here that must be noted in this discussion is that Queensland like all other Australian State Governments is a Sovereign Government which virtually means it can pass and enact any legislation it so chooses with out regards to any Constitutional restraints what so ever. Also in Queensland's case without the checks and balance of an upper house which was abolished. Sometime in the 1920's sometime I think? So get used to living with the fact that the State Governments can take any rights property or otherwise with any regard for the person.

 

 

Reply by Brent Cameron Melville on January 17, 2010 at 4:51pm

Chris: This is the very conclusion reached by EnviroWild and other groups. However, this diabolically deceptive structure they have created is a house of cards built on unlawful acts, such as changing the Queensland Constitution without a referendum and other matters such as the "reprinting" of every Act of Parliament. Perhaps the Brigalow part of it is a red herring, but some of us would like to see what Prof. Ratnapala actually found in relation to this matter.

 

 

Reply by Lee McNicholl on January 17, 2010 at 10:09pm

Brent, the previous chairman of the PRA {John Purcell} collated all the information and claims David Walters and his supporters were making about the supposed constitutional status/powers of the Brigalow Corp and sought an opinion from Prof . Ratnapala. The Prof. concluded that their arguments had no merit and that the Brigalow Corp. was not a sinister arm of the Qld. Govt. capable of removing citizen's rights.

Consequently the PRA is very concerned about the validity of the legal arguments that David Walters advances from this unproven premise when he represents "clients" charged with alleged breaches of Veg. Man. Acts

The PRA has been advised by reliable sources that David Walters recently "represented" a northern NSW landholder charged with alleged Veg, Man. Act breaches in NSW. The outcome was that the defendant lost the case and was fined $420,000 plus costs and was subsequently subject to further charges. Would you describe this as a successful"representation"?

By comparison the PRA has funded the successful representation of three Qld. landholders all of whom were awarded costs. A fourth case is currently being supported and is stiil in progress. The PRA funds such actions via member ship subs and donations from our members.
Understandably the PRA is very cautious about the legal representation we retain and needless to say David Walters is not on the list of qualified legal professionals employed.
The PRA hopes that desperate and potentially gullible landholders avoid taking advice from inadequately qualified individuals. Such advice might actually increase their legal and financial distress.

I hope this answers your concerns/questions.
Lee Mc Nicholl Vice Chairman PRA

 

 

Reply by Suzi Lilburn on January 17, 2010 at 10:57pm

Perhaps you should read the court's response regarding the case you mentioned Lee.

In it the "judge" referred to himself as a "Coram". Quote: CORAM: Lloyd J

That is a latin word, meaning someone who is making a judgment but is not a judge!

The "judge" also did not look at any details of the land ownership defence, including documents they had from the govt bodies giving them permission to clear. Quote: (e) The clearing was approved by Ms Elizabeth Savage (a Catchment officer with the Border Rivers-Gwydir Catchment Management Authority).

The "judge" stated that he was making his ruling based on his personal opinion of the case and also fined the Hudsons because they would not self-incriminate themselves.

So the whole case reeks of corruption. And while Envirowild has had losses, so has Peter Spencer, time after time - yet no one condemns his legal counsel or denigrates them.

And if you had read the Hudson judgment you would clearly know that Mr Walter used EXACTLY the same comments for the Hudsons as Peter Spencer has used in his 52 days on the tower - Quote: (a) The Native Vegetation Act is either void or unenforceable as being beyond the power of the Parliament, because it effectively amounts to the acquisition on other than just terms of private property held in fee simple by Mr Hudson.

Now you may have had wins in the courts, which we know nothing about because you will not share the case notes with us. But your cases may be completely different from the Envirowild cases and may have had a whole different approach to them.

We don't know because we can't read the details of your wins.

Give us proof of your claims please.

Envirowild's case notes are out there for everyone to read.

 

 

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 18, 2010 at 7:02am

Hi Lee,
Just a thought. It isn't helpful to the cause when the different groups involved in the very serious issue of "theft" of property rights attack each other.
In the view that many of the "theft" problems relate to rural people, whom have very few votes to use at an election. I've concluded that the only way forward is via a united front. I'm not sure how this is achieved, but attacking each other isn't going to help the cause.
There are many viewpoints, and the subject is extremely complex for many of us. I'm not sure Brigalow is all that important , just another piece of the jigsaw, in a massive property rights "theft" the continues unabated to this day.
There would have been a time many would have questioned PRA's performance , but I've not noted any complaints since since Ron has been involved.
So in summary we all must focus on the real enemy, and not get too concerned when people of like mind might appear to be "off the track." The real issue is where is the track; and whom, how and where do we fight.

 

 

 

Reply by Dale Stiller on January 18, 2010 at 7:11am

Thankyou John, everyone please take note of the views of a non PRA member who has carefully thought these issues through.

"There are many viewpoints, and the subject is extremely complex for many of us. I'm not sure Brigalow is all that important, just another piece of the jigsaw, in a massive property rights "theft" that continues unabated to this day."

"we all must focus on the real enemy, and not get too concerned when people of like mind might appear to be "off the track." The real issue is where is the track; and whom, how and where do we fight."

I will add that brigalow corp is like john sais just one small piece. To concentrate on it is to be bogged down on a sidetrack. We must be powering down the main track to confront the real enemy. PRA have been saying, we have looked at this issue & we have moved on. Don't get yourselves bogged down.

 

 

 

Reply by Brent Cameron Melville on January 18, 2010 at 12:10pm

Spot on John. Ron has already mentioned the real enemy, which is Agenda 21. I highly recommend anyone go to the Freedom21 website and listen to Michael Shaw talking about this. You can also google "Michael Shaw Agenda 21 on YouTube". This UN program was initiated at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and has been overlaid on our entire nation. It is being used as a planning template or guide by all three levels of government and is probably the root cause of this land grab. Agenda 21 is radical and anti-private property and underlies the Copenhagen agenda. Could I also urge PRA to politely ask Agforce if they are aware of Agenda 21 and whether or not they support it. I can't see how Agforce would support this. If they did they would be selling out the entire farming community, let alone private property rights.

#####################################################

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 6, 2012 at 12:36pm

Page 4 of comments from the original publication of this discussion.

 

Reply by Robert William Nickisson on March 7, 2010 at 3:47pm

Hi Suzi, This a very late response to your thread, and is just a portion of the Brigalow thread I sent to Steve, but cannot find on his site. Also email to NSW Attorney General that he directed to Minister Sartor to answer as Brigalow comes under his Ministry was ccknowledged but never answered.

Brigalow Corporation
http://www.abpac-australia.com/assets/brigalowcorp.pdf
Note, the Brigalow document states it must not be copied or displayed so you must visit the site to view it
Stated by the Brigalow document the Government of Queensland is a Dictatorship and it has become a Totalitarian State. Is NSW ditto?
An E-mail similar to those above was also sent to the new Premier's of NSW's Department and no acknowledgement was received.
Similar email sent to The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Barry O’Farrell as yet not acknowledged.

Steve, Should Peter Spencer and his supporters indeed all Australians demand from their Political Reps. and TV presenters and Newspapers the answer to my question sent to Barry O’Farrell so far not acknowledged. What are they hiding?.
Question to Opposition Leader Liberal's NSW
Is NSW a Totalitarian State and when did NSW Citizens lose the right to receive "Just Terms" for property that is compulsory acquired as stated in the Australian Constitution. Are NSW Citizens not part of or covered by the Australian Constitution. What can be expected from you about this matter should you become the next Premier of NSW .

They can ignore one tiny voice but can they ignore a massive demand for justice and made directly by many to those wishing to remain or form Government in this State of NSW.
Regards Robert Nickisson

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on March 7, 2010 at 9:35pm

Please read this thread. This explains what the Brigalow Corportation was established for, and it was nothing to do with the theories expounded on that site.

http://agmates.ning.com/forum/topics/the-truth-about-the-brigalow

To make it perfectly clear - the Crown referred to in legislation is not the Sovereign. The Crown in legislation refers to the State Government. The Brigalow Corporation represented the Crown (the State) and had all the priviliges and immunities of the Crown (the State) - in other words, the Brigalow Corporation did not have to pay local government rates and charges, State taxes, State fees and charges. It did not have to comply with other legislation unless that legislation said the State was bound by the legislation. It did not mean the Brigalow Corporation became the Crown or the State or anything else.

 

 

 

Reply by Suzi Lilburn on January 14, 2010 at 3:00pm

To Alex & Ron and all readers - i apologize, I got my comments wrong.

Apparently Property Rights focused on the Brigalow fund, which was a great thing, but the corporation that was formed under that fund, known as the Brigalow Corp is the focus of the Envirowild team's research.

The fund was wound up, the corporate structure was not. So we were both right and both wrong, just coming from opposite ends of the stick.

Shows what happens when you think you know it all!

 

 

 

Reply by Christopher Leeds on January 14, 2010 at 5:13pm

Good work Suzi we at PRA welcome discussion on any matters and are pleased that you understand this subject more clearly now and that there has been no misunderstanding of PRA's position standing intentions and or purposes.I must reiterate we at PRA only act and support well researched propositions advised by the very best legal advises we can resource.

 

 

 

Reply by Brent Cameron Melville on January 16, 2010 at 9:08am

Ron: In addition to my post below, what is Agforce's stand on the private property rights issue? Do they support you?

 

 

 

Reply by Colin J Ely on January 17, 2010 at 11:28am

I am not a Queenslander, so I don't have an intimate knowledge of your jurisdiction up there. There is nothing unusual in governments forming corporations, boards and authorities to do its work. When I worked for the public service, we were going to be 'corporatised' out of the PS. Best reason we could come up with was that it would save the govt money from the super fund.
Here in Victoria, before our government sold off all our assests we had Gas and Fuel Corporation, State Electricity Commission and the Melbourne & Metropolitan Tramways Board.

Probably the best reason why they do it, if a govt department really stuffs up, the Premier will require the responsible minister to 'fall on his sword', but if a govt owned entity stuffs up, the finger can be pointed at them and the minister is safe.

 

 

 

Reply by Brent Cameron Melville on January 17, 2010 at 4:39pm

Thanks Colin. I was in Victoria when they were 'corporatising' local government. This has been done across the board for state and federal governments, all of whom are corporate entities registered with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. Ostensibly governments use corporatisation for the purpose you say, but I suspect this is where the rot has set in, in terms of government attacks on common law property rights. Because there is no proper accountability they are riding roughshod over the people who in fact are the government. That the government is the servant of the people has even been admitted in writing by the Bligh administration, yet they act in a totally contrary fashion because they believe they can get away with it - because their minders, lawyers and chief bureaucrats tell them they can. Even members of the judiciary, in their mysterious ways, have swallowed this simply because statutes claim to be "the law", when many of them are in fact unlawful under the constitution.

########################################################

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 6, 2012 at 9:24pm

Page 5 of comments from the original publication of this discussion.

 

Reply by Suzi Lilburn on January 17, 2010 at 1:59pm

Cate - no one here is trying to do more than get answers to what is happening to every land owner.

I don't understand why we cannot be given details of the PRA's court wins - surely that info would help everyone in this battle. Doesn't have to be all the finer points, but certainly links to the court judgments should not be a hard ask.

Lee I don't understand why you denigrate Mr Walter - aren't you a member of the ABA committee? and hasn't the ex ABA pres Linda Hewitt support him greatly for many years? and aren't all the cases Mr Walter looks after dealing with farm issues?

To use the term "verballing" appears to me to be an attempt to shut up and intimidate those who are asking valid questions, simply trying to educate themselves. Poor form I think.

I am more than happy to move past the Brig info, when my own investigations prove to me that I should, but to be told to by those who use verbal denigration to support their point of view just makes me very, very stubborn.

Something is not right here I am starting to feel.

 

 

 

Reply by Brent Cameron Melville on January 17, 2010 at 5:03pm

Cate & Suzie: Christopher Leeds and Colin Ely (PRA?) have given reasonable responses. Ron Bahnisch was also reasonably informative but a little over defensive in saying the Brigalow thing was a conspiracy theory and potential PRA members would run a mile from it. He also said "let the matter rest" because the Professor said it was "out of hand". OK, but how is it out of hand? I felt PRA vice-chairman McNicholl was overly defensive and even antagonistic to EnviroWild. I now gather that this may have something to do with his being expelled from the Australian Beef Association. The politics of that I know very little about and quite frankly, I wish people could get over petty squabbling and focus more on the big picture.

 

 

 

 Reply by Dale Stiller on January 17, 2010 at 3:04pm

Suzi,
PRA court wins will be told at a future date.

Lee is no longer a member of the ABA & even if he was you cannot attach a shared support for all points of view just by association with another person.

 

 

 

Reply by Phil Sheridan on January 18, 2010 at 9:23am

More.

Decision of Magistrate in Richard and Maureen Knights case not available on net. DNRM filed an appeal in that matter, but abandoned it 2 days before hearing.

Attachments:

• Witheyman v Van Reit Court of Appeal QCA08-168.pdf, 40 KB
• Witheyman v Van Reit Magistrates Court.doc, 43 KB
• Witheyman v Van Reit QDC Appeal07-342.pdf, 147 KB

 

 

Reply by Suzi Lilburn on January 18, 2010 at 11:51am

Phil- thanks for lodging this info.

However these cases were not won because the judge ruled in favour of the landowner Van Reit and his rights to clear land. Rather, they won because the appellant Witheyman did not lodge his case in the proper time.

At no time have the judges in the original case and the 2 appeals, commented on the actual legality of the clearing, the rights of the land owner or any such approach.

Instead the whole 3 cases have been consumed with the finer points of the time table and whether the judge should/could/would extend the time table to allow the defendants to be sued.

This case is entirely irrelevant as a comparison to the cases run by either the Envirowild team or the Spencer team, all of which had their decisions made on the actual charge.

They did make interesting reading however, in that the appellant lodged the cases on the thought process that because the satellite showed some anomaly on the land, therefore the landowner must have done something wrong.

You will know that the High Court have ruled over 8 times on trespass, and my thought process is that they are trying to tell us something. That maybe, being that the land owner should turn around and sue the appellant for trespass/stalking followed by harassment.

 

 

 

Reply by Brent Cameron Melville on January 18, 2010 at 6:40pm

Good point Suzi. There are notices available from various sources that can be posted at the property entrance or delivered to your local council or government departments. There are various notices, some citing Plenty Vs Dillon. Here's another one.
WARNING NOTICE !
Non-Commercial, Non-Resident
Private Property
For Private Use
NO TRESSPASS
No Voluntary Consent
No Voluntary Suretyship
No Voluntary Second Witness
All Rights, Powers, Privileges & Immunities, whether Actual, Contingent, or Prospective, Reserved in Common Law.
No Consensual Power of Attorney.
Take Notice: In the common law and for the record know all men by these presents, I hereby revoke all Power of Attorney whether express or implied. Criminal Complaint may be filed against any party and anyone who violates this Notice, including but NOT limited to, Sheriffs, Bailiffs and the agents, officers, employees and nominees of Banks, Councils, State & Federal Government, Debt Collection Agencies, Courts, Queensland Police Service and any other party the Holder In Due Course reserves the right to deny entry when failing to present a CROWN WARRANT. All entry by the prior expressed permission of the Holder In Due Course ONLY.
Warning! Warning!
Any Damages Caused may be prosecuted and penalized in Common Law. Any violation of this Private Property Notice may incur a Seven-Hundred Fifty Thousand (AU$750,000.00) Dollar Invoice including, but not limited to, garnishing of personal assets
YOU HAVE BEEN NOTICED AND WARNED!
By Order of the Holder in Due Course

 

 

 

Reply by Colin J Ely on March 7, 2010 at 9:53pm

Brent
I am not a lawyer, but I believe anyone, including a police officer or member of the public has the common law right to go from your front gate to your front door by the most direct route to conduct lawful business.

 

 

 

Phil Sheridan on January 18, 2010 at 9:20am

Court decisions attached. Decision of Botting DCJ in Witheyman v Simpson not available on net.

Application for Special Leave to Appeal in the HCA against decision of QCA has been filed.

Attachments:

• Decision Scott Simpson Trial .pdf, 3.1 MB
• Decision-Scott Simpson Costs-22Jan07.pdf, 58 KB
• QCA09-388.pdf, 229 KB

####################################################

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 6, 2012 at 9:35pm

Page 6 of comments from the original publication of this discussion

 

Reply by Suzi Lilburn on January 18, 2010 at 12:24pm

Thank you again for these cases Phil - Witheyman must be unhappy that you keep beating him.

FRYBERG J stated:"Despite a suggestion by the respondent to the contrary, by the end of the evidence the only real issue remaining in the case was whether the clearing done by the respondent fell within the exception built into the definition of “assessable development” in IPA."

And of course, the prosecution were unable to establish that the clearing did not fit that definition.

So again, there is no comparison to be made with the Peter Spencer case or the Envirowild cases, both of which have as their "foundation" the statutory instrument of a Grant in Fee Simple.

The judges and magistrates in this case have not even discussed private land ownership.

Now it could be said, that if Spencer and Walter tried for a similar approach to their cases, they might have wins, but the fact is that your cases are dealing with one specific matter and result, while Peter is focused on the overall theft of land under the Kyoto/carbon credits issue, and Walter is focused on the overall matter of private land ownership being removed in every area.

So, no one can criticise your cases because they have resulted in wins for the client, but have not done anything to stop the whole issue of the removal of land ownership rights for every land owners.

While no one can criticise Spencer and Walter either because they are attempting to completely restore everyone's rights and get paid in the process!

 

 

 

Reply by Suzi Lilburn on January 18, 2010 at 1:26pm

Didn't mean "get paid in the process" from the perspective of paying Walter - but from the perspective of the land owner getting paid for the rights that are removed!

 

 

Reply by Phil Sheridan on January 18, 2010 at 2:28pm

More reading

Attachments:

• Booth v Yardley 06 QPEC06-119.pdf, 164 KB
• Booth v Yardley QPEC08-100.pdf, 26 KB
• Burns v Qld & Croton QCA06-235.pdf, 46 KB

 

 

Reply by Phil Sheridan on January 18, 2010 at 2:29pm

More

Attachments:

• Burns v Qld QCA07-240.pdf, 42 KB
• Dore v Qld QDC04-364.pdf, 72 KB
• Dore Brothers Supreme Court Cairns.pdf, 236 KB

 

 

 

Reply by Phil Sheridan on January 18, 2010 at 2:41pm

Last one

Attachments:

• Glasgow v Hall QCA07-019.pdf, 28 KB
• Watts v Ellis QCA07-234.pdf, 30 KB
• Rue & Fanna v Leavy QDC05-110.pdf, 28 KB

 

 

 

Reply by Phil Sheridan on January 18, 2010 at 3:09pm

Another one.

Attachments:

• Wilson v Raddatz QCA06-392.pdf, 27 KB

 

 

 

Reply by Phil Sheridan on January 18, 2010 at 4:39pm

and this one

Attachments:

• Hudson v NSW.rtf, 92 KB

 

 

 

Reply by Suzi Lilburn on January 18, 2010 at 9:13pm

Phil – thanks for listing all these cases, made for very interesting reading, although they aren’t the winning PRA cases which is what we had all hoped to read.

In all of them the basic defense is the same –
1. argument was that ownership of freehold land meant that the provisions of the Integrated Planning Act and Vegetation Management Act were invalid to that extent.
2. the term “freehold” or “freehold land” used in the Integrated Planning Act did not include land held in fee simple, and should be understood as a reference to freehold land owned by the State as distinct from privately owned freehold land;
3. by paragraph 9 of that application for an order under s 181 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld): “…extinguishing or otherwise holding the restrictions placed upon the freehold land of Catherine Elizabeth Burns to be invalid and without force, because they were not reserved to the State of Queensland at the time of sale, and Mrs Burns has indefeasible title, under section 169 Land Titles Act 1994.”
4. the law making power of the State with respect to land was derived from, and limited to, sections 30 and 40 of the Constitution Act 1867 (Qld) (accepted as correct by Judge NASE DCJ)

These should have been entirely lawful claims, in light of the fact, that the sale of land OUT of govt hands, states in the IMPERIAL ACTS APPLICATION ACT 1969 Sect. 36 Alienation of fee simple:
Land held of the Crown in fee simple may be assured in fee simple without licence and without fine and the person taking under the assurance shall hold the land of the Crown in the same manner as the land was held before the assurance took effect.

Which has as part of its framework this - 12 Charles II c 24-The Tenures Abolition Act 1660 -s 4. 37 Tenure:
All tenures created by the Crown by way of the alienation of an estate in fee simple in land after the commencement of this Act shall be taken to be in free and common socage without any incident of tenure for the benefit of the Crown.

So when the judges rule against this element of law, we should immediately be concerned. Yet Nase stated – “referr(ing) to the comment by White DCJ, giving the reasons for judgment in the unsuccessful appeal to the Planning and Environment Court, that although ownership of the land was alienated, the land itself was not alienated from the sovereign State of Queensland. He dismissed, with reasons, the central argument that land held in fee simple was alienated from State control, save for the reservations in the Deed of Grant.”

How can land be alienated from the Crown who sold it, but not alienated from the Crown’s servants, who just did the paperwork??? I would love that explained.

In one case, the magistrate stated that the purchase of land was not a contract, but in NSW Local Govt Act 1993, Definitions of Private Land, it states "private land" means land the fee-simple of which is not vested in the Crown, and land that the Crown has lawfully contracted to sell.

What frightens me though is the judges comments in the Dore case – “In Queensland the Constitution Act 1867 gives the Executive power, with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly, to “make laws for the peace, welfare and good government of the colony in all cases whatsoever.” These words have traditionally been used to confer “the widest legislative powers appropriate to a sovereign”.Such words permit the Legislative Assembly of Queensland to pass laws restricting, modifying or even removing common law rights.”

What??? Such words permit the Legislative Assembly of QLD to ….remove common law rights!!!

Everyone who is on this site, should read these comments and be immediately willingly to learn more about the work David Walter is doing, because from these comments alone, the QLD govt is doing something awfully unconstitutional are verified.

 

 

 

Reply by Phil Sheridan on January 19, 2010 at 9:43am

I have posted 13 cases where Judges across a number of jurisdictions at first instance and on appeal both in QLD and NSW have dismissed the Envirowild argument. Some of those decisions refer to other cases where the argument has been run and rejected. The actual number of times the argument has been run and rejected may be greater than 13. You should know the actual number.

The reason I have posted these cases together is so that the reasons for the decisions of the various Courts can be read in full and readers can take the time to digest how and why the argument has been rejected. They should be read in chronological order.

You are right inso far that all the Envirowild defences to statutory prosecutions are basically the same. In all instances the same invalidity/jurisdictional argument has been run and rejected. The elements of the alleged offence, any statutory defences or exemptions are ignored and once the invalidity/jurisdictional argument is disposed of the landholder is convicted, fined and in most cases ordered to pay costs.

Despite the argument being hosed out of Court on over a dozen occasions you still you repeat bits and pieces of it here in perpetually outraged, disjointed, semi literate legalese, redolent of the manner it has been presented to a number of Courts over a number of years. Sooner or later Envirowild will run out of jurisdictions or refused leave to appear.

Hudson is another very recent appeal against a conviction for tree clearing in NSW where the Envirowild argument has been run and rejected at first instance and on appeal. Actual decision not up yet, but link to Moree Champion article below. In that matter the landholder was fined $400k plus costs and the land is subject to a revegetation order.

#####################################################

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 8, 2012 at 10:28am

Page 7 of comments from the original publication of the discussion.

 

Reply by Phil Sheridan on January 20, 2010 at 4:00pm

Decision of Land Court.

Attachments:

• Canaway AV2007-0829.pdf, 138 KB

 

 

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 19, 2010 at 10:15am

Suzi,
All State Governments in Australia are enabled to overide common law rights, if this involves removal of a right (any right) they are not required to compensate (and often say in the legislation that no compensation is payable). If the State Government classify it as aquisistion that is another matter. The State Governments can modify, eliminate, override any property right you can think of; if it is not called acquisition, it isn't acquisition, and you won't get a cent under current legislation; unless you can prove in a higher court that someone else gained a benefit from the loss you incurred (even then its a risky path). You can win in State jurisdictions, however procedurally the State must make a mistake, you won't win against the legislation itself.
There are only two potential avenues left:-
1) The High Court (as per the Spencer Case)
2) Politically we cause a significant ground swell against this legislation and it is changed.

 

 

 

Reply by Suzi Lilburn on January 20, 2010 at 6:22pm

Mr Walter only handles the cases of people who want to fight the battle. If someone is prepared to accept the fine and pay it, he may assist them in some manner, but no-one needs representation to get a fine and pay it.

Ring the Hudsons yourself and ask them why they moved from their original legal team and why they asked David John Walter to help them and they will tell you they knew they were in trouble, did not want to go quietly and wanted to fight the whole issue.

Mr Walter has never gone to someone and asked to take their case on. All the cases he has dealt with involved the client coming to him. Do you think people go to someone they know has had losses in order to lose, or to be part of the battle?

I would therefore ask the PRA, is that the service they provide?

And even if all the legal advice is that the case is very hard to win, so pay the fine, does the PRA take on cases where their clients are prepared for the worst, but wanting to battle nevertheless?

And I would like to point out that this whole thread talked about other groups latching onto the Peter Spencer issue to further their own ends. Well guess what PRA, that is exactly what you have done yourselves. Show me where Peter gave you permission to speak for him.

 

 

 

Reply by Suzi Lilburn on January 20, 2010 at 7:31pm

Mr Sheridan, you listed all the Walter cases and made comment, so I would ask some questions in relation.

You stated - "The elements of the alleged offence, any statutory defences or exemptions are ignored and once the invalidity/jurisdictional argument is disposed of the landholder is convicted, fined and in most cases ordered to pay costs." –

My question -
1. Apart from the Hudson case in NSW, can you please find and refer to any other case where costs have awarded against either David Walter, the Company “Envirowild” or any of the referred people that David Walter was and is still helping ?

You stated - "Hudson is another very recent appeal against a conviction for tree clearing in NSW......................"

My Questions -
1. Can you please tell the reader what was the actual figure the prosecution was seeking in “Fine” against Mr Hudson in that case?

2. If the fine, sought by the prosecution, was in excess of $1,100,000.00 in that case, it would now be fair for you to now explain your objectivity in your comment ?

3. How would have you achieved a quantum in a lower fine ?

4. How would you have achieved complete exoneration for Mr Hudson ? - (you may need to refer to the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NSW))

5. Do you have at your disposal the submissions/notes and other filings placed before the court in relation to this matter ?

6. How much would have you charged for this win, or loss ?

7. How much did David Walter charge ? (I'll help you here - the answer starts with a zero and ends with a zero.)

8. Can you please refer the readers to where David Walter ran an “Appeal” in the State of NSW for and on behalf of Mr Hudson against an earlier conviction placed upon Mr Hudson ?

9. If David Walter did not run or in any other way have anything to do with an “Appeal” by Mr Hudson against his earlier conviction can you qualify, for the readers, whether or not the fine was ‘Increased’ on appeal and whether the ‘Remedial Notice’ was extended for a further period (in years) ?

 

 

 

Reply by Ron Bahnisch on January 21, 2010 at 8:13am

Suzi

Phil Sheridan helps Property Rights Australia with our court cases and is a Barrister at Law. His posting is the result of spontaneous exasperation and not as a result of my urging.

A board member was having technical difficulties in posting our court cases on our website and Phil saw my wife’s comment to that effect on this site. Phil just responded to that and put our cases up himself which drew his attention to what was going on.

Take his advice, read the judgements in chronological order and draw your own conclusions as to whether the clients have been well represented. As one judge said, “Unfortunately for the appellant, just because he honestly holds a view as to what the law of Australia is, his honestly held view does not make it so.”
It is indeed "all in the eye of the beholder.”

Unfortunately in Queensland to the extent of “good governance” the control of vegetation and water on your land freehold or leasehold is vested in the state.
In Queensland you may win a court case only to have the matter overturned by retrospective legislation.

Property Rights Australia does not offer a legal service.
We were set up primarily to help to fight Ashley McKays’ seven court appearances in six years.

Good citizens warmed to the cause and donated generously to a Fighting Fund. Property Rights has been managing this Fund ever since. We accept applications for assistance. The three criteria for assistance are:
1. A commitment for a financial contribution from the accused
2. Our lawyers consider there is a reasonable chance of success
3. Success would create a useful precedent.

The law has been intentionally written to make people who are charged indefensible and technical detail and abuse of process is your only avenue of defence.

Property Rights Australia is at present seeking leave to mount a case in the High Court. Ashley McKay is privately pursuing five individuals for lying under oath. We are investigating similar avenues as well as falsification of evidence.

A magistrate convicted and fined the Director General of the Department for contempt of court as a result of one of our cases. He is no longer in the job.

PRA is operating in the real world, using real money and hopefully getting real results.

We support Peter Spencer because as Professor Suri Ratnapala so eloquently put it, “His cause is our cause.”
We must ensure that irrelevant side issues do not detract from the momentum Peter Spencer’s Tower of Hope has generated.

We are dangerously balanced between the left and all their more rabid green groups and half a dozen extreme right conspiracy theorists.

The contributions of neither of these groups will lead to acceptable outcomes

#######################################################

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 8, 2012 at 10:33am

Page 8 of comments from the original publication of this discussion.

 

Reply by Suzi Lilburn on January 21, 2010 at 10:22am

Ron - Phil Sheridan came onto the site and proceeded to cast doubt on the credibility of a man who is simply trying to help his fellow man with his legal knowledge, and he does have it regardless of the case results - everyone must remember he was a police detective and had handled many cases in court from that perspective, and a police prosecutor, who again had handled many cases in court.

Yes, Mr Walter has never hidden the fact that he has lost cases, all difficult cases. But so has Peter Spencer and no one from PRA has turned on his several legal counsellors and made them a focus of their warnings.

I did read the cases, both Mr walter's and yours - every word - and I made comment previously, why have you not replied to those comments or my questions?

Why do you continue to focus on the cases of David John Walter? Because there are probably dozens if not hundreds of people who have lost in the courts re environment/land matters, with registered lawyers as their representatives? If David Walter does such a bad job, why are all the people whose cases he took on still with him?

Because he will do the thing that no legal person wants to do - he takes on cases that have every chance of losing, but want to fight and he does it at no charge to the defendant.

You have admitted that PRA only accept cases where the accused person can pay, where the lawyers see a reasonable chance of success and where the success would be an advantage in other cases. That means PRA have not had to face the insurmountable. And you get paid for it.

I stated in another thread that your group should volunteer to help Peter Spencer pro bono as you are so focused on helping land owners. I restate that again on this thread.

David Walter already assists Peter Spencer for nothing by sharing information and physical support during some court hearings. They also share the same legal support in the QC David Fitzgibbon, who you will note has appeared for Mr Walter in court. John Walsh of Branagh, Peter Spencer's original barrister, actually asked to be placed on the email list to receive information from Walter's group. And Peter Gargan, from Spencer's team forwards his current data to them.

David Walter takes on the cases that groups such as yours prefer not to accept. He has given Peter Spencer far more than verbal support. Stop focusing on him in this manner - it speaks ill of PRA idealogy to do so.

 

 

 

Reply by Suzi Lilburn on January 21, 2010 at 10:57am

I guess I will have to answer this myself.

1. Apart from the Hudson case in NSW, can you please find and refer to any other case where costs have awarded against either David Walter, the Company “Envirowild” or any of the referred people that David Walter was and is still helping ?

The answer is none.

1. Can you please tell the reader what was the actual figure the prosecution was seeking in “Fine” against Mr Hudson in that case?

Prosecution wanted the fine to be $1,100,000 - that is one million one hundred thousand dollars.

2. If the fine, sought by the prosecution, was in excess of $1,100,000.00 in that case, it would now be fair for you to now explain your objectivity in your comment ?

??????

3. How would have you achieved a quantum in a lower fine ?

??????

4. How would you have achieved complete exoneration for Mr Hudson ? - (you may need to refer to the Noxious Weeds Act 1993 (NSW))

?????

5. Do you have at your disposal the submissions/notes and other filings placed before the court in relation to this matter ?

?????

6. How much would have you charged for this win, or loss ?

???????

7. How much did David Walter charge ? (I'll help you here - the answer starts with a zero and ends with a zero.)

$000000000

8. Can you please refer the readers to where David Walter ran an “Appeal” in the State of NSW for and on behalf of Mr Hudson against an earlier conviction placed upon Mr Hudson ?

Never happened

9. If David Walter did not run or in any other way have anything to do with an “Appeal” by Mr Hudson against his earlier conviction can you qualify, for the readers, whether or not the fine was ‘Increased’ on appeal and whether the ‘Remedial Notice’ was extended for a further period (in years) ?

Appeal was run by registered legal reps - Remedial notice was extended from 12 months to 3 years.

So, in the original hearing prepared by David John Walter, the Hudsons received a greatly reduced fine than the proscution wanted ($400,000 instead of $1.1 million), and in the appeal, NOT run by David Walter but by registered lawyers, the remediation notice was increased from 1 year to 3 years.

I would think, under the circumstances, that Mr Walter actually did a good job for the Hudsons.

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 21, 2010 at 6:12pm

I have read with much amusement all of these posts about the Brigalow Corporation, and how David Walter has, in an attempt to justify his rather distorted views on property rights, somehow came up with this rather weird conspiracy theory that the Brigalow Corporation had taken over all the land in Queensland.

This is patently absurd. The Brigalow Corporation was established in 1992 to replace the Corporation of the Land Administration Commission when the LAC was abolished. The Brigalow Corporation was merely established to administer the remaining loans and leases from the Commonwealth funded Brigalow Land Development Scheme which commenced in the 1960s and opened up large areas of the Brigalow Belt in Central Queensland. Pure and simple as that. Yes, the Corporation did represent the Crown and have all the powers of the Crown, but only because that is what Government corporations required. The Brigalow Corporation did not in any way, shape or form take the place of the Crown or the Queensland Government.

As the last of the loans have been repaid, the reason for the Brigalow Corporation no longer existed, and it was removed from the Land Act 1994 in February 2009. I'm sure David Walter and Sue Maynes are confused by the fact that there is no now longer any reference it. It makes their conspiracy theories fall flat on their faces.

All of the court cases David Walters has been involved with, which he and Sue Maynes rely on as evidence that the State has taken over our land without compensation are based on an incorrect understanding that fee simple land is not freehold land, and when the Vegetation Management Act refers to freehold land it does not mean fee simple land, and as all freehold land in Queensland is fee simple, it doesn't come under the Vegetation Management Act, and therefore owners can't be prosecuted for clearing without a permit. Sadly, David and Sue and all the ones who fell for their story have found to their detriment that courts have ruled that freehold land is fee simple land, and any reference to freehold land in legislation relating to planning laws includes their land, and they must have the appropriate permits.

This is why you will not find any successful court cases against prosecutions for tree clearing (unless the prosecution failed in some way). That is why all appeals against convictions will fail - they are based on nonsense.

######################################################

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 9, 2012 at 9:52pm

Page 9 of comments from the original discussion

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 22, 2010 at 8:31am

Hi Lynette,
Have you any ideas we could discuss on this site to overcome the problems we have with state legislation?
If we agree we cannot fight State legislation in their jurisdiction, and there are many landowners loosing their ability to farm on what was originally alienated from the crown for agricultural purposes. What are the potential solutions?

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 22, 2010 at 6:55pm

The only solution is to have calm rational discussions with politicians. The sort of nonsense promulgated by David Walter and Sue Maynes does nothing to help the cause because it is based on conspiracy theory beliefs which are not based on anything that can be found in the legislation they keep quoting.

Freehold land is subject to the State's planning laws - it has to be, otherwise we would have pig farms in the middle of suburbia and brothels next to schools. Unfortunately some laws seem to be unfair compared to others.

My main complaint about the Vegetation Management Act in Queensland is that it is reliant on vegetation mapping that in some instances is so wildly inaccurate it is laughable. All I can suggest is that everyone get a copy of the vegetation map for their property - they are free from the Department of Environment and Resource Management's web site. All you need is your property description. Shortly after submitting your online request a map will be emailed back with the regional ecosystems shown. The scale is a bit hard to read if you have a small block, but I have done it.

Just down the road from me is a lovely stand of Sydney Blue Gum and Blackbutt planted 30 years ago, mapped as an endangered regional ecosystem. It continues on both sides of the road. I advised the vegetation management officer and they must have gone and checked because the map was changed. On one side of the road. The side which I had given them the lot on plan description for. They obviously didn't bother looking at the other side of the road as well... Nuff said.

If you have no mapped vegetation over your property then quickly get a PMAV done which will lock in the "no mapped vegetation" forever. If you believe the mapped vegetation is wrong, get a biology expert to check it out, and then if it can be demonstrated that it is wrong, make a map change request, and when it is done get a PMAV.

You can't fight them if you have cleared the trees believing they were the wrong ones anyway, because once they have been cleared, you have no evidence that the ecosystem shown on the map was wrong. You have to get the changes made to the maps first.

 

 

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 22, 2010 at 9:49pm

Lynette,
You can't be serious. Calm rational discussions with politicians!! For three years I wrote to politicians, no response to the content of the first three letters. Politicians don't understand the complicated legislation either, most of them don't read the legislation, they vote on party lines (as they are told to do)
If State Governments can remove whatever property right they like and override common law rights without compensation; where does the "theft" end?
I'm sorry but it's going to take a lot more than calm rational discussions.

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 22, 2010 at 10:30pm

Sending letters to politicians along the lines of what David Walters has expounded on about the government taking our land without compensation, the Brigalow Corporation taking over all our land, the Governor becoming a Parliamentary Secretary, the courts being taken over and doing what the Parliament tells them etc. etc. will get you absolutely nowhere. Because none of it is true. If you keep using that as your argument, you are on a hiding to nothing. Judges have said that freehold land (fee simple) IS subject to the planning laws and the vegetation management laws, because it is.

The legislation is not complicated, but I guess if what David Walters has written is true, then it is complicated, because I can't makes any sense at all out of some of his claims. And I have read them several times to try and get my head around them. I can't find one reference in the Queensland legislation that tells me the Governor in now a Parliamentary Secretary - one of his claims. The only section that I can find that mentions the Governor in the same Section as Parliamentary Secretaries is in the Constitution of Queensland Act. Section 24 says the Governor may appoint Parliamentary Secretaries (which are Assistant Ministers). It does not say the Governor is a Parliamentary Secretary. This is the link to the Act
http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/C/ConstofQA01.pdf
Go to it and read Section 24 (it's on page 14). If that is not the section David Walters is referring to in his claim, I would love to know what Section of what Act says the Govenor is a Parliamentary Secretary.

 

 

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 22, 2010 at 10:52pm

Sorry Lynette,
You don't understand. I'm from South Australia. I asked our SA politicians for help, nothing to do with the David Walter cases in Qld.
My main concern with the particular SA legislation is that it there was no mechanism to challenge it thru the State courts. So how do you resolve a situation like that, realistically politicians can "stone wall" because a court challenge is not possible in their jurisdiction. Hence the protection of the independent tiers of government did not exist in my case.
The creation of legislation (laws) that cannot be challenged in court , in their jurisdiction is of real concern in our democracy. Why?, because most individuals cannot afford to challenge in other jurisdiction, they can't risk the cost!!
Hence the only solution appears to be group demonstrations to get the legislation reversed and/or modified; and to high light the problem to the general community who seem to be quite oblivious of the problems. I don't see any other solution.

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 22, 2010 at 11:02pm

You can't challenge laws in court, because they are the law and the courts have to uphold the law. And if the law says that freehold land is subject to planning legislation, and you are convicted for a breach of planning legislation, and your only defence is the claim that because your land is freehold land it is not subject to the planning legislation, you are doomed to fail.

 

 

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 22, 2010 at 11:08pm

Lynette,
Sorry I might have confused the issue slightly. I didn't want to challenge the laws (legislation) in court. I wanted to challenge the decision of a government official in relation to my case. There was/is no mechanism to do this.

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 22, 2010 at 11:15pm

If they have acted outside the law, you can challenge them.

 

 

 

Reply by Colin J Ely on March 8, 2010 at 1:24am

John
There is a very simple way to do this
You write to the Minister concerned, setting out what you believe to be the facts in your case and what you believe was done incorrectly to you, this runs at the heart of our Westminster System of Government. If you are unhappy with the Minister's actions, you can write to the Premier, if you are still unhappy, i presume that South Australia has an Ombudsman, you can write to him/her.
The good part of all this, the Government Department you are unhappy with, will even help you appeal against its decision.

#####################################################

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 9, 2012 at 9:58pm

Page 10 of comments from the original discussion

 

Reply by Suzi Lilburn on January 22, 2010 at 7:20pm

Lynette,

Thank you for your opinion. The naivety in your advocacy of "form" trumping "substance" is breathtaking. It is also sad that you find this naivety, that has destroyed people’s lives, families and businesses, amusing. Perhaps, using this same "form", people with this same advocacy should be banned from owning any property at all.

However and with the greatest respect I think that you will find that this statement of yours to be factually incorrect: “All of the court cases David Walters has been involved with, which he and Sue Maynes rely on as evidence that the State has taken over our land without compensation are based on an incorrect understanding that fee simple land is not freehold land,................”

Please provide any documents where this has either been expressed or implied by either Mr Walter or Sue Maynes ????

1) Please also provide any details you can that would advance your proposition that the State Government has retained any identifiable and registered “Interest” in trees or native vegetation found on freehold land and for that purpose, was sold in ‘free and common socage’, by the Crown and so deposited for the purposes of agriculture and primary production or alternatively for the building of a home????? ("substance")

2) For the purposes of freehold land, please provide any details you can that would advance your proposition that the State Government could or should hold an unregistered interest in land and things that form the land????? ("form")

3) To bring into effect any instrument held over freehold land that would hold the substance of the instrument, when is the State Government going to ‘register’ any and all such instruments against the title and deeds ????? ("substance")

4) For the purposes of substance, do you believe that once such registration has taken place that compensation or a return of equity to the freehold landowner would be immediate ???? ("substance")

5) When is the State Government going to register this interest ???? ("substance")

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 22, 2010 at 7:57pm

To answer your questions:

Please provide any documents where this has either been expressed or implied by either Mr Walter or Sue Maynes ????

I have read transcipts of judgements, where the judges make reference to fact that the person lodging the appeal (Mr Walters) held the belief that freehold did not mean fee simple, and therefore the various people in the appeals had fee simple land which was claimed to not be the freehold land referred in the Vegetation Management Act. I can track down the links to to all the judgements for you read to for yourself if you like.

1) Please also provide any details you can that would advance your proposition that the State Government has retained any identifiable and registered “Interest” in trees or native vegetation found on freehold land and for that purpose, was sold in ‘free and common socage’, by the Crown and so deposited for the purposes of agriculture and primary production or alternatively for the building of a home????? ("substance")

The State did not retain any interest in trees when it alienates land and grants freehold title. However, the introduction of the Vegetation Management Act gave it the power to control tree clearing on freehold land. It always had the power to control tree clearing on leasehold land - nothing has changed there. Whether you like it or not, that is the law. Is it a fair law? Probably not but we can't pick and choose the laws we want to obey and ignore the ones we don't like. How about I decide I want to drive on the right hand side of the road because I don't like being told I have to drive on the left?

2) For the purposes of freehold land, please provide any details you can that would advance your proposition that the State Government could or should hold an unregistered interest in land and things that form the land????? ("form")

The State, by passing the Vegetation Management Act, has not given it an unregistered interest in land, but like all planning laws, it can, because of that law, control what can be done on the land. Again, you might not like the law, but you can't choose to ignore it just because you don't like it.

3) To bring into effect any instrument held over freehold land that would hold the substance of the instrument, when is the State Government going to ‘register’ any and all such instruments against the title and deeds ????? ("substance")

The State does not need to register anything against title deeds, because the laws it has enacted give it the right to do what it has to do to ensure those laws are complied with. The vegetation mapping shows the State's interest (if any) in the vegetation. If the mapping is proved to be wrong, it can be changed.

4) For the purposes of substance, do you believe that once such registration has taken place that compensation or a return of equity to the freehold landowner would be immediate ???? ("substance")

I believe there is or was a Vegetation Incentives Scheme which provided funding for those who were no longer able to clear their land. If those who qualified refused to apply, that is their problem, not the governments.

5) When is the State Government going to register this interest ???? ("substance")

They don't have to.

 

 

 

Reply by Carol Petith on January 22, 2010 at 10:40pm

Lynette
So in other words when someone purchases land in good faith they can have the use of that asset suspended by government legislation and the asset will then devalue. Seems like government have had the spin doctors working out how to steal land and not pay for it.
Why is it that anyone else has to register on the title deeds an interest in a property and yet you are now saying that the government can take this asset by legislation. If legislation restricts the use of the property then that is the same as taking the asset as the restriction is a virtual freeze on use of the land and is a de-facto taking. This is not only morally wrong but needs to be corrected. Since when is the government elected to steal assets from people. In Russia perhaps.
Government have got away with too much for too long and they need to be reminded that they are the servants of the people and not the other way around. Time to vote them all out. Vote all sitting members out. And keep doing it until we get back our property rights.

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 22, 2010 at 10:52pm

Yes that is what happens. If you don't like the legislation, then get yourself elected to Parliament and change it.

The government has not stolen your land. You still own it. You can still sell it. There are plenty of people who want to buy land that still has lots of trees on it - all those tree hugging greenies out there need somewhere to live that hasn't been clear felled so they can stop feeling guilty about living somewhere that used to have trees on it.

And as I said, there were compensation schemes for people who have been unable to clear their land.

 

 

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 22, 2010 at 11:01pm

I'm sorry Lynette,
I'm going to have to disagree here.
In most State legislation where the common law has been overidden by statute law there is a clause that says:- "This legislation over rides common law rights and no compensation is payable for removing this right." I can point you to the legislation if you wish.
While there may be compensation is a few cases it is not the general rule.
The state has "stolen" a right, and yes you can sell it, but what if its now worth less than you bought it for because of the lost property right?

######################################################

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 10, 2012 at 9:53pm

Page 11 of comment from the original discussion

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 22, 2010 at 11:14pm

I find this common law v statute law argument rather tiresome. As far as I am aware no legislation in Queensland says anything about it over-riding common law. And believe me, I've read lots of Queensland legislation. When legislation is enacted, if there was a common law (decisions made by a court because there was no statute), then the statute takes over. The only reference I can find to common law in any Queensland Act is in the Acts Interpretation Act in a section about only being able to convicted under one law if an offence has been committed under 2 or more laws, including common law.

 

 

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 23, 2010 at 6:42am

Sorry Lynette I'm from South Australia and I'm referring to SA legislation, where they say exactly what I indicated.

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 23, 2010 at 9:25am

There is a world of difference between State legislation.

Common law only applies until a statute is passed that takes away that common law. The courts have always ruled that governments have the power to make laws for the good of the people, and they accept those laws and pass judgements based on those laws. It is unfortunate that some people are impacted on when a law is passed, but that's the way it is. If you don't like a law, get elected to Parliament and work towards changing it.

However, once a law is passed, regardless of how repugnant you find it to be, it is the law and the courts will always find in favour of the prosecution unless you can find flaws in their investigation. I have difficulty accepting the Vegetation Management Act myself, however, it is the law in Queensland and until that law is repealed, we are stuck with it.

In the early days of the Vegetation Management Act in Queensland I believe a few cases did fall over due to lack of experience and knowledge of the investigators. That has now changed, and if you are going to rely on the David Walters style of defence "my land is fee simple and the State when it granted it gave up all rights to control it and it has no power to make laws to take away my common law rights" then you will not succeed.

Bone, Burns, Glasgow, Hall and Dore in Queensland have all found that out, at their expense.

 

 

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 23, 2010 at 10:50am

One person getting elected to the parliament is not going to change these laws. The party machines ( and the executives) are not going to take notice of one person.
There needs to be an organised mass action to bring these laws down

#####################################################

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 10, 2012 at 9:57pm

Page 12 of comment from the original discussion

 

Reply by Carol Petith on January 22, 2010 at 11:11pm

Lynette
So do you agree that it is ok for servants of the people to steal land that has been bought in good faith. If the land is rendered useless by way of the legislation then what really do you own. A government created park. Come on get real. I purchased my land over 40years ago in NSW and now it has been rendered useless to me. Alright for the animals and the birds but they don't pay my mortgage. By the way I was not offered any compensation at all. Still have to pay the rates to look at though and still have to live in fear that a fire will come again and burn me out again. Must not touch the trees though.

 

 

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 22, 2010 at 11:12pm

Carol,
Reminds me of what one of the Qld judges said in the Mrs Burns case. I think it was "Soviet Russia would be proud of these laws" Yes he found against Mrs Burns, but his comment appeared to express what he and many others think about the legislation/laws.
We need to get them changed.

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 22, 2010 at 11:29pm

I have read both of the judgements against Mrs Burns, and in neither of them was anything remotely like that said.

 

 

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 23, 2010 at 6:39am

You must have missed it . I think there were more than two!!

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 23, 2010 at 9:17am

These are the only ones I can find. The original one where she appealed the decision of de Jersey in November 2004 doesn't appear to be available online. It could be in that one, but I can't imagine de Jersey saying something like that.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/qld/QSC/2004/43...

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/qld/QCA/2006/23...

 

 

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 23, 2010 at 10:45am

I think this might be it !!

Hence the Judge in Queensland stated in the Mrs Burns case, which she lost for the umtenth time:- “Judge White of the Planning and Environment Court in Cairns stated – : I just find this astounding. Soviet Russia would be proud of these laws.”"

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 23, 2010 at 12:33pm

Where is the transcipt of the judgement? I can't find that one on line. It appears to have been quoted by David Walters. I guess he was in court, but unless it is in an official transcript, there is no evidence that Judge White said it at all.

 

 

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 23, 2010 at 7:11pm

Another couple of quotes, just to show that these laws are quite unacceptable to the judges that are required to enforce them.

“The matter of Bone v Mothershaw was upheld by the Queensland Supreme Court of Appeal,consisting of three justices, and as stated in that decision by Judge McPherson JJA:-
“He (Mr Bone) retains unimpaired, for what it is worth, his estate in fee simple absolute in the land. He has been stripped of virtually all the powers which make ownership of land of any practical utility or value””

“Judge McPherson JJA of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Bone v Mothershaw [2002]
QCA120 stated:-
“For this severe limitation on his rights as owner, he has received and will receive no compensation, although he continues to enjoy the privilege of paying the rates that the Council levies on his land.” The action taken by the Council was no doubt undertaken in the public interest, as it claims, of the citizens of Brisbane; but it is not they who will bear the financial disadvantages of the action taken in their interest.”

Lynette are you for or against these laws?

I can see you have an axe to grind in relation to David John Walter, but what about the main issue we are all concerned about, the theft of our property right to be able to carry out agriculture on property alienated from the crown for that purpose.
Do you agree that the "community" should pay for the benefit they receive from this locked up agricutural land; or do you think the State Governments should purchase the land and return it to the "crown", and hence the problem is solved?

####################################################

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page