Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 12, 2012 at 5:35am

Page 13 of comments from the original publication of this discussion

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 24, 2010 at 11:32am

Lynette,

You said earlier in one of your puzzling answers that, and I quote: - “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.”


If you accept that all environmental law is only made to the power of the ‘External Affairs’ provision of the Constitution, then how do you explain this definition ???? - "interest" , in relation to land (including overseas land), means:

(a) any legal or equitable estate or interest in the land;

(b) a restriction on the use of the land, whether or not annexed to other land; or

(c) any other right (including a right under an option and a right of redemption), charge, power or privilege over or in connection with the land or an interest in the land; and includes the interest of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory in Crown land.



And further, how do you explain this definition ??? - "planning instrument" means an instrument made under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory that relates to town planning or use of land.



These definitions are found in the Lands Acquisition Act 1989 (C’th) at section 6 and relate to the definition of - "land" means land in Australia. – in the same section of the same Act.

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 24, 2010 at 12:23pm

1. I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with that extract from the Constitution, other than to say it would no doubt relate to planning restrictions imposed by a lawfully elected local or state government.

2. Planning instrument that relate to the use of land is self explanatory - again each State or territory has its own raft of legislation that relate to what can be done to land and where and under what circumstances, as does the Commonwealth with respect to what it can control. Local governments planning instruments are at a local level. The state also have state planning polices, that local governments must abide by when making planning schemes. Nothing wrong with them - they prevent inappropriate devlopment in inappropriate areas.

3. Lands Acquistion Act 1989 (Cth) is for the acquisition of land by the Commonwealth for use by the Commonwealth. Each State has its own acquisition of land legislation, which gives each state the power to acquire land in its state, nowhere else. That particular section means the Commonwealth can acquire land anywhere in Australia. It has no power to acquire land outside of Australia under the terms of that Act.

 

 

 

Reply by Alex Davidson on January 24, 2010 at 1:35pm

There is a lot wrong with planning as carried out by Australian governments today. In Sydney we now have the highest land prices in the world, due primarily to land rationing carried out under the pretext of planning for orderly development. There is also massive congestion and overloading of existing infrastructure due to the same land rationing process carried out in the name of urban consolidation. And finally there is corruption – an inevitable result of concentrating such immense power in the hands of a small number of bureaucrats.

Planning, as carried out by the NSW government is simply socialism by another name. It’s no different to the plans carried out in the former Soviet Union. I imagine it is similar in Queensland. The underlying presumption of all these “planning instruments” is that the government is the paramount owner of the land, and as such, has the power to decide where we all must live and work. It is the antithesis of freedom, and is delivering very bad outcomes for many people.

Alan Moran has written a short book on this subject which you may wish to read. It’s called ‘The Tragedy of Planning’, and can be downloaded free here.

 

 

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 24, 2010 at 1:51pm

Excellent comments Alex,
I'm not going to comment further on this subject. Lynette appears to be socialist and agreeable to a totalitarian state without the freedoms we are losing every day. However she continues to bring up "our democracy"; I don't believe what we have left is democracy. Still we are all entitled to our views.

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 24, 2010 at 5:38pm

What freedoms have we lost? We still have ownership of our land, we still have the right to go to work for whoever we like, we still have the right to buy whatever we like, we still have the right to travel where and when we like, we still have the right to criticise the government. To say that Australia is like Soviet Russia is an outright nonsense, just because some people don't like being told they can't do something they used to be able to.

I thought I would be talking to rational people here. Obviously not. I won't be back.

Being sent spam email "friendship" requests from people who are obviously just trying to sell me viagra or some other such nonsense was the last straw. If they wanted to be my friend, they needed to write more sensible emails explaining why. I wasn't born yesterday.

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 23, 2010 at 9:41pm

While I might not agree with the Vegetation Management Act, it is the law in Queensland. I find certain aspects of the VMA in Queensland unacceptable, and know that in some instances it is based on extremely dodgy mapping. However, that is for individual property owners to argue with DERM about. If they believe the map is wrong, and have proper scientific evidence to support them, they can get the map changed.

Many owners of large farm size blocks in my area have entered into Nature Refuge Agreements, so quite clearly not everyone feels they should still be allowed to clear fell their land.

The recent amendments about regrowth, are to my mind, repugnant. If you have lawfully cleared your land in the past, you should be allowed to maintain that status. The regrowth maps over my area, when they were first produced showed Endangered regrowth in areas that had been growing houses for 30 years. I haven't looked lately - hopefully they have fixed them. It made the department look like an idiot. However, again, it is the law and until the law is changed, you have to obey it.

While the judges in the Bone case did say that Mr Bone had lost the use of his land for agriculture, he still had his land. And I'm sure there would be plenty of tree huggers who would love to put their money where their mouths are and buy it. It is in Brisbane after all where all the tree huggers seem to want to hang out. It's not like it's out the back of beyond. Judges don't have to agree with the law they are asked to rule on, just like the rest of us they no doubt have differing opinions about the fairness of different laws. They have to enforce it however, and that is what they were doing.

Should compensation be paid to landowners who lose the right to use their land? Probably, but how many have genuinely lost the ability to use any of their land for agriculture? Not very many. If they have been farming it over the years, either grazing or agriculture, then there wouldn't be many trees that needed to be cleared anyway. Peter Spencer had the chance to sell his land to the State. His complaint appears to be that he was too slow to take advantage of it, and found that the rules had changed in that when the NSW VMA was first introduced, land owners could sell their land to the State for what it was worth BEFORE the VMA reduced the value because of the reduced use that could be made of it. After a few years the rules were changed so that the value was as at the date of application and did not take into account the loss of value the VMA reduced the land value by

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

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 12, 2012 at 5:39am

Page 14 of comments from the original publication of this discussion

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 23, 2010 at 9:55pm

Lynette,
Going back to your request for the location of the transcript in relation to Judge White's comment about Soviet Russia, this is no longer on the legal data bases because it has been removed!!
Fortunately there are other hard copies.
I can however give you a quote where Kevin Rudd refers to the Republic of Queensland; he should know that's where he came from.

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 24, 2010 at 10:05am

There's no hidden agenda behind removing court transcripts and the fact the transcipt of Mrs Burns' cases have disappeared doesn't bother me. They will be available in paper form at the Court Registry. If I can be bothered I may toddle down to the Court Registry one day this week in my lunch hour and check it out. It just makes sense to free up computer storage space. It's not infinite. Even this website will find in years to come that it needs to cull some things to make room for more.

As for Queensland (or Australia) becoming a republic? That doesn't bother me either. Nothing will really change. Instead of a Governor-General we will have a President. The States will probably keep the term "Governor" because that is title of the people in charge of each of the States in the US. Instead of the Governor acting on behalf of Her Majesty when granting land, he/she will instead act on their own behalf as Governor of the State of Queensland.

I feel we will always be a loggerheads over the rights of States to make laws that perceive to take away people's property rights. I believe in obeying the laws of the land, regardless of how ridiculous or unfair they may appear to be. I do not prescribe to the belief that if a law is inconvenient, ignore it, it doesn't apply to me.

The only way to change the laws is by rational argument. The arguments that David Walter have put forward such as unlawful changes to the constitution, the state on alienating land gave up the power to control what is done on that land, they have no power to take away common law rights, etc. are not rational, and that is why he is constantly ignored when he writes to the Prime Minister, the Premier, the Governor-General etc., which just seems to add fuel to the fire of his beliefs. "The more they ignore me, the more it must be true, because they don't want to admit that I am right."

I have nothing against David Walter, he has the right to believe what he wants to. It's just unfortunate that he has managed to convince a number of others that there must be some truth to what he says. The courts have continually said he is wrong. They have said that the States do have the power to make laws that take away people's rights to do anything they want on their land, without compensation for the loss of that use.

 

 

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 24, 2010 at 11:19am

Lynette ,
I hope the Agmates readers are reading what the judges are indicating about these laws. Many are not going to like living in a totalitarian state (Soviet Russia). But if they accept the belief the rational argument is going to turn the loss of rights around, well that's their choice as well.
You are not going to convince me that there isn't a government agenda here, when the judges make comments like they do, knowing full well they are bound to uphold the law no matter how bad the law gets.

 

 

 

Reply by Alex Davidson on January 24, 2010 at 11:26am

Although you may be quite happy about laws that “perceive” to take away private property rights, many others are not. They see violations of private property rights as symptoms of a society that is unjust – one where might replaces right, where force takes the place of consent.

It isn’t just a “perception” that there are law in place that violate the sanctity of property, it is a reality.

There are very strong “rational arguments" as to why we should insist that our governments respect private property rights, but that has made precious little difference to anything. I know, because I have tried that approach for many years. Those we are up against are so powerful they can and do simply shrug their shoulders in the face of reasoned debate, as you probably know. Your position is the sort of line I hear all the time from those who are happy with the way things are, because for now, things are going their way.

Did you join this group to support private property rights, or oppose them? If the latter, then perhaps you may wish to start a separate discussion where we can all attempt to show you the light.

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 24, 2010 at 11:36am

I joined this group to point out there is no point in trying use the David Walter argument, because it is doomed to failure.

If you want to change the vegetation management laws, you have to use rational arguments, based on science, that the laws are in fact not having the desired affect. That locking up all trees and peventing them from ever being cleared is not the way to capture carbon. You have to have young growing trees to do that. Preventing all the old growth forests from being cleared, and then preventing all the regrowth forests from being cleared will result in all old growth forests that no longer capture carbon. That is what needs to be used to overturn the laws, not complaining about the States not having the power to take rights away. Because they do. You have to show them the falacy of the laws.

 

 

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 24, 2010 at 11:40am

Lynette,
This argument is about the removal of rights, nothing else.
If the governments want my property for the good of the community, they buy it, they don't just create laws to steal it!!

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 24, 2010 at 12:09pm

The only laws that people believe that have stolen their propety rights appear, to me, to be the vegetation management laws. As I said above, the only way to change them is by rational argument that proves locking up carbon in mature trees is a pointless exercise, and that trees can and should be cleared so that new trees can grow and capture the carbon, if that is the sole reason for preventing people from clearing trees.

Your property hasn't been stolen. You still own and can still sell it. I also said that there are plenty of people out there who want to buy property with trees so they can feel good about doing the tree hugging stuff.

I agree to some extent that the government should buy your land if they are going to prevent you from competely using it. However, as the government has a poor track record in managing the land it does buy for conservation, there's no point in adding more to the public estate to just turn it into a state weed farm. There are a few properties in Queensland that have been bought by the government, a Nature Refuge Agreement entered into (with itself) and then the properties are placed back on the market so the buyer knows the constraints on the use of the land up front. Not sure how successful that has been.

 

 

 

Reply by Alex Davidson on January 24, 2010 at 12:53pm

Vegetation management laws are the tip of the iceberg. The IPA referred to a few others here.

The idea that ownership can be separated from use undermines the meaning of ownership. As soon as you lose control over an owned resource, you no longer own it. Someone else does. That is what the concept of ownership is all about. It’s a way of defining who has, and who does not have, the right to control and manage scarce resources.

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

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 12, 2012 at 8:16pm

Page 15 of comments from the original publication of this discussion

 

Reply by Alex Davidson on January 24, 2010 at 12:50pm

A while back a group I am involved with got sidetracked into trying to show the fallacy of the laws. In that case the government argument was that land we own, which is largely rock and sand, had to be preserved for future agricultural use and therefore could not be developed for housing. Not only was that claim preposterous nonsense, but other very fertile land not far away was not subject to any such restrictions at all, and is now a new housing estate. Years of letter writing, submissions and meetings, often attended by hundreds who are similarly restricted, to highlight the gross inconsistency, double standard, and nonsense of their argument made not the slightest difference. That’s when I realised that fighting the detail of these sorts of restrictions upon the use of land is a waste of time. It’s a wild goose chase, designed to distract us from the underlying and much more important attack on the sanctity of property by those who follow a collectivist agenda.

That’s why I and many others now question what is going on from a moral and ethical perspective. Is it appropriate for any government to have the power to override private property rights whenever it feels like it? Clearly many of a non-communist persuasion think so; witness the US Constitution, and even to a limited extent the Australian version.

The logical extension of your argument – that we have no choice but to go along with whatever laws the government makes because they have the power to do so – is a totalitarian state. One where the government is at the centre of everything; one where we are reduced to a type of slavery; one where every decision about everything we do is subject to some form of regulatory control. Would you be happy with that?

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 24, 2010 at 1:10pm

We elect the government, they make the laws. That's what a democracy is all about. We have the power to elect another government if enough of us don't like the one we have. That's democracy. I don't approve of a nanny state, but if enough people want it, that is what we get. The alternatives are to stay and put up with, get elected to council or parliament and change the laws or move to another town, state or country, depending on how severely we believe we are affected by those laws.

Using the David Walter type of argument doesn't get you anywhere, because you alienate a large section of the community who don't share the same conspiracy theory view, but who otherwise might be inclined to lend support.

I still own my land. Until the government takes my title away from me without paying me market value compensation plus costs of having to move, I am content with whatever restrictions the state or local government wish to impose on me.

If you own a large block of land with trees that are soaking up carbon, then it and when whatever carbon trading scheme gets up, then those with all the trees will have something of value to offer - land with trees. Yes - you still own both, regardless of how some people feel, and if a company that wants to have something to soak up carbon so it can keep on polluting, your land with all its trees will be just what they are looking for.

 

 

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 24, 2010 at 1:34pm

No Lynette,
The State Governments should uphold the principles below, or shall we just forget that as well.

"The Constitution of the Commonwealth 1901

page 641 - 642:

Whenever any business, franchise, or privilege becomes obnoxious to the public health, manners or morals, it may be regulated by the police power of the State even to [P.642] suppression; individual rights being compelled to give way for the benefit of the whole body politic. But when, in the exercise of this police power, private property or private vested rights must be taken for public use, in order to carry out improvements or regulations, or to carry on business or public works, looking to the benefit of the public health, manners or morals, compensation must be made for the property taken. (New Orleans Water-works Co. v. Tammany Water-works Co., 14 Fed. Rep. 194. Baker, Annot. Const. 183.)

When the Federal Government appropriates private property, it is under an implied obligation to make just compensation therefor; and, upon failure to do so, the owner may sue upon such obligation. although there may have been no formal act looking towards such compensation; (United States v. Great Falls Manufacturing Co., 112 U.S. 645. Id. 184.)

It is not necessary that the property should be absolutely taken to entitle the owner to compensation. If there is such serious interruption with the common and necessary use as to practically destroy its value, it would be a taking within the meaning of the fifth amendment. (Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166. Id.)"

This principle is exactly what the Australian Judges are referring too!!!

 

 

 

Reply by Carol Petith on January 24, 2010 at 2:55pm

Lynette
After reading the comments it leaves me in a state of disbelief that there are people like yourself who really think it is ok for our government to interpret the use of power as a right to remove a person's asset which in this case is land. Following on from your argument that the government has this right, that would mean that the government has no limitations and could decide to claim 100% of all privately owned land under a vegetation Act or maybe even invent another Act that could say no one is to use their land full stop. The principle would be the same. The Vegetation Act removes the right to use the land as a landowner chooses and seems like it is at the mercy of the bureaucrats who could amend the Act to make it more draconian or could add more restrictions.

 

 

 

Reply by Colin J Ely on March 7, 2010 at 5:06pm

Carol
If you google 'Summerlands Estate' down here at Phillip Island in Victoria, you will see that the State Government has done exactly that, resumed a whole suburb, and they paid compensation i might add.

 

 

 

Reply by Annette Bezzina on March 7, 2010 at 5:56pm

Hi Colin,
Just googled 'Summerlands Estate'. Interesting read (I didn't know about this).

When you say they paid compensation it appears their compensation does not match market value. Paying just over half of the market value is a joke. I can't imagine what these landowners have been through for 15+ years.

Makes you want to sell up and never buy again. In fact, I think it may be time to buy the Kombi and what doesn't fit into it gets sold off too.

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

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 12, 2012 at 8:22pm

Page 16 of comment from the original publication of this discussion

 

Reply by Dale Stiller on January 24, 2010 at 2:44pm

Lynette, you have successfully been arguing the inaccuracies of material source from the Maynes/Walters camp & the following comment you recently made reinforces the danger of being distracted from the central issue.
“Using the David Walter type of argument doesn't get you anywhere, because you alienate a large section of the community who don't share the same conspiracy theory view, but who otherwise might be inclined to lend support.”

Ron Bahnisch earlier wrote, “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.”

However I must say Lynette that you have lost me with your comments that (forgive the broad brush), the issue is principally about vegetation management laws, implying only a minor inconvenience & any solution is by a rational debate, lobbying politicians.
Lynette, veg management is only one in a whole raft of laws. This is first & foremost a property rights issue.
The first principle to communicate is that if an individual’s property or use of that property is taken for the “common good”, then it must be paid for.
The second principle is that all laws should not infringe on our traditional legal rights & civil liberties; which is a point made from opposing ends of the political spectrum by Terry O’Gorman & Prof. Suri Ratnapala.
These two principles can be argued irrespective of whether there should be regulation for tree clearing or not.

Ron Bahnisch has said earlier in this comment thread -
“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.”

In Queensland the solution will hardly be found through the courts. The judges have no choice but to uphold the law; even though they may disagree with it. The solution so far has not been through the electoral box. Agforce & other SFO’s have shown the futility of the niceties of polite lobbying; to limit yourself to this one avenue is plainly a nonsense. When the Government hold most of the cards, it can with impunity ignore the whimpering of a tame dog & throw it a few crumbs

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 24, 2010 at 5:25pm

I used vegetation management legislation as the example, because that seems to be the main cause of all the complaints. No one seems to mind that you can't build a brothel next to a primary school, or a piggery in the middle of down town Brisbane, which is what the planning legislation says, and the vegetation management legislation is after all, just another planning instrument.

Another example of where rampantly obsessive members of the community step out of line is when an industrial estate is established and tanneries and the like move out of the middle of suburban Brisbane to the bush in the middle of nowhere. After a few years, suburbia starts creeping up on it again. And it is the tanneries and so forth that are expected to move, even though they were there first. Local governments seem to ignore the need for substantial buffer zones, and allow residential subdivisions to creep closer and closer and then when there is a fire, or a bad odour, those rampant obsessive NIMBYs start demanding that the tanneries move even further out. Even though they were there first.

What other laws do you think impinge on property owner's rights to do what they like with their land?

How do you hope to achieve your aims of getting rid of all of the restrictions on uncontrolled propery development and use? It won't happen. We need planning laws, otherwise we risk ending up with piggeries in the middle of suburbia, brothels on every street corner, hotels that can trade 24 hours a day.

Do you also believes the laws about no smoking in restaurants should be repealed? How about lowering the drinking age? Doing away the blood alcohol levels for drivers? These are all an infringement on our civil liberities, aren't they? I'm afraid I have never had much time for Terry O'Gorman and his desired level of civil liberties.

I agree that Agforce is a toothless tiger that rolls over and plays dead when things get tough. But as I said, if you can use scientific arguments to refute the need for locking up all trees, and with the climate change arguments running out of puff because the dodgy data that support those claims is proving to be just that - dodgy. Eventually people will come to realise that clearing older trees and letting new ones grow to take their place is the best thing that can happen to the environment.

 

 

 

Reply by Dale Stiller on January 24, 2010 at 6:39pm

Lynette, I agree whole heartily with the ridiculous situation where councils allow residential development next to a pre existing industrial site & after complaints insists that industry moves further out. But this is getting off topic. To use pre-existing planning regulations into this discussion on an equal footing to the imposition of the likes of vegetation management laws does not hold up. Of course you can’t build a “brothel next to a primary school, or a piggery in the middle of down town Brisbane”, this would contravene a pre existing local government planning regulation. I am not arguing that there should not be any planning laws or that any level of Government should not have the ability to resume some land; but the principle must be applied that if you take something, you must pay for it.

The vegetation management laws & other resource management laws to use the inadequate analogy of town planning laws removed a property right that was being practiced & in the past officially encouraged within the correct “planning zone” In reference to scientific arguments, they were ignored at the time of the imposition of vegetation management laws. The Government at the time buried a report commissioned by the Government to eminent rangeland scientist, Dr Bill Burrows, because the findings did not indicate what the Government wanted to hear. This of course gives us leverage to mount an augment based on sound science. But will the general public be ready to listen? My feeling is only after it can be established that these laws can affect them too.

#####################################################3

 

 

Permalink Reply by Dale Stiller on January 13, 2012 at 8:49pm

17th and final page of comments from the original publication of this discussion

 

Reply by John Michelmore on January 24, 2010 at 5:57pm

I really can't believe what is going on here. The personal attacks continue.

Dale you said – “Lynette, you have successfully been arguing the inaccuracies of material source from the Maynes/Walters camp & the following comment you recently made reinforces the danger of being distracted from the central issue.” - I take deep issue with you with respect to that statement.



David Walter has never had anything to do with you; you don’t have access to any and have not read any submission/brief/court book/filing or any hand up material; only a handful of people are being represented this way; this avenue of ‘inquiry’ does not interfere in any way with that activities of PRA or anybody else and specifically that of confused Lynette; you don’t personally know Mr Walter; you have not attended any court appearances to hear Mr Walter speak (on his feet) and you have no idea of where the intended line of inquiry is ultimately headed or goals sort and, you have no idea what is contained in any privileged previous or current material.



Mr Walter is not doing this for the mainstream ‘Central Issue’ whatever you envisage that to be; he is representing only the ‘Individual’ personal interests of those seeking his help in their individual personal matters, which has nothing to do with you, PRA or confused Lynette, therefore, there is no represented ‘Distraction’.



Yet, you presume that you do, notwithstanding confused Lynette’s ad-nausea presumptions and preoccupation with Mr Walter, which seems to be forced by some unknown logic together with an inability to assimilate the simplest of supposition’s.

 

 

 

Reply by Lynette McDougall on January 24, 2010 at 7:03pm

Yep - I'm confused about how people can possibly believe the Brigalow Corporation conspiracy theories, and all the nonsense that goes along with it.

 

 

 

Reply by Brent Cameron Melville on January 25, 2010 at 4:06pm

Well stated Dale. In regard to the last paragraph that judges have no choice but to uphold the law, that's exactly the conclusion of Walter and Maynes, which is why they have had to revamp their approach.
I think Ron has to be more careful in dismissing activists as "extreme right conspiracy theorists". Twenty years ago people who talked about 'one world government' or a 'new world order' were called this, but in the past few years every major world leader including Ban Ki Moon have openly called for a "new world order". Lord Monckton says this system has been all but put in place. So, a person definding "private property rights" has now become the extremist because "saving the planet from catastrophic, carbon-induced climate change is the most pressing issue facing humanity" and therefore things like "private property rights" are "expendable in the face of this overwhelming crisis". Yes, that's nonsense, but it is the underlying message being relentlessly pounded into the public consciousness (or should that be unconsciousness?)

 

 

 

Reply by Dale Stiller on January 25, 2010 at 4:23pm

Brent, it gives your argument no strength to quote from such despots as Ban Ki Moon & the extremist left/green movement. PRA will dismiss with equal distain the views of the extreme left & right.

 

 

 

Reply by Suzi Lilburn on January 24, 2010 at 7:59pm

I have been absent from this thread for a couple of days and have returned with a fresh perspective.

What I observed....

At no time on this thread has anyone discussed the fact that the David Walter cases and the Peter Spencer case have the same basic approach - the removal of private land ownership.

At no time on this thread have any questions put to the writers by those who are either supportive or ambivalent toward David Walter, been answered.

At all times on this thread, the attack has been focused on 2 individuals, that being David Walter and Sue Maynes.

PRA charge for their legal assistance - David Walter & Sue Maynes do not, have not and will not.

PRA use legal teams and claim their superiority. David Walter is a police detective and police prosecutor and has been derided as having no legal ability. Yet he could put you in jail if given the chance, so obviously the courts trust his ability.

Sue Maynes and David Walter have attended Spencer' court hearings, attended his rally, and always been supportive of him.

Neither Sue Maynes nor David Walter have spoken out in any way that is detrimental to PRA.

Yet the focus of this thread has become them and their work.

If David Walter's findings are correct, they may well return not only the land ownership rights to the people, but also lead to massive litigation against govt. Does anyone reading this thread not see that govt will not want this, will want it stopped and may well go to massive lengths to stop it?

After all The Australian turned the Peter Spencer story into a dirty family saga did it not?

If David Walter's findings are incorrect, then he and Sue Maynes will have egg on their faces and will have to stand tall or hide.

Why do people on this forum have to try and pull down people who are fighting the same battle, unless they want them stopped! And if they want David Walter and Sue Maynes stopped, whose side are they on?

And if by any chance they are right in their research then I assume every one of you that has denigrated will post your apologies and thanks for their hard work.

 

 

 

Reply by Lee McNicholl on January 24, 2010 at 9:45pm

Hi Suzi, I thought you would be back trying to defend Sue Mayne and David Walter's record of dismal failure when it comes to "representing" desperate folk charged with various breaches of the manifestly unjust Qld and NSW Veg.Management Acts. It would be much more transparent if you pubically identified your self as all the PRA Directors are prepared to do. Hiding behind the picture of an old car wreck would hardly give confidence to prospective "clients" of David Walters and Sue Maynes. Come to think of it , how would anyone be sure that Suzi Lilburn and Sue Maynes are not one and the same person?

I have more than a passing knowledge of police powers as my father spent 35 years in the Qld. Police
finishing up as Inspector in Charge of the Woollongabba District. In fact I stiil have all his old diaries and official police record. My father had a very healthy and professional respect for Queensland's legal profession and they him. In fact Dan Casey, one of Queensland's legendary criminal defence barristers, gave Dad a tongue in cheek compliment of being "the Lionel Barrimore of the Queensland Police Force". Lionel Barrimore was a renowned actor of the day.
What's more Ben Mc Nicholl was very aware of not abusing or embellishing police powers and never made the "leap of faith" to consider himself a costitutional lawyer. I suggest that David Walters should go back to Law School before he offers his services to gullible "clients" . Even if David Walters offered me his services "pro bono" I would consider this far too expensive given his record.

The PRA makes no apology about pointing out David Walter and Sue Maynes dismal legal track record and would advise any of their prospective "clients" to seek professional legal advice before putting their legal and financial future in the hands of either person , given their limited legal training and unclear legal standing before the Courts involved.
You asked "whose side are they{PRA I assume} on? Well let me spell it out clearly one more time in the forlorn home that you might see reason. The PRA supports Peter Specer's legal initatives and the method by which he is pursuing them. The PRA very cautiously spends members funds on selected cases with credible lawyers. We have had 13 out of 13 wins to date.
THe PRA is not on the side of those that peddle the Brigalow Corp. conspiracy until they can come up with one credible constitutional authority that supports their unproven and untested views

Suzi, I hope this is clear enough for you. Lee Mc Nicholl Vice Chairman of PRA

 

 

 

Reply by Colin J Ely on March 7, 2010 at 5:32pm

Although I am not currently a land owner, and therefore not immediately affected by these horrible bits of legislation, I will pass on a pearl of wisdom that I learned after 8 years in the Army Reserve, If you try and fight against the system, the system will crucify you! You have to be crafty and learn how to use the system against itself! ;-)

 

 

 

Reply by Colin J Ely on March 7, 2010 at 10:02pm

Here is an issue that some of you might like to take up to its logical conclusion? I work at a high security commonwealth concern, we have security cameras all over the place, including in areas accessible by the general public. By law, we have to have signs up at our entrances informing people that they may be under video surveillance. If prosecutions under the VMA rely on satellite imagery, perhaps you can get them under the privacy laws if they did not inform you that you and your property were under video surveillance?

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

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page