Geraldine Robertson v DPI & RSPCA - Poodles
By Law Geraldine Robertson must win.
By Corruption Geraldine Robertson must lose.
Our Premier, Anna Bligh, controls judges, she knows where all the judges' skeletons are buried. The Courts are inflicting so many corrupt and unjust decisions that some victims, driven by the hopelessness of the courts corrupt decisions, are willing to sacrifice to punish injustice. People have started protesting outside the courts and will even set themselves on fire in front of that Court. The High Court in Plenty v Dillon said " If the courts of common law do not uphold the rights of individuals by granting effective remedies, they invite anarchy, for nothing breeds social disorder as quickly as the sense of injustice which is apt to be generated by the unlawful invasion of a person's rights, particularly when the invader is a government official." Anarchy means lawlessness and disorder (violence) instead of using court to resolve disputes. It is only a matter of time, probably sooner than we think, before lawless people start taking over our streets.
Labor Governments do not appoint decent honest judges who would do the right thing as this meant the Government cannot control the courts decisions. The most controllable people are those with skeletons, people with perversions such as pedophiles and people who will take bribes. Most of these Government appointed judges can be relied on to make a corrupt decision when needed. In some instances, barristers were appointed as judges or to other high positions in the legal system for some favour, service or cover up they did against their client. Peter Perera, Dan Fritz and others were such victims. Do we really believe our Labor Governments would deliberately appoint an honest decent judge instead of one they can control? In fairness, there are a few decent judges but peer pressure is a difficult problem to overcome especially for the very few rare decent judges.
Pedophiles? Labor Premier Wayne Goss destroyed the Heiner files; Labor Premier Peter Beatty made it a crime to report/publish pedophilia - child abuse - except to Police and Family Services where it can be covered up and the Pedophiles can live free of the fear of public exposure.
By Corruption Geraldine Robertson must lose.
The publicity of the correct and proper Decision would alert the public to the corruption, abuse of power, and all the dirty illegal tactics used by RSPCA. This would bring RSPCA and the
Government's irresponsible management of the Animal Care and Protection Act under a public microscope that
could
harm Labor's election chances. The judges in not making an honest decision and Geraldine Robertson loses. No one else could believe Geraldine after all the defamation, fabrications of evidences and lies told by
RSPCA highly publicised on the Internet and other medias. Everything Geraldine and her deceased husband had worked hard for would only be for nothing.
The Court of Appeal will probably not make the right decision, a simple decision. The decision for Geraldine's appeal to the Magistrates Court was delayed by Magistrate Strofield for 7 months and it was corrupt and wrong. Justice Devereau in the District Court struck out Geraldine Robertson's Appeal on the lies that Natural Justice is not law.
On the 8th March 2010 this matter was in the Court Of Appeal and still that Court has not made a decision. The Decision is an easy one and an obvious one. RSPCA and the Magistrate conducts in denying Geraldine Robertson Natural Justice means that all decisions to seize her dogs, forfeit her dogs to the State, transfer ownership of her dogs to RSPCA on the 8 February 2008, after they were seized on the 9th January 2008, charge her with animal offences, seize her records, evidence and computer system are void. Virtually everything RSPCA did to Geraldine was illegal. Note: All evidence and legal arguments are public documents, copies may be obtained from the Supreme Court of Appeal, Brisbane. DPI&F must return all of Geraldine dogs. The ownership of Geraldine's dogs were given to RSPCA by DPI&F even before any appeal process commenced. Under the Animal Care and Protection Act, DPI&F must compensate Geraldine Robertson for the value of her dogs.
The delay in the Court of Appeal's decision is waiting for RSPCA to solve their problems with Geraldine Robertson by another highly publicised stunt- a KING HIT, another raid with more fabrications and lies. The latest punishment inflicted by RSPCA was the refusal of an operating kennel licence by the Logan City Council. RSPCA CEO Mark Townend previously a Logan Shire Councilor has sent inspectors to talk to Logan Shire Council standing committee chairman Cr Graham Able and the Council refused Geraldine's kennel licence based on a secret report provided by RSPCA and fabricated evidence by council's inspectors. Protest to this council - just remember you are just as vulnerable to this corruption as Geraldine Robertson. S ee www.petmafia.com.au/logancouncil for more details.
By Law Geraldine Robertson must win.
The RSPCA did such an overwhelming job on Geraldine Robertson with their "trial by media" and their evil acts of putting maggots on a dog, claiming the dogs were covered in urine and
faeces, fabricating video, using old file photos, and releasing lies and fabrications to the media, lying that the dogs were malnourished, lying that the dogs were living on their own urine and faeces, lying
that wet concrete was a sludge of urine and faeces with a putrid smell, lying that debris washed into kennels by the worst flooding rains in twenty years was a sludge of urine and faeces that this Court of
Appeal cannot or will not make their decision. The facts, at seizure there were no sick, injured or dead dogs only happy healthy valuable pedigreed dogs. see www.petmafia.com.au
In Causing Geraldine Robertson denial of Natural Justice the RSPCA: Some valid grounds were:
“The result of a denial of natural justice is that the decision is void, even if the decision would not have been affected by any submissions which might have been made had an opportunity to make them been afforded. While, as a matter of discretion, relief might be declined if it can be shown that the denial of natural justice could not possibly have made a difference to the outcome, all that a plaintiff need establish is that the denial of natural justice deprived it of the possibility of a better outcome, and in order to negate that possibility it is necessary to conclude that a properly conducted adjudication could not possibly have produced a different result [Stead v State Government Insurance Commission [1986] HCA 54; (1986) 161 CLR 141, 147; Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 558, 633; Murray v Legal Services Commissioner [1999] NSWCA 70; (1999) 46 NSWLR 224, 250-251; Barwick v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2004] NSWCA 32, [111]-[121]; Stanoevski v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2005] NSWCA 429, [54]].”(emphasis added)
This corruption affects us all. Free enterprise principles state:
People must have the opportunity and freedom, motivated by a decent reward, to provide goods and services to receive monies in exchange with fairness . Fairness is determined by an open free and fair market
place where competition determines prices. The courts and laws are supposed to ensure fairness in a competitive market place - but they don't. When the Courts do not provide fairness the crooks prosper and
businesses fail leaving everyone poorer. Desperate people do desperate things and this poverty leads people to crime as their only solution. In recession the crime rate rises. The fear of crime can deter many
people from doing good business. The Corruption of our courts cause unemployment and poverty. A justice system driven by large fees for justice creates unfairness to the massive advantage of the crooks who can
afford to employ expensive barristers that the Judges corruptly give the win to.
What is the Solution: ?
Queensland needs a new Open and Accountable Civil Court System with elected Judges and Magistrates. The Chief Judge must be sacked. Published Judges decisions full of lies to justify decisions is totally unacceptable and stinks of deliberate corruption. It also sets incorrect precedents.
This problem is real. Failing to give people a justice remedy leaves them seeking alternatives which make this state a violent scary place to live in.
A court claim must have a "cause of Action" examples being defamation, invasion of privacy, trespass, loss and damages, breach of contract or money owing. But nowhere does the Court state what the causes of actions are and when the wrong words are used the wealthy criminal's barrister can claim "that is a cause of action not known in law" and a strike out of a Statement of Claim is successful. Nowhere does the Court say how a cause of action is to be pleaded so Judges can use their discretion and whim to decide a statement of claim is not properly pleaded and struck out.
In Robertson v Hollings the Court of Appeal damnified the victim with lies and then decided the perpetrators should have justice and mercy (wins) while the poor victim gets nothing but the costs. In this case the victim was harassed for 7 months with threatening phone calls, was assaulted, got lots of nasty letters, was mentally and verbally abused, had valuable property jewellery, cash, antiques valued at $180,000 stolen from her and caused to live in such fear and terror she was too frightened to have her lights and TV on at night for fear that someone would realise she was home and come and carry out their threats. Everything for the perpetrator, nothing but costs to the victim - this is our Labor legal system.
Having filed a Statement of Claim using the Court's own promoted District Court case - Grosse v Purvis as a template the Judge decided that each perpetrator should have the pleadings detailed individually and each cause of action must be pleaded individually. Grosse v Purvis statement of claim would never have made it to a decision if this rule had been applied to Grosse. The Robertson Statement of Claim (amended because defendants claimed it did not contain enough particulars) was struck out without leave to re-plead by a Supreme Court Judge. The rules say pleadings must be concise and struck out the Statement of Claim as defective. The Court of Appeal deliberately did not consider the Statement of Claim where each cause of action and each party were pleaded separately as being worthy either. The next hurdle will be a strike out claiming the pleadings do not obey the rules because they are not concise. Victims cannot get past first base. In another matter the perpetrator has been allowed 5 re-tries to strike out, the victim would never get another chance. Judges behave unfairly towards victims.
In another matter, a defamation, the Butterworths, the Legal Bible on pleadings prescribes the offensive comment is identified as a PARTICULAR. Judge White says this is wrong it should be a MATERIAL FACT. Butterworths says you can attached the offensive published document and Judge White states that because the pleading has no date reference because the document has no date on it the document is not properly identified - even when it is attached to the Statement of Claim. Judges are playing mind games against victims to deny them their day in Court.
Nowhere does the Court say that the claim must include a list of causes of actions (which can be inventions that the court can or cannot agree with as they are not prescribed anywhere) and then strike out a statement of claim with out leave to re-plead. When the new statement of claim is pleaded the opposition can ask for strike out quoting the Limitations of Actions Act saying that cause of action is out of time even though it was identified in the original statement of claim which was filed in time.
Perpetrators knows or would know that when they do someone else harm all they have to do is ensure that person is significantly harmed, suffers emotional and mental problems as by the time they recover they will be out of time and unable to take the matter to Court.
In Magistrates Courts corruption is rife. The procedure they employ is to strike out the victim's evidence "as not relevant", allow their witnesses to be intimidated, allow the perpetrators to lie with provable lies and accept this as credible evidence, ignoring the laws. Where the Magistrates Court Act section 43 states an order or judgment of a Magistrate is final meaning the case is finished, even after this order was appealed and the appeal was lost, the Magistrate can say the matter is not finished and punish the victim over and over again with costs order even though there is no law that allow them to make a victim pay costs in a Direction or Ruling hearing. Courts invent their own rules at their own discretion. Then it all becomes a cover up because the only person allowed access to the transcripts are those who "have an interest in the matter" at the discretion of the registrar. NOTE: FOI amended to RTI and surprise, surprice - not only are vital rights removed but also Labor Governments REFUSE to supply by simply ignoring YOUR RIGHTS!
District Courts' Judges whilly nilly strike out appeals stating there are no valid grounds - they are no better than Magistrates.
This is how the Courts can act corruptly - they abuse their power with their discretion to strike out victims giving the benefits to perpetrators on the Magistrates and Judges own whims.