MOST URGENT MESSAGE FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS by Linda Hewitt 15th October 2007

AUSI-WAKEUP.COM
Coming Soon
_________________________________________________________________________________

MOST URGENT MESSAGE FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS

Linda Hewitt

Stirling
Roma. Qld 4455

Why now are we writing to you?

Because on Thursday 3rd October 2007, several Queensland court cases went through the High Court of Australia and the Judges presiding made rulings over residential and rural land that effectively removes all land ownership from the people of Queensland, and puts that land ownership squarely into the hands of our State Government. On 3rd October 2007 the ruling that ‘fee simple’ and the ‘common law’ are now no longer recognised in Queensland, and upheld by the High Court of Australia, means that we no longer are part of the Commonwealth, and that we no longer have ownership or say in our land, and that Queensland is a separate entity that can make its own laws.

Good Morning Everyone,

Prior to reading this may I suggest that you print off the attached documents which have been prepared by Mr David Walter and read them carefully.

The documents are self explanatory. If you believe that they are correct and you believe that we should all stand up and be counted please forward this email to the following:-

Governor General of Australia - governor-genera l@ gg.gov.au

Facsimile number;_ (02) 6281 3760

Prime Minister of Australia the Hon John Howard MP

Tel: 02) 6277 7700

Fax: 02) 6273 4100

Electorate office:

Tel: 02) 9816 1300

Fax: 02) 9816 1349

Let the Governor of Q'land know you know what is happening:

Fax - 07) 3858 5701

Email is : fiona.collins @ govhouse.qld.gov.au

The Bankers Association is at :

Email: aba @ afmaservices.com - Attention Mr David Bell.

Leader of the Opposition Mr Kevin Rudd

Attention: Melissa

Email: info @ cbr.alp.org.au

Mr Rudd's office asked that you please make your concerns known.

Premier of Queensland Anna Bligh

Her address:- thepremier @ premiers.qld.gov.au Attention: The Premier

When writing to the Bankers Association suggest that maybe they would like to ask the State Government about how we are to pay off our land as they have greatly reduced the value of our land - we have no common law or equity in our land.

To advise Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II of the current situation with our land in Queensland - email the prewritten letter with your name and address on it to the Privy Council in England, Her Majesty will be notified.

Email:- judicial.committee @ pco.x.qsi.gov.uk.

We do not have a facsimile for that address.

Yesterday John Howard announced the Election Date. Before the people of Australia go to the voting boxes, they need to understand what has happened to their personal rights and land rights, and what has been done to the governmental institutions that are supposed to be there to protect the people of Australia.

All have been removed.

This is not a conspiracy theory. This is not our personal opinion. This is all FACT, and can be found written in black and white in the law books of Australia and in the continually-being reprinted Constitution of Queensland. The Commonwealth has been watching this for the last 9 years. Our federal government has known what is going on and has condoned it by their silence. They have been watching Beattie and seeing if the Australia people will wake up to it. Mr Rudd said on television yesterday that he ‘was going to fix the Federation” if elected!!

This is shocking information, absolutely inconceivable to most of you. Those amongst us who have been working on this information, especially those who work within the legal profession, have been shocked and angry at the blatant removal of peoples’ rights without one politician seeming to stand up and warn the people.

In Queensland, this all started with the National Party, (read the following information pages) with the Labour Party quickly enforcing all the changes possible under the new controls. When Peter Beattie removed the Constitution of Queensland in 2001 and replaced it with the New Qld Constitution, all the politicians in Parliament House passed and applauded the ‘new regime’.

This has also happened in NSW, and if we had the time and the resources, we would also look at the Constitutions of every other State in this country.

Ordinary people like yourselves have been reading this attached information, and saying that they simply cannot believe that our government has done this to us. “Is this really true?” YES, IT IS TRUE, AND THE FACT IS - THEY HAVE DONE IT!

This information personally affects you all. The following letters and court cases were sent to every politician in this country yesterday, ASKING THEM HOW THEY LET IT HAPPEN. Today the Banks, and every ordinary Australian is being sent this information. You are one of them, and I would hope you would then pass this on to everyone you know.

It is a long document, and it is hard to read. BUT IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT YOU READ IT. It presumes that you understand most things, and that you know about how all the governmental institutions work. You may not, but you will, upon reading, understand that all rural and residential land in Queensland (and NSW) is now under the ownership of the government of that State, (which in Qld has been made into a Corporation, and is not a governing body any more) and that you no longer own what you paid for, or pay taxes and rates on, and your equity in your land is worthless.

Your land, in Queensland, is being used as ‘collateral’ by the government. It is now their wealth base.

Why now are we writing to you? Because on Thursday 3rd October 2007, several Queensland court cases went through the High Court of Australia and the Judges presiding made rulings over residential and rural land that effectively removes all land ownership from the people of Queensland, and puts that land ownership squarely into the hands of our State Government. On 3rd October 2007 the ruling that ‘fee simple’ and the ‘common law’ are now no longer recognised in Queensland, and upheld by the High Court of Australia, means that we no longer are part of the Commonwealth, and that we no longer have ownership or say in our land, and that Queensland is a separate entity that can make its own laws.

We also know the situation is the same in NSW in the Peter Spencer case. Read and educate yourself.

To make it easier reading, here are a few explanations.

1. Governor removed, and placed into the Qld Parliament. Exp: Under the New Queensland Constitution of Queensland 2001 these are the people who are now in the Parliament and are quite clearly placed there to protect the assets of the State.

1) The Premier/President refer section 92 Constitution of Queensland 2001.

2) The Ministers of "the State"

3) The public officials of "the State" - like the Police, who are no longer public servants of the Crown to serve us but public servants of "the State", to tell us what to do on behalf of "the State", and have their powers delegated to them from the Minister of the State.

4) The Supreme and District Courts and the Judges of those Courts.

5) The Legislative Assembly who only has one vote and the Premier has the vote of veto on anything.

6) The Local Government Councils

7) The Governor - who is now a parliamentary secretary to the Premier who conducts the daily business of the corporation of the State and with the use of the Public Seal of the State, seals all documents signed by the Crown.

8) Last but not least - the people. As previously described, we, the people are part of the Government corporation.

The common law has been removed from the Supreme Court Act 1995 which now follows the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The Governor is the ‘Queen’s’ or the ‘Sovereign’s’ or the ‘Crown’s’ representative in each state, put there to protect you from incorrect governing, or incorrect politics, that may happen at any time. That is called the “Separation of Powers”, and means that the Queen as our Sovereign had a separate protective person in place, just in case you, the people, got ‘ripped off’ by your governing bodies. The Governor in Queensland was removed from that ‘no party allegiance’ position (done by the National Party, and ALL politicians knew what was happening) and given a position INSIDE the Queensland Government, thereby effectively making the Governor part of the Queensland Government and under the Premier’s control.

2. The Government Corporation, or the ‘Brigalow Corporation’. Exp: The Queensland Government is no longer a governing body, but instead made itself a business corporation. Just read the letter heads on paperwork you receive from any State office. They called the new business of governing the land of the people of Queensland the “Brigalow Corporation” under which all the land in our state has been removed from our ownership - to be used as collateral for this Corporation?

3. “Fee simple” Exp: the term used to describe your ownership of your freehold land. It is your total right to name yourself as the owner and user of that land, and the ‘Crown’ or the ‘Sovereign’ or the ‘Queen’ has deeded that land to you when you paid for it. It is a legal right to do whatever you want with your land, without interference from anyone else, including governments.

4. Voting in Australia Exp: If Kevin Rudd and John Howard have agreed to the removal of Queensland and New South Wales from the Constitutional government of Australia, and agreed that these States are separate bodies, how then can they call on the people of Australia to vote for them? Queensland is now a separate ‘country’, with its own rules and regulations. New South Wales is part-way to the same result. Both these gentlemen hold seats in what is now “technically” not part of the Commonwealth of Australia.

5. The Constitution and its role Exp: The Constitution of Australia is the ‘Bible’ or ‘guidebook’ on how the people of Australia are to be governed. The Constitutions of each of the States is subordinate to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution and each State cannot make its own rules about our Common Law rights without our permission via referendum. If they do so, they are actually destroying these laws and leaving us undefended, unprotected and ungoverned democratically. That is EXACTLY what is happening here.

Australia needs a Bill of Rights to protect ourselves and our property. We all, as the sovereign people of Australia - present and future generations, need to have our rights and our property protected - so that we can live our lives and make a living without the over regulatory approached now favoured by our politicians and bureaucrats.

Remember it is we the people who elect these politicians and the public officials are there to work for the people and implement the policies and laws of the government. However to have laws passed by those elected members which remove our rights to how we can use our land - (even to repair and maintain it productively means we have to have a permit to do so now - see Wilson v Raddatz and Glasgow v Hall) means - and this has been clearly stated by the Queensland Court of Appeal in Bone v Mothershaw by Judge McPherson JJA - we have been " stripped of virtually all the powers which make ownership of land of any practical utility or value." There is no redress for any of us from these laws in any Court in the Commonwealth of Australia and no compensation. The High Court of Australia upheld Bone v Mothershaw [2002] QCA120.

This information is only the tip of the iceberg. But please read it. You, the Banks, the media, The Governor General of Australia and the Governor in every State, the Queen, the Privy Council of England, the Premiers of each State, and anyone else we can think of will receive a copy.

For your interest, DJ Walter just contacted the Prime Minister’s electorate office and was told not to bother sending the information. They are apparently disinterested, however his contact number is available for those who wish to forward the information to him.

Mr Rudd’s office did accept the information and would like to clearly to know your thoughts and your difficulties with this situation. This is in no way a political statement, it is merely what they asked us to give them.

Now YOU have to also write or fax or email each of these people. We have to let them know that we are angry and we want our country, our rights and our original Constitution back, NOW. After that, any changes are to come about must come through a Referendum of the People.

Do not sit back and think that everyone else will do this. You must do it too! These people have to be flooded with letters of concern so that they react. Please print off and fill in the letter attached, email it to the Queen. Then forward your version of this whole email to each of the listed emails (or their faxes) so they know many people are angry, and that you're emailing this to everyone else. Make them react!!

Print off this information and take it to everyone you know who does not have an email address. Make them read it.

Do not sit back – please defend yourselves and all that you thought you safely owned in Australia, including your freedom.

If you have any problems you may contact me at the below mentioned telephone number or David Walter on 07) 4096 3009 or samara.butterfly @ bigpond.com or Sue Maynes on 02) 6345 1254 or email sue.maynes @ bigpond.com.

Yours respectfully,

Linda Hewitt
Stirling
Roma. Qld 4455
Ph 07 46233707

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

His Excellency Major General Michael Jeffery AC CVO MC
Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia,
Government House,
Dunrossil Drive,
Yarralumla ACT 2600

Your Excellency,

RE: "The State" of Queensland - an independent Sovereign State outside of the Commonwealth of Australia, without a referendum of the sovereign people under section 53 of the Constitution Act 1867(Qld) as of 29th January 1999.

Your Excellency I bring this extremely serious matter to your attention as the Governor-General
of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Representative of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

On 29th January 1999 the Governor of the State of Queensland, the Representative of the Crown in Queensland was moved into the Constitution Act 1867 as a parliamentary secretary and a public official. This fractured the separation of powers and common law in the State of Queensland and also removed Queensland as a State of the Commonwealth of Australia and out of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act without a referendum of the sovereign people to remove the entrenched provisions as described in the Constitution Act 1867, section 53 - Certain measures to be supported by referendum, described in Reprint 2, reprinted 27th January 1998, section 53(1), section 1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B, 14; and, section 53(1).

On 9th November 2001 the then Premier of the State of Queensland, the Honourable Peter Beattie presented to Parliament the new Constitution of Queensland 2001 Bill. The elected Members for the people of Queensland, the Members of the Legislative Assembly, passed the Bill, said only to 'modernise' the Constitution of Queensland. This constitution was assented to by the Governor on 3rd December 2001 and upon assent, under section 95 of the new Constitution, Acts subject to the Constitution Act 1867 were repealed. Section 92 immediately came into force which repealed parts of the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1922. This allowed the Parliament to move back prior to the removal of the Legislative Council at referendum in 1922 and 'recreate' the positions of that former Legislative Council.

The Acts Interpretation (State Commercial Activities) Act 1994 amended the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 to define "the State" to mean the Executive government of the State of Queensland. Under the provisions of this Act, "the State" may carry out commercial activities 'without further statutory authority' and 'without prior appropriation from the public accounts' {s47C.(3)} Section 47C. defines 'commercial activities to include 'commercial activities that are not within the ordinary functions of the State' and these functions may be delegated by a Minister to an officer of the State who may subdelegate delegated powers to another officer of the State. An 'officer of the State means a chief executive, or employee of the public sector or an officer of the public service'.

I refer to the following Acts - the Reprints Act 1992, the Statutory Instruments Act 1992, the Legislative Standards Act 1992. These Acts were used in conjunction with the Constitution of Queensland 2001, section 92 to create the corporation Government of the State and then further to repeal those Acts under section 95 of that Constitution. Those Acts moved back in time, one may say like the Tardis, reprinting, removing the Crown out of all Acts as far back as the Magna Carta then reprinting back to the Australia Acts (Requests) Act 1985 and removing all the positions as cited in that Act. The only part of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act which is recognized by Queensland is the Commonwealth Constitution commencing at section 9. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act is not recognized which includes the High Court and the Federal Court.

By using the Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 section 12 in conjunction with the other three State Acts, the Acts reprinted Queensland into a corporate State. In conjunction with the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 section 15DA(2) which allowed for the automatic commencement and assent of any Act that had been laying dormant for a period of twelve months, Acts which were framed to create the corporate State of Queensland in 1992, 1993 and 1994 were reprinted by the Reprints Act 1992 which is under the Department of the Premier.

Queensland then became, at the completion of these matters, without assent of any of the laws by the Crown or Her Representative, an independent sovereign State and fractured the common law and the separation of powers.

When people of the State of Queensland vote in a State election, the writs are not under the Hand of the Sovereign of Australia Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II but under the Public Seal of the State and issued by the Governor who is an entity within the Parliament of Queensland (or the Speaker for one vacant seat).

The elected Members of the sovereign people of the State of Queensland have, since 29th January 1999 taken it upon themselves, (contrary to the Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth) to which they are all subject under Chapter 7 - The proper administration of Government), to create for themselves, under the Constitution of Queensland 2001, a corporation Government in which the sovereign people of Queensland and their property are mere chattels of the State. This surely is a breach of the trust and faith which the electors of Queensland placed in their elected members to uphold and respect the laws of the Commonwealth.

Queensland is now outside the Commonwealth of Australia as an independent sovereign State
without common law, and the people are subject to civil and statute law only. The 'common law
and general jurisdiction'; the 'Laws of England to be applied in the administration of justice' and
'equitable jurisdiction' have been removed under the Supreme Court Act 1995(Qld) Reprint
number 2A dated 2nd March, 2001 under Schedule 2 of the Constitution of Queensland 2001.

What now happens to people who have been prosecuted, fined, imprisoned etc. under the civil
law of Queensland, which does not exist elsewhere in the Commonwealth of Australia. The
sovereign people of Queensland have not voted in any referendum to allow civil statute law to
remove their common law rights.

The people of Queensland are still, under section 117 of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act, subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and protected by Her
laws as there has been no referendum under section 128 of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act to allow the separation of Queensland from the Commonwealth of Australia.

The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Queensland is found in the Constitution of
Queensland 2001, Part 5 - Powers of the State. Therefore it is assumed that the Judges
of the Supreme and District Courts of Queensland must protect the 'assets' of the State of
Queensland and find only in favour of the State, not in favour of the registered owners
of private land who have lost, under the statute laws of Queensland, the rights to use their
fee simple land as they see fit.

As stated by Chief Justice de Jersey in the Supreme Court of Queensland Appeal for Mrs
Catherine Elizabeth Burns
"[5] These contentions are plainly untenable. Mrs Burns certainly has an indefeasible interest as registered proprietor of an estate in fee simple in the land. But the sovereign law making power of the Queensland Parliament, considered recently in a somewhat similar factual context in Bone v Mothershaw……….. In a different, though analogous way, the Parliament is clearly empowered to authorize planning schemes which restrict what the owners of estates in fee simple may lawfully do with their land."

Further, Judge McPherson JJA 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.

[24] The question is whether our legal system permits such prohibitory action to be taken.
The Council has not taken any interest of Mr Bone’s, so as to attract the operation of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 or otherwise. He 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. There is, as is attested by an affidavit from the valuer provided at the hearing, no doubt that the value of the land has been greatly reduced. But the law provides no remedy for this action or its consequences when it is the result of legislation validly passed under law-making authority that by its terms or nature authorises or permits such an outcome.

[26] The same opinion is explicit in the reasoning of the High Court in Durham
Holdings Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (2001) 75 ALJR 501, holding that a
State Parliament has the legislative power to deprive a person of property without
compensation."

What can now be done for all the sovereign people of the State of Queensland who have no common law property rights and this also includes the aboriginal people of this State who have had their land under the Native Title Act 1991 and the Torres Strait Islander Act 1991 placed into the Brigalow Corporation of the State of Queensland? All people in Queensland, regardless of race, colour or creed have had their land, held in a Deed of Grant in fee simple, removed from their possession and into that of the Brigalow Corporation of the State. They now only hold a statutory title in their land.

The New South Wales Court has cited Bone v Mothershaw and Burns v State of Queensland and Croton in a matter involving Mr Peter Spencer of Queanbeyan in New South Wales.

New South Wales removed the Governor in 1987 under the Consolidated Amendment Act 1987.

I now draw Your Excellency's attention to the matter of Mrs Catherine Elizabeth Burns, which is before the High Court of Australia. The 78B notice pertaining to this matter is attached to this correspondence. This notice has been filed in the High Court of Australia and forwarded to all Attorney Generals of the Commonwealth of Australia. This Notice is now a public document.

In early 2003 I was approached by the Member for Hinchinbrook, Mr Marc Rowell of the State Parliament of Queensland requesting my assistance with a problem one of his constituents was involved in. The lady in question, Mrs Catherine Elizabeth Burns, a widow of some seventy three years of age, had purchased at public auction in Cardwell, Queensland in 1968, approximately 25 acres of land. Her land is situated opposite the Hinchinbrook Resort and faces the main north south highway. This land was purchased in a common law estate of fee simple, the original Deed of Grant for which Mrs Burns still has in her possession. The land was purchased under the provisions of the Land Act 1962 and a requirement upon purchase of the Deed of Grant in fee simple was that the land was to be cleared for a productive use. The land was cleared by Mr Buddy Dingwall, inspected by the then Department of Lands and a Certificate of Title was issued under the provisions of the Real Property Act 1861 in November 1970.

Mrs Catherine Burns, at the time of the purchase, was married to Sergeant Duncan Charles Burns, OIC of the Cardwell Police Station. Their plan for purchasing the land was, when Mr Burns retired from the Queensland Police Service, they would build some small tourist cabins on the property as it is in a prime location, facing onto the north south highway and opposite Hinchinbrook Island and they would then be self provided for in their retirement years. Unfortunately Mr Burns passed away prior to his reaching retirement age and Mrs Burns has never remarried.

As Your Excellency will be aware, a Deed of Grant in fee simple is a common law contract, the validity of which is known, upheld and recognized world wide and is held as security for all banks and lending institutions not only in the Commonwealth of Australia but world wide, when those institutions are providing money for private lending. Financial institutions and lenders do not now hold a common law estate in fee simple but a Certificate of Title to the land, subject to a statutory instrument. Technically they, as with Mrs Burns and myself, hold nothing.

In the State of Queensland, by definition under the Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Qld), section 36 - Meaning of Commonly used words and expressions - definition of 'person' includes an individual and a corporation. Therefore Mrs Burns (and all other people of Queensland) as a 'person' is thus tied inextricably to the State corporation.

This is also applicable, by definition, to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land as an 'Aborigine' is now defined as a person of the Aboriginal race of Australia.

It must be noted that the definition of 'person' in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(C'wth) section
22(1)(a) expressions used to denote persons generally (such as "person", "party", "someone", "anyone", "no-one", "one", "another" and "whoever"), include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual;

The Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Qld) defines property both present and future, owned by
you as an 'individual and a corporation' as subject to a statutory instrument only and that statutory instrument is not only applicable to your land, but all property as you, as a person now own, as opposed to the previous common law indefeasible deed of grant in fee simple, only an interest in your land under a statutory title. All land, including private land held previously in the common law estate of inheritance in fee simple by private individuals, is now held by the corporation of the State of Queensland known as the Brigalow Corporation.

I refer Your Excellency to the Second Reading Speech of the Premier the Honourable Peter Beattie, for the Constitution of Queensland 2001 Bill and the Parliament of Queensland Bill 2001, presented to Parliament on 9th November 2001.

In this Speech, the Premier therein described the entities which were to make up the Parliament under the new Constitution.

"But this Act is much more it is the fundamental law of Queensland that underpins our system of government.

The entities it provides for include this Parliament, the Supreme and District Courts of this State and the system of local government that we know in Queensland. The office holders under this Act include the Governor of Queensland, the Ministers of the Crown and the judges of the Supreme and District Courts. This law is of supreme importance."

It is now not a Parliament elected by the sovereign people, but a State owned corporation and inside that Parliament/Corporation are the entities of the Supreme and District Courts, which handle matters under the Property Law Act 1974(Qld) and further Courts such as the Land Court, the Planning & Environment Court; the Governor of Queensland, the Ministers of the Crown, the Judges of the Supreme and District Courts and the Local Government.

Further in the speech, the Premier stated "Our entity as a Sovereign State, the democratic ideals on which our State is built, rest on our Constitution".

The new Constitution of Queensland 2001 was assented to by the Governor on 3rd December 2001. Here two questions that I propose:- The Governor of the State is now inside the Parliament as a parliamentary secretary and holds the Public Seal of the State and seals all documents signed under the Hand of the Sovereign with the Public Seal of the State, therefore rendering void, any contracts, Acts, laws etc. under the Hand of the Sovereign. The Governor is quite clearly now inside the Parliament, conducting the daily business of the Government and allocating the laws applicable to each Government Department of the State. The public servants of the State are not public servants of the Crown, they are public servants of the State and as the State owns all property within the State of Queensland, they have dominion over all property and aspects of your daily life.

The Constitution of Queensland 2001 was assented to by the Governor which leads to two major problems:-

i) The assent of the Governor must be defective as the Governor is now inside the Parliament as a 'parliamentary secretary'

ii) To have Queensland become an independent Sovereign State and to remove the common law, set up statutory civil law and have Queensland not recognize the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act but only that Act from section 9 onwards, a full referendum would have been required of the people of the Commonwealth of Australia to enact, validly, that Queensland, from 29th January 1999 was now independent of the Commonwealth of Australia and a State in its own right.

In the Second Reading Speech for the Constitution the Premier stated that the Constitution would be 'broadly accessible' to the people of Queensland. Considering that this Act has effectively removed all common law property rights from the people of Queensland it should, one would reasonably assume, have been put to a referendum of the people.

However in the Second Reading Speech the Premier stated -

"… The Constitution of Queensland 2001 does not include a statement of executive power vesting in the Sovereign as recommended by LCARC. The Government is of the view that LCARC's recommended expression of executive power is too narrow and does not adequately reflect the democratic convention that requires the Governor to act in accordance with advice from his or her Ministers"…and further…………"Those provisions that are said to be referendum entrenched remain untouched in the shells of their current Acts."

In the matter of Mrs Catherine Elizabeth Burns, she applied for and was refused the right to clear her private land because it 'may' be used by the Southern Cassowary and was 'known habitat for the mahogany glider" even though correspondence from the Director General of the Environmental Protection Agency stated that Mrs Burns land was not part of the Mahogany Glider Recovery Plan 2000 - 2004. The State Government of Queensland with the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia has spent $11 million dollars purchasing land in the Cardwell region under the Mahogany Glider Recovery Plan 2000 - 2004 to protect the habitat for this species. Mrs Burns was not contacted with regard to her land nor did she receive correspondence to indicate that her land was 'known habitat'. This was a decision made by a public official of the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Mr Luke Croton.

I have assisted Mrs Burns in this matter by writing to the Premier of Queensland, to no avail and preparing and presenting this matter before three Courts in this State. All appeals have been dismissed under the Court of Appeal Queensland decision Bone v Mothershaw [2002] QCA 120 The Supreme and District Courts of Queensland as enties of the Parliament must, therefore, protect the assets of the State, the real property owned by the Brigalow Corporation of the State of Queensland.

This matter is now before the High Court of Australia in an attempt to obtain a resolution for Mrs Burns. She is in dire financial straits, she has had to sell her family home which has been in her family for four generations as she could not, on an aged pension, afford to maintain the family home and pay rates of more that $2000.00 per annum on the Cardwell property. She has lost all her private possessions which she had kept on her son's property in Innisfail when Cyclone Larry devastated the area. She has been forced to rely on her family for a roof over her head as she is not eligible for State housing as they advised her she owns a property in Cardwell. This is despite advising them that she, under orders from the Courts of Queensland, can do nothing with the land because it is mahogany glider habitat.

This widowed grandmother has to pay rates of approximately $2,500 per annum on the property for the public benefit of the people and the State of Queensland. There is absolutely no equity or benefit in the land for her as the registered owner of the land, she cannot build on the land or sell the land, the equity the fee simple is now owned by the State and taken with no compensation as required under section 53(xxxi) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

Under the Constitution of Queensland 2001, by the removal of common law in the State of Queensland, the public officials of this State can acquire an interest in private registered land without compensation, for the benefit of the State Government corporation. This also includes the property owned now and in the future as the sovereign people are in fact " an individual and a corporation" and therefore subject to the corporation Government of the State of Queensland.

The sovereign people of the Commonwealth of Australia have never been required at a referendum by virtue of section 128 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia to vote to allow "the State" of Queensland to fracture the Commonwealth and become an independent sovereign state.

It is quite clear when the lending institutions become aware that any persons who own any property in Queensland - especially real property which has always the main security for lending to home owners, farmers etc, the basis of their lending against real property will be compromised. There may well be a cessation of lending in this State for the purchase of private homes or land for farming and agriculture as "the State" corporate Government can render void any contract with an individual or company and acquire an interest over land without consultation or compensation and the Courts inside the Government will protect the assets of the corporation as they have done in matters by virtue of Bone v Mothershaw [2002] QCA120.

The common law and references to the Crown have been removed out of the Supreme Court Act 1995(Qld).

Civil law and statute law have a very different requirement for the committing of any offence, whether an indictable offence, a summary offence, a simple offence or an absolute offence such as a traffic offence where a guilty mind is not required to commit that offence.Under the civil law system, which is now subject to the Uniform Civil Procedures Rules of the Supreme Court Act 1991(Qld), every person is guilty until they prove their innocence.

The Supreme and District Court, other courts and the Judges and Justices of those Courts are now inside the corporation of the Government, and not sworn representatives of the Crown. Under the Constitution of Queensland 2001, all documents are issued or signed under the Public Seal of the State. This would be any document appointing a politician, a Judge or any person who should swear an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign. The Governor now seals that document in accordance with the Constitution of Queensland 2001 section 37 with the Public Seal of the State therefore voiding the appointment of any of those people by the Sovereign but making those people in effect 'officers of the State' and subject to the 'Powers of the State' as cited in Part 5 of the Constitution of Queensland 2001.

It is quite clear that those who have been put in power by the sovereign people of the State have, since 1992 when the original Acts were being framed, had a full intention in time, to bring about their own personal agendas, regardless of the wishes of the sovereign people who have, in good and open faith and intention, by secret ballot at elections, voted these people into positions of power and of trust and who must swear or affirm an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty that they will uphold Her laws for the benefit of the people of the State of Queensland. That power has turned from the power granted by the people to the Legislative Assembly to make laws for 'peace welfare and good government' on behalf of the sovereign people of Queensland using funds from taxes paid by the citizens of Queensland and all of Australia, into a totalitarian system of Government, whereby we the people are subject to the corporation Government of the State.

The ramifications caused by these actions carried out over a long period of time by the Members of the body politic dating back as far as 1992 are so vast and wide spread it will take a long time to remedy and repair the whole system of government in Queensland. The Parliament can make any laws they wish but I do not believe that under a democratic system of Government they are elected to Parliament to make draconian laws which remove the rights of the sovereign people to their use of their land without fair and just compensation.

I respectfully suggest an immediate return to a common law government of people elected by the sovereign people under a writ of the Sovereign, not under a writ of the Election Act of the State.

In the Second Reading Speech the Premier stated "Those provisions that are said to be referendum entrenched remain untouched in the shells of their current Acts."

I do not believe that the provisions are 'said' to be referendum entrenched but in actual fact are, under a Westminster system of Government.

The former Premier said in the Second Reading Speech for the constitution, 'we all look forward to the day when we are a republic'. The people of the Commonwealth of Australia at referendum in 1999 voted against a republic but wished to retain the present system of Government with a clear separation of powers under common law and for the Commonwealth of Australia to remain exactly the same with a combined Federation of States as was created in 1901.

Queensland is not a republic and if the system we have at present is the type of republic as envisaged by our leaders then, as shown in the 78B notice page 5 paragraph 15 which is attached -"An estate of inheritance in land or equity can not and must not be subject to statute law. That in effect extinguishes or regulates that same inheritance, completely, ignoring section 52 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, for to do so anarchy and ruin will prevail.
For as soon as the financial institutions withdraw because of lack of tenure in land held of common law, poverty will soon follow."

The only tenure that any financial institutions hold in land in Queensland today, even though they may believe they hold an estate in fee simple, is in fact held by the corporation of the State, the Brigalow Corporation and is now the full property of the State. The lending institutions now only hold a statutory title and an interest only in the land by virtue of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 under which the rules of the Supreme and District Courts are found under section 12 of that Act.
Reference - Glasgow v Hall, 2007 HCA Trans 557 (3 October 2007) and Wilson v Raddatz,
2007 HCA Trans 558 (3 October 2007). Both Mr Glasgow and Mr Wilson were charged,
convicted and fined in Queensland and that decision upheld by all Courts in Queensland
including the Court of Appeal Queensland. Subsequently those matters were placed before the
High Court of Australia hopefully for resolution. The international instrument, cited in those
decisions, was the Treaty No. (1193)ATS32 signed at Rio de Janeiro 5 June 1992, Section 10 of
Agenda 21 under which the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997(C'wth) was framed.
This Act allows farmers to use their land in an ecologically sustainable way for the benefit of
the people and the economy of Australia and the international economy. Under this Act $1.35
billion dollars from the partial sale of Telstra were placed in the Natural Heritage Trust of
Australia Account. The farmers using their land under the provisions of this Act could receive
funding for the loss of the use of their land if the cessation of their activities was of the public
benefit.

Mr Gregory Wilson a builder and a grazier and his company Wilsons' Development Pty Ltd
and Mr and Mrs Keith Glasgow, long term farmers and graziers both hold their land in Deeds
of Grant in fee simple and their land was registered under the Real Property Act 1861. The
land is commonly known as freehold title under the Torrens System.

The High Court of Australia have now clearly rejected, by their decision, those common
law contracts and every other common contract in the Commonwealth of Australia. Those
contracts are now void and are totally subject to the 'stewardship' of the Commonwealth, the
State, the local government councils and the public officials employed by those entities.

No person or corporation who is an owner of any property, real or personal, in the
Commonwealth of Australia has any right to the use of that property as all contracts at
common law have been rendered void. Their rights to their property are all subject to
the regulations imposed by the Federal, State and local Governments in the Commonwealth
of Australia.

It is therefore clear that the following Act, based on an international treaty, has
no relevance or validity in this Commonwealth of Australia today.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986
Act No. 125 of 1986 as amended

Schedule 2 - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Section 3
The States Parties to the present Covenant
Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Article 17
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

As these matters have been upheld by the High Court of Australia, it is clear that the value of land held in a Deed of Grant in fee simple, which was an estate of inheritance at common law and recognized world wide as security for lending institutions and contracts for individuals and corporations, as the asset base and security for loans etc. has been greatly reduced for the registered owners of that real property.

To quote the words of Judge McPherson JJA in Bone v Mothershaw [2002] QCA120:- "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".

The statement abovementioned is of particular relevance to Mr and Mrs Glasgow and Mr Wilson. Mr Keith Glasgow was prosecuted by an officer of the State for cutting native vegetation to feed his starving livestock in this time of sever drought. It is of interest to note that the Warrant to Enter executed by the public officials of this State was not for Mr Glasgow's property 'Bayfield' but was for a property approximately 27 kilometres away known as 'Valentine Plains'. This fact was presented to all the Courts to which this matter was taken and ignored.

The reason that I have forwarded this document to Your Excellency is that the Federal Government is to call a Federal Election. Queensland cannot be included in those writs. As a result of Bone v Mothershaw being upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Queensland where it upheld that Queensland is an independent sovereign State and the Queensland Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Qld) defines the Constitution as the Commonwealth Constitution, not the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act in its entirety, the people of Queensland are 'an individual and a corporation' and have no sovereignty in any Federal Election.

As stated, I have attached the 78B Notice for Mrs Catherine Burns for your information. I have, by attaching that document placed it there for your perusal to assist you in clarifying the problems we have in Queensland at this time and which I believe must be rectified immediately. It has not been forwarded to you to in any way pre-empt the High Court of Australia or to show them any disrespect at all.

The following information comes from a comparison document - 'A Difference Report by www.SoftInterface.com' for the Constitution Act 1867. This shows the amendments, deletions and alterations to the Constitution that have been carried out to support the changes to the Constitution without referendum. This shows that under the original Constitution Act 1867 and the modified Constitution Act 1867, Reprint No. 2A there have been 114 changes,131 additions and 116 deletions found. The removal of the Governor under section 14 of that Act is only one of the amendments to that Constitution without any referendum of the people by virtue of section 53 of the Constitution Act 1867.

It shows in this comparison document that subject to section 6 and 7 of the Constitution Act 1867 the corporation clearly has the right to hold any estate, which in this case is an estate of common law fee simple, to be acquired from any other person or in or on any Crown land in Queensland to be contracted or agreed with a Suncorp Insurance Commissioner and finance. It is therefore clear that the Government corporation of the State, to which a person as an individual and a corporation is tied, holds our property, in this case our common law estate in fee simple. All that any person holding an estate in fee simple at common law in Queensland can only hold the certificate of title which is subject to a statutory instrument.

As the corporation of Queensland, when it was formed, had no assets, it had to acquire assets if they wished to borrow. Under the Queensland Government (Land Holding) Amendment Act 1992, they immediately took all the Crown land and estates in fee simple registered under the Property Law Act 1974 as equity for the corporation without compensation to the registered owners of the property whether they live in Queensland or anywhere else and converted that property for their own use, contrary to Chapter 7 of the Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth) - The proper administration of Government.

The owners of that property taken by the corporation can only hope that the corporation has not used our real property as an asset to borrow funds for the corporation for whatever purpose. If the independent State corporation fails or borrowing is too extensive, it will again be the sovereign people who will bear the financial consequences.

Your Excellency, I am not a legally qualified person, nor do I have a degree of any sort. I am merely a subject of her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and a citizen of our great nation.

I therefore request of Your Excellency to do whatever is in your executive power to return Queensland to a democratically elected common law system of Government and with all due respect, this will have to be done prior to any writs issued for a Federal Election which is now pending. No one can vote in a Federal Election as all we are voting for is a person whose authority and standing as a Federal Member has no relevance in the independent sovereign State of Queensland.

I forward this correspondence for your attention and action. If you have any queries in regard to this document I can be contacted at the above address.

Yours sincerely,

(David J. Walter)
11th October 2007

Att: 78B Notice filed in High Court of Australia

cc: The Hon John Howard MP
Prime Minister of Australia

The Hon. Phillip Ruddock MP,
Attorney General of Australia

Mr Kevin Rudd MP - Leader of the Opposition

The President of the Senate of Australia

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

INFORMATION PAPER

MATTER PENDING - TO BE DETERMINED BY THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA - CATHERINE ELIZABETH BURNS:-

Mrs Burns, is 73 years of age and a widow. She has been refused to be allowed to selectively clear her private registered land for sale. This land is situated opposite the Hinchinbrook Resort in Cardwell. Mrs Burns purchased this 26 acres in 1968 at public auction, paid for the land and received a Deed of Grant in fee simple. The requirement was that the land had to be cleared prior to the land being registered under the provisions of the Real Property Act 1861.this was done in 1970.

As time passed, the situation changed, and though Mr and Mrs Burns had planned to build a small tourism venture on the land so they would not be a burden on the Government, Mr Burns, a Police Officer in the Queensland Police Service, passed away prior to reaching retirement age. Mrs Burns has never remarried.

Mrs Burns, due to the financial difficulty of finding the money to pay the rates which are now almost $2,500,00 per annum when she only receives an aged pension, decided to selectively clear the land to sell. Where the property is situated, the block adjacent to the Burns property which is the same size as hers, has been subdivided into 13 lots and the majority of the land in the immediate area has also been subdivided into small rural residential lots and have homes built on them.

The Decision Notice placed over her land by a public official, Luke Croton of Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Townsville, and upheld by the courts of Queensland, including the Supreme Court of Appeal citing Bone v Mothershaw, has effectively reduced the value of Mrs Burns' land to the same status of Mr Bone 'he(she) continues to enjoy the privilege of paying the rates that the Council levies on his (her) land' and she is allowed to walk on it.

This matter has been ongoing in the Courts of Queensland since 2003 and has now been placed before the High Court of Australia in an application for special leave to appeal.

The decision notice issued by Luke Croton under section 3.5.15 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997(Qld) was not in relation to clearing native vegetation on private land, but was under the Decision Stage, section 3.5.1 which is a referral to a building agency (of the State) for an application if required and the decision stage for the application starts on the day after all other stages applying to the application have ended. The decision notice itself is, in fact and law, void. Mrs Burns only requires an application under the Integrated Planning Act 1997(Qld) for the reconfiguration of a lot or a material change of use. The clearing of the native vegetation is a component part of a development. She clearly did not require any permit.

There are still several matters requiring resolution by the High Court of Australia. All of these matters have been dismissed from the Courts of Queensland based on the matter of Bone v Mothershaw in that, as stated in the Courts of Queensland - Queensland is an independent sovereign State.

Mrs Burns' matter will clearly show you the problems which have occurred in this State with regard to the rights to your private freehold land.

The Decision of the High Court of Australia for Keith Glasgow and Gregory Wilson has removed the ownership of land and property as we knew it in this county and has not upheld our rights as sovereign people under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act.

The Second Reading Speech of the former Premier the Honourable Peter Beattie when he created the new Government of Queensland, placed inside the Parliament himself as Premier (President), the Ministers, the Governor as a parliamentary secretary, the judges and justices of the Supreme and District Courts, the Supreme and District Court, the Local Government Councils. The public officials are not public officials of "the Crown" but public officials of "the State" of Queensland. As all real property has now been taken back by the State and held under the State corporation the Brigalow Corporation, the public officials are in fact now working for the owners of the land, the State Government of Queensland. When the State of Queensland removed the land and placed it under the ownership of the State, they did so without compensation or without a referendum.

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"

KEITH RONALD GLASGOW & GREGORY WILSON - BOTH THESE MATTERS WERE SENT TO THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL. BOTH APPLICATIONS WERE DISMISSED.

DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA 3RD OCTOBER 2007

The High Court of Australia stated in their decisions that they saw no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions upheld by the Court of Appeal. Part of those decisions were to use Bone v Mothershaw [2002] QCA 120.

Judge McPherson JJA of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Bone v Mothershaw [2002] QCA120 stated:-

[24] The question is whether our legal system permits such prohibitory action to be taken.

The Council has not taken any interest of Mr Bone’s, so as to attract the operation of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 or otherwise. He 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. There is, as is attested by an affidavit from the valuer provided at the hearing, no doubt that the value of the land has been greatly reduced. But the law provides no remedy for this action or its consequences when it is the result of legislation validly passed under law-making authority that by its terms or nature authorises or permits such an outcome.

Therefore what the High Court of Australia upheld was that the Queensland Government can now make any laws they like over any property, that is private registered land, native title land, and personal property. This means that neither Mr Glasgow, Mr Wilson, nor any other person in Queensland have any protection under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. As explained in my letter to the Governor General of Australia, we have no property right in Queensland and we have no rights as individual citizens, regardless of race, colour or creed. Our property is now the property of the Queensland Government corporation and protected by the Queensland Government corporation - you are now, as defined in the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 - a 'person' is an individual and a corporation.

This situation will remain unless the majority of people in Australia are willing or interested enough to make it clear to all people and groups including those people that created this situation and allowed it to continue that it was not in consultation with or accordance with the wishes of the sovereign people of Australia. Those who should be made aware of this situation include the financial institutions, community groups and the politicians, both Federal, State and local government and of all political parties. We at no time voted for this situation in a referendum of the people and we certainly did not vote to lose the estate of inheritance at common law in fee simple on our land.

All contracts are common law contracts. The common law contracts of Mr Glasgow and Mr Wilson have been breached by the decision of the courts of Queensland and the High Court of Australia. As stated in the Court of Appeal decision Bone v Mothershaw
"He has been stripped of virtually all the powers which make ownership of land of any practical utility or value". This has come about by the land being removed into the Brigalow Corporation of the State Government of Queensland and public officials being given 'stewardship' over our land.

This therefore, must give people who own their own home to live in, those people in the primary industries who make their living from the land, or even people planning to purchase real property, serious cause for concern if they have, as stated by Judge McPherson in Bone v Mothershaw "been stripped of virtually all the powers which make ownership of land of any practical utility or value".

The High Court went on to say that the Applicant's reliance on international 'instruments' is misconceived. Therefore all international agreements signed by Australia, eg. Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on Biological Diversity, etc. etc. appear to have no relevance in Queensland.

Keith Glasgow appealed to the Court of Appeal, Queensland to dismiss the decision of the District Court Judge Nace, to uphold the Appeal coming from the Magistrates Court.

Judge Nace upheld the penalty coming from the Integrated Planning Act 1997 for the starting of an assessable development without a development permit.

Gregory Wilson appealed to the Court of Appeal, Queensland to dismiss the decision of the District Court Judge Brabazon, which upheld the Appeal from the Magistrates Court decision.

In both dismissals of the Appeals in the Queensland Court of Appeal - no extension of time was granted and Bone v Mothershaw was cited in both decisions of the Court of Appeal.

The charges - criminal - related to the clearing of native vegetation on Keith Glasgow's land. The Court of Appeal (Queensland) - the highest court in Queensland, rejected the applicant's argument that the Act did not apply to land held in fee simple and that land was not comprehended by the term 'freehold land' in the Act.

Mr Keith Glasgow was prosecuted by an officer of the State for cutting native vegetation to feed his starving livestock in this time of severe drought. It is of interest to note that the Warrant to Enter executed by the public officials of this State was not for Mr Glasgow's property 'Bayfield' but was for a property approximately 17 kilometres away known as 'Valentine Plains'. This fact was presented to all the Courts to which this matter was taken and ignored. In the District Court the Judge stated that Mr and Mrs Glasgow had purchased 'Valentine Plains' in the 1980's. The Glasgow's do not own that property.

Mr Gregory Wilson was prosecuted by an officer of the State for repairing severe erosion on a watercourse on his property by filling the degraded areas in with dead and dying black wattle and other vegetation and weeds which were of no value to the livestock as a food source. Mr Wilson then covered the vegetation with soil and replanted the areas with pasture grass. The Warrant executed over Mr Wilson was also void as it was sworn out under the Land Act 1994.
Tree clearing under that Act pertains to State owned land only.

For Mr Glasgow and Mr Wilson to be prosecuted for these actions, which to any farmer is regarded as part of responsible farm management and that prosecution upheld throughout every court in the land, defies logic.

The Commonwealth Act, the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 is part of the implementation requirements of the international treaty - the Convention on Biological Diversity signed in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. Funds of $1.35 billion from the partial sale of Telstra were the main source of funding for the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Account.

The main object of this 'Account is to conserve, repair and replenish Australia's natural capital infrastructure'. In the Preamble of this Act it shows that 'government leadership be demonstrated, and that the Australian community be involved'…It goes on to say that 'Australia's rural community should have a key role in the ecologically sustainable management of Australia's natural resources.

s8 Purposes of the Account

The purposes of the Account are as follows:
(a) the National Vegetation Initiative;
(b) the Murray-Darling 2001 project;
(c) the National Land and Water Resources Audit;
(d) the National Reserve System;
(e) ………..
(f) ……………..
(g) supporting sustainable agriculture;(as defined by s16)
(h) natural resources management (as defined by s 17);
………………………………

The Act goes on to define the following:-
s10 Primary objective of the National Vegetation Initiative

For the purposes of this Act, the primary objective of the National Vegetation Initiative is to reverse the long-term decline in the extent and quality of Australia's native vegetation cover by:
(a) conserving remnant native vegetation; and
(b) conserving Australia's biodiversity; and
(c) restoring, by means of revegetation, the environmental values and productive capacity of Australia's degraded land and water.

s16 Meaning of sustainable agriculture
(1) For the purposes of this Act, "sustainable agriculture means the use of agricultural practices and systems that maintain or improve the following:-
(a) the economic viability of agricultural production;
(b) the social viability and well-being of rural communities;
(c) ………..

s17 Meaning of natural resources management
For the purposes of this Act, natural resources management means:
(a) any activity relating to the management of the use, development or
conservation of one or more of the following natural resources:
(i) soil;
(ii) water;
(iii) vegetation; or

s20 Grant of financial assistance to a person, or a body, other than a State
(1) This section applies if an amount is to be debited from the Account for the purpose of making a grant of financial assistance to a person, or a body, other than a State.

s21 Principles of ecologically sustainable development
(3) For the purposes of this section, the principles of ecologically sustainable development consist of:
(a) the following core objectives:
(i) to enhance individual and community well-being and welfare by following a path of economic development that safeguards the welfare of future generations;
(b) the following guiding principles:
(i) decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short- term economic, environmental, social and equity considerations;
(ii) ………………
(iv) the need to develop a strong, growing and diversified economy that can enhance the capacity for environmental protection should be recognized;
(vi) cost-effective and flexible measures should be adopted;
(vii) decisions and actions should provide for broad community involvement on issues which affect the community.

If, as stated in the Preamble to this Commonwealth Act, the rural community of Australia should play a key role, and the definitions in the Act appear to support the actions of Mr Glasgow in using vegetation to feed his starving stock, (which incidentally Mr Glasgow replaced immediately), and the actions of Mr Wilson in repairing severe erosion, use of vegetation and soil for the conservation of soil and water it is difficult to understand how they could be prosecuted, fined and had costs imposed on them, all of which was supported by all Australian Courts.

No sensible person would support the destruction of vegetation or any environmental damage. Farmers clear parts of their land to increase the productivity of their land and improve it to feed this nation and support the economy - (refer NHTAA s16 - sustainable agriculture).

The Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997(C'wth) and all agreement stemming from that Act were to be administered with consultation and community participation.

Any person who wantonly damages our environment for their own personal gain would not be supported by the majority of people in this country.

Unfortunately it appears that these matters must now be taken to England or wherever we have to go including the Hague, to have the common law and our property rights returned to us if nothing we do as a people will cause our governments to reconsider their actions in creating this situation for whatever reason.

If there is no resolution from any of these quarters, then we have lost all equity or value in our land and our common law rights to the ownership of our land.

The majority of persons who take up a parcel of land with a long-term view of making their living off the land and providing food for the people of Australia and overseas and supporting the economy by their toil, do so with the view that they will protect and manage the land productively and viably. Many farmers are on land which has been in their family for generations.

It is a given, and I can only speak for Australia, that people on the land suffer severe hardship and work in creating a sustainable property. Originally farmers in this country had to face and contend with, the unrelenting pressures of nature - drought, fire, flood and wildlife damaging their crops and stock.

Then came the conservationists - with many extremely valuable plans and ideas for protecting the land, native wildlife and vegetation and some plans and ideas based on very 'creative' scientific fact but they, having the backing of the governments - nervous of the next election, created further difficulties for the farmers.

Next came the governments and their public officials with ever more regulations, often to promote the plans and ideas of the conservationists but also with the ever-increasing stream of paperwork to be completed by the farmer, usually at the end of a very long and hard day on the land.

Now, with the administration of the laws and the regulatory approach favoured by most governments, the idea that the bureaucracy has that 'stewardship' of the land is the best way to go, the rural community primarily, but the urban dweller also, have now to face prosecution by public officials and no support from the Courts when prosecuted but face conviction, fines and costs. The definition of 'stewardship' is 'administering the property, house, finances, owned by another'.

People, who have now 'been stripped of virtually all the powers which make ownership of land of any practical utility or value', and the loss of the common law, supported by the recent decision of the High Court of Australia in the applications for special leave to appeal of Mr Glasgow and Mr Wilson, now have another more frightening and very real problem to contend with.

No one has voted in a referendum of the sovereign people in Australia to lose our common law rights to the use and ownership of our land. If the ownership of land now has no 'practical utility or value' should the rural community continue try to make a living off the land or to constantly work to increase its productivity and viability?

Those urban dwellers who own a home and land and often have a large mortgage on that real property have the same dilemma. What will be the reaction of the financial institutions to this situation?

Do the governments of this Commonwealth of Australia still want the farming sector or the ownership of land anywhere in Australia?

Does the Australian economy still rely on primary production as part of its economy?

If the answers to the above two questions is 'no' then surely there should have been at least some consultation with the community and the sovereign people. Ignorance is definitely not bliss in this instance.

ATTENTION - people living in New South Wales.

The matter of Bone v Mothershaw and Burns v the State of Queensland and Croton have already been used by a court of New South Wales in a matter between the State of New South Wales and Peter Spencer to prevent him from using his freehold land in fee simple to its full potential and it appears that the Governor of New South Wales was removed in 1987, therefore New South Wales is in the same situation as Queensland and for the same reasons.

It is believed these actions were carried out without consultation with the people or a referendum. Surely it would be time to have these matters clarified to the people by our Governments prior to the next Federal Election.

In 1999 the majority vote in Australia was not to have a republic but to retain the system of the Crown, the legislature and the Courts.

Grounds of Appeal to High Court of Australia.

These were part of the grounds of appeal presented to the Court of Appeal Queensland and also forwarded to the High Court of Australia.

I request that the Court of Appeal allow natural justice to prevail for me in this
matter as there is no offence for the clearing of native vegetation on private "freehold
land" in either the Vegetation Management Act 1999 or Integrated Planning Act 1997.

(i) I, Keith Ronald Glasgow, the Applicant committed no offence against any law of the Commonwealth, State, Local Government, or at common law. The vegetation clearing offence for which I have been prosecuted, was commenced by the Respondent, Peter Thomas Hall employed as an authorised officer under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 by the Department of Natural Resources.

( ii) The Integrated Planning Act 1997, section 4.3.18(3) shows:- 'However, proceedings may only be brought by the assessing authority for an offence under (a) section 4.3.1, 4.3.2 or 4.3.3 about the Standard Building Regulation; '

(iii) The offence for which I have been charged and convicted and to which I pleaded not guilty could only have been brought before a Magistrates Court by the assessing authority about a Standard Building Regulation.

I have been fined and had costs awarded against me to the total value of$27,559.25 and
I request of the Court of Appeal that all convictions, fines and costs be quashed.

I have recently received a notice from SPER regarding the outstanding fines and costs
awarded against me. That Department has advised that I am required to pay the full fines
and costs to the total of $27,559.25 or carry out community service as ordered until that
amount has been recovered through my labour to the Crown.

i) Community service, is in fact, a deprivation of my liberty by the order of the Court. Therefore the hours that I will be required to serve will be in actual fact, imprisonment for the benefit of the State.

ii) My drivers licence will be suspended and a Warrant issued to take possession of our private property to the value of $27,559.25.

iii) I have been advised by the Clerk of the Court at Biloela that a Warrant has already been issued to the value of that property to cover the fines and costs imposed by the Court in this criminal proceedings.

I, Keith Ronald Glasgow, the Applicant, apply for leave to appeal from the whole of the
judgment of the Queensland Court of Appeal on Appeal No. 273 of 2006, date of judgment 2nd
February 2007. It is submitted that the Court of Appeal erred at law for not granting the
extension of time for leave to appeal by misapplying the principles of law in the case of Bone v
Mothershaw [2002]QCA 120.

The Charge was that I made an assessable development without a permit on Freehold land contrary to Section 4.3.1 (1) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997. No development took place at any time except the standard property management practice of utilising native vegetation in a drought to feed starving stock. Section 16.2 of the National Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 establishes that actions of property management are sustainable property management for the purposes of the Act and do not fall under Queensland vegetation management laws.

The Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Queensland have not passed any laws to prevent us from the use of our freehold land for the purposes of sustainable agriculture or to remove the common law right to allow us to continue in our business of sustainable agriculture.

The evidence collected and presented to the Court below as a result of a Warrant sworn before Magistrate T.G.Bradshaw in Rockhampton on 13th January 2003 executed over our property on 15th January 2003 by the Respondent Peter Thomas Hall in the company of Peter Webley is tainted because the Warrant is void ab initio. Evidence given before the Court by the Respondent was as result of satellite information that a ‘clearing offence’ had occurred.

This information was taken from SLATS imagery for a property approximately 17 kilometres distant from our property, known as 'Valentine Plains" which showed the possibility of a clearing offence. Misidentification of the property was carried through onto the Warrant which was issued for the property named as ‘Valentine Plains’. Our property is known as 'Bayfield' and is not the property named in the Warrant. The said Warrant taking its information from the satellite imagery identifies 'a rural property with buildings thereon'. We have no buildings on the property over which the warrant was executed. The persons executing the Warrant could not have failed to notice the difference!

The Respondent and Peter Webley both trespassed on our private property by the alleged execution of the Warrant of Entry under section 33 of the Vegetation Management Act 1999.

Addresses on warrants are matters of strict liability and there is no capacity to transfer Warrants from one named property to another. All evidence obtained from the execution of the Warrant of Entry is tainted and cannot be used in any prosecution against us for our use of the land and natural resources found on that land in our occupation as farmers and graziers. Our lawful use of our land is supported in the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997, sections 16; 17; 21 and 54.

Reference is made to George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26; (1990) 170 CLR 104 F.C. 90/026 (20 June 1990).

The Summons does not show the address of the property where the offence occurred. It states that "between 19 September 2000 and 7 August 2001 at Biloela in the Magistrates Court District of Biloela in the said State one KEITH RONALD GLASGOW did start an assessable development namely clearing of remnant vegetation on freehold land without a permit for the development". - Integrated Planning Act 1997 section 4.3.1(1). The land has never been identified as being covered with ‘remnant vegetation’. This is an invention of the Respondent. In fact the alleged offence occurred between September, 2000 and September, 2001 but the Summons was not issued until 26 August, 2003 which was outside the statutory time limit set at 1 year as laid down in section 68 of the Vegetation Management Act

Under Section 3.12.(1) all development is exempt from Development Permits except matters dealt with under Schedules 8 & 9 of the Integrated Planning act. Therefore, I did not require a development application or Permit. The Section under which the charge was laid relates to a clearing provision under operational work which is part of a clearing component of a development.

Reference Queensland Court of Appeal Form 29 - Application for extension of time to appeal page 11 paragraph 41, numbers 10 - 20, included in Outline of Argument dated 24th January 2007 prepared by David J. Walter.

Officers appointed under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and officers appointed under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 are appointed by 2 different Ministers and their appointments are not interchangeable under the law. The Respondent is not an officer appointed under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and has no delegated power under the said Act. Reference is made to the cases of : Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Ah Hin Teoh F.C. No. 95/013 [1995] HCA 20; (1995) 128 ALR 353, (1995) 69 ALJR 423, (1995) EOC 92-696 (extract), (1995) 183 CLR 273 International Law - Immigration (7 April 1995) Refer to Outline of Argument prepared by David J. Walter on 24th January 2007 and presented to the Court of Appeal, Queensland.

My wife, Lesley Kay Glasgow and I are tenants in common of the registered land. The land is held in an estate in fee simple under the provisions of section 47 of the Land Title Act 1994(Qld).

Reference:- Particulars of the property: Current Title Search:
Estate and Land Lot 52 Registered Plan 912769
Estate in Fee Simple County of Pelham Parish of Kroombit
Local Government: Banana Shire

The Deed of Grant was sold under the Land Act 1962(Qld) No. 42 of 62.
Section 5 shows: "Indigenous timber and all other materials, the natural produce of the said land
shall be and are hereby discharged of such reservations".

Despite the statements of the Respondent in court and at other times the lawful rights to the use of my land for sustainable agricultural purposes are upheld under the Land Act 1994 section 508; the Land Title Act 1994 section 200 and 201 and the Property Law Act 1974 sections 19; 20; 21,29, section 57A and under Schedule 6, Dictionary definition of "State land". The actions of the Respondent were in knowing disregard of the State’s property laws and attempted to extinguish my rights by Executive Direction.

The Parliament of the State of Queensland in passing legislation, has ensured that the rights to the use of my freehold land, held in a Deed of Grant under the provisions of the Land Title Act 1994 section 47, have been upheld under the relevant Acts as described.

Refer to Outline of Argument prepared by David J. Walter on 24th January 2007 and presented to the Court of Appeal, Queensland.

The Court of Appeal failed to take consideration of the bilateral agreements, strategies and the multilateral treaty which are the basis of the environmental laws in Australia today and which are set out in chronological order below.

The Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment was a prelude to the Commonwealth of Australia entering into the multilateral treaty known as the Convention on Biological Diversity signed in Rio de Janeiro.

The Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment was signed in May 1992 between the Commonwealth, the States, the Chief Ministers of all Territories and the Local Government Association of Australia.

As required under the provisions of the Agreement, the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland (and other States and Territories) framed legislation to implement this Agreement. For Queensland that Act is the National Environment Protection Council (Queensland) Act 1994 and for the Commonwealth the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (C'wth).

Reference: Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment
SCHEDULE 2 - RESOURCE ASSESSMENT, LAND USE DECISIONS AND APPROVAL PROCESSES

5. Within the policy, legislative and administrative framework applying in each State, the use of natural resources and land, remain a matter for the owners of the land or resources, whether they are Government bodies or private persons.

The Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment is included in the above Acts of the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland. Section 5 of schedule 2 is, under the Acts, a statutory law that ensures that the land and the natural resources are a matter for the owners of the land.

The international Treaty known as the Convention on Biological Diversity which includes Agenda 21, was signed by the Commonwealth Government on behalf of all people of Australia in Rio De Janeiro in June 1992. This is shown in the Australian Treaty Series number 32 of 1993. This Treaty was ratified by Australia on 18th June 1993.

Reference:-
Article 10 - Sustainable use of components of biological diversity
(e) Encourage cooperation between its governmental authorities and its private sector in development methods for sustainable use of biological resources.

At the signing of this multilateral treaty, the Commonwealth of Australia along with leaders of many other nations of the world, ensured that the private sector would not lose their land or the natural resources on that land. The Treaty is to be upheld and encouragement and cooperation should exist between Government authorities, industry and the private sector which includes landowners and leaseholders of land with consultation and partnership. This partnership should not be implemented by immediate prosecution and a removal of my rights as has happened in the criminal proceedings against myself by the Respondent, Peter Thomas Hall, a public official, defined under the Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth) Chapter 7 - The proper administration of government section 130.1 refers to the definition of property which includes my property as a person in accordance with paragraph 22(1)(a) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(C'wth). the Respondent Peter Thomas Hall is a Commonwealth 'public official' as described in the Schedule, Criminal Code, Dictionary. His actions are in direct contradiction of the spirit of the treaty signed by the Commonwealth of Australia and members of the United Nations.

One of the most important parts of this Treaty is known as 'Agenda 21: a program for future action'. One of the actions to deal with is "efficient resource use (sustainable use of renewable resources, water, energy, biological diversity, minerals forests and agriculture).

AGENDA 21
Objectives

10.5 The broad objective is to facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources. In doing so, environmental, social and economic issues should be taken into consideration. Protected areas, private property rights, the rights of indigenous people and their communities and other local communities and the economic role of women in agriculture and rural development, among other issues, should be taken into account.

The 'Australian Implementation Requirements' of the Convention on Biological Diversity were three Acts. One of these was the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 (No. 76 of 1997); Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Act 1995 (No 121 of 1995) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (No. 91 of 1999).

The Court of Appeal Queensland failed to uphold the multilateral Treaty and the legislation enacting the Treaty into Australian law passed by the Commonwealth of Australia on behalf of the people of Australia.

Cited: Outline of Argument presented to Court of Appeal 24th January 2007 by D.J. Walter.

In December 1992 the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development was signed and adopted by the three levels of Government in Australia - Commonwealth, State and Local, at a Heads of Government meeting in December 1992.

At that meeting the Council "noted that the document is intended to play a critical role in setting the scene for the broad changes in direction and approach that governments will take to try to ensure that Australia's future development is ecologically sustainable. The Council agreed that the future development of all relevant policies and programs, particularly those which are national in character, should take place within the framework of the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development and the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment which came into effect in May 1992.

The Integrated Planning Act 1997(Qld) was made subject to the following:-

In the second reading of the Integrated Planning Bill on 30th October
1997 the Hon D.E.McCauley (Callide - Minister for Local
Government and Planning stated:

"The coalition Government has developed the policy setting for the Integrated Planning Bill, taking into account the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment and the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development."......

In the Consolidation of explanatory notes for the Integrated Planning Act 1997 taken from the Office of the Parliamentary Council Legislation web site it shows at page 82 -

The owner of a resource must give their consent before development can proceed. This will include the consent of the land owner and may include State approval to use resources over which it has rights under legislation.

The Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment had been placed as a Schedule to:-
i) National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (C'wth)
ii) National Environment Protection Council (Queensland) Act 1994.

The State, as shown on my Deed of Grant, has reservations over my land for minerals and petroleum only. The Land Titles Act has not been amended to repeal or curtail any of the rights assigned to land owners under the legislation. No other Queensland legislation repeals or implies repeal of the above rights.

The Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 (C'wth) binds the State of Queensland and its servants such as the Respondent to the Convention on Biological Diversity (and Agenda 21). Sections 16; 17; 21 and 54 of that Act protect the rights to the use of agricultural land. Section 21 of the Act has a notation that:

'The principles of ecologically sustainable development that are set out in this subsection are based on the core objectives and guiding principles that were endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments in December 1992.'

These core objectives and guiding principles are those that were set out in the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment and the National Strategy on Ecologically Sustainable Development. The 'core objectives and guiding principles' in both the agreement and the strategy are incorporated into law in the State of Queensland, in this matter the Vegetation Management Act 1999 and the Integrated Planning Act 1997. The Respondent has no legal rights to unilaterally dispose of the Commonwealth legislation and the intergovernmental agreement.

The Australian Government and Queensland signed in November 1997 the Natural Heritage Trust Partnership Agreement. This was the implementation of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997(C'th) and the setting up of the Natural Heritage Trust Account. The Commonwealth placed the sum of $1.35 billion dollars in that Account from the partial sale of Telstra to assist in the protection of the environment for the future. The Respondent has no authority to override Section 16 (2) of the above Act.

The Queensland parliament officially accepted the limitations on interference with sustainable farming practice inherent in the Rio Treaty and its associated legislation. In the Second Reading Speech by the Minister the Hon Rod Welford for the Vegetation Management Bill the Minister mentioned the Natural Heritage Trust Partnership Agreement signed in 1997. This Partnership Agreement is binding on the State and the Commonwealth and is subject to the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997(C'wth) which in turn is subject to the International Treaty. The Strategy as described in section 4.3. of the Partnership Agreement is for the 'broadscale tree clearing policy and local tree clearing guidelines for leasehold and Crown land'.

The Vegetation Management Act 1999 was framed taking into account
the Natural Heritage Trust Partnership Agreement and as a consequence the
Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997(C'th) which is bound to the
International treaty and therefore our rights under law are protected.

I have applied to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Brisbane Queensland
for a written judgment from their Honours and they have advised that there
is no written judgment in this proceedings.

Orders sought:-

1: I, the Appellant, Keith Ronald Glasgow, seek the following order from
This Honourable Court.

2: That my conviction under Integrated Planning Act 1997 section 4.3.1(1)
for starting an assessable development without a permit be set aside and
quashed.

3: The fine imposed against me of $10,000.00 be quashed.

4: The all Costs of Court, Miscellaneous Costs, Professional Costs and further costs imposed at Appeal being in total against me be quashed. That all costs be paid by the Respondent

5: This Honourable Court Set Aside the Warrant of Distress held by the Clerk of the Magistrates Court, at Biloela for the sum of $27,559.25 to seize property to that value from myself, the Applicant, Keith Ronald Glasgow for the fines and costs as set out above.

6: The cost incurred by me in this Appeal be paid to be on an indemnity basis.

7: Any other Order that this Honourable Court may deem fit.

Matter pending in the High Court of Australia - for Catherine Elizabeth Burns.

The facts of the matter of Catherine Elizabeth Burns placed before the High Court of Australia in an application for special leave to appeal for resolution. The law has not been included in this document, nor have the questions asked of the High Court.

a) I, Catherine Elizabeth Burns made the application under duress with a threat of being prosecuted and fined if I did not apply to clear native vegetation from my private registered land under IDAS Chapter 3 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997(Qld). I completed, as required, Part A and J of Form 1 Development Application under the IDAS for assessment under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 on 4th July 2002.

b) I paid the sum of $266 for the application fee to the Department of Natural Resources, Atherton Branch. Receipt Number 2693768 refers.

c) As a result of that application, on 27th August 2002 Mr Luke Croton, A/Manager, Vegetation Management and Use, North Region, Department of Natural Resources issued a Decision Notice refusing my application.

d) The Decision Notice was issued under section 3.5.15 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997.
Decision Notice:-

2. Reasons for Refusal
The clearing proposal described by the application does not comply with the State Policy for Vegetation Management on Freehold Land 2000 for the following reasons:-

The application does not meet performance requirement 2 of the code -
Viable networks for wildlife habitat are maintained

1. The Lot is known habitat for the endangered mahogany gliders as well as known general habitat for the endangered cassowary. The Mahogany Glider Recovery Plan 2000 - 2004 has indicated that the greatest threat to this species is lost of habitat."

2. Consideration has also been given to the State Policy for Vegetation Management on Freehold Land (page 9) Performance requirements and acceptable solutions, states "In determining whether a performance requirement will be met, the precautionary principle will be applied".

e) The decision notice issued by Luke Croton under section 3.5.15 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997(Qld) was not in relation to clearing native vegetation on private land, but was under the Decision Stage, section 3.5.1 which is a referral to a building agency (of the State) for an application if required and the decision stage for the application starts on the day after all other stages applying to the application have ended. The decision notice itself is in fact and law, void. I only require an application under the Integrated Planning Act 1997(Qld) for the reconfiguration of a lot or a material change of use. The clearing of the native vegetation is a component part of a development. I clearly did not require any permit.
f) The Decision Notice placed over my private registered land, refusing me the right to clear my land for resale has been upheld by the following Courts of Queensland.
i) Planning and Environment Court Cairns P & E Court No 62 of 2004
ii) Supreme Court Cairns - Burns v State of Queensland & Croton QSC 434
iii) Appeal Court Brisbane - Burns v State of Queensland & Croton QCA 235

3. The common law has been repealed from the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), Reprint No 2, reprinted as in force 2nd March 2001, © State of Queensland 2001, by the omission of:-Part 9 - Div Hdg 4—Common law and jurisdiction; Div Hdg 5—Equitable jurisdiction; Div Hdg 6—Criminal jurisdiction; s199—Laws of England to be applied in the administration of justice; s200—Common law and general jurisdiction of the court-jurisdiction at common law; s201—Equitable jurisdiction; s202—Criminal jurisdiction.

4. The Constitution of Queensland 2001(Qld) Chapter 4 - Courts - section 58 - Supreme Court's superior jurisdiction. The Supreme Courts superior jurisdiction is now of the State.
5. It is quite clear that before it was demanded that I make application for a development approval under the IDAS and pay the fee of $266.00, that the constitutional changes had been made in Queensland, without referendum and that people would only have those changes broadly explained to them. I now no longer have the protection of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the Sovereign of Australia and Her common law contract in land and equity is now worthless, and the only equity in the land is held by the State corporation.

6. Reference Queensland Government (Land Holding) Act 1992 © The State of
Queensland 1992; Lands Legislation Amendment Act 1992 -Act 64 of 1992 © The State
of Queensland 1992 - reference Schedule 1 - Aboriginal Land Act 1991; Land Act 1962;
Real Property Act 1861; Real Property Act 1877; Real Property Act Amendment Act
1952; Real Property Acts Amendment Act 1956, Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991

7. My private land, Torres Strait Islander land and native title land is held in the Brigalow Corporation and held under the Land Title Act 1994 © State of Queensland 1994 with a statutory title. To allow the State owned corporation to form, my Deed of Grant was interfered with under the Reprints Act 1992 on the 28th January 1998 with the deletion of the 2nd paragraph of section 40 (1) from the Constitution Act 1867 in reprint No 2.

8. I refer to the Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Qld) © State of Queensland 2006 Reprint No. 14, Reprinted as in force 28th August 2006.

s 36 - Meaning of commonly used words and expressions - In an Act -

'property' means any legal or equitable estate or interest (whether present or future, vested or contingent, or tangible or intangible) in real or personal property of any description (including money), and includes things in action.

'land' includes messuages, tenements and hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal, of any tenure or description, and whatever may be the interest in the land
'Aborigine' means a person of the Aboriginal race of Australia

'individual' means a natural person

'person' includes an individual and a corporation

'GOC (or government owned corporation)' has the same meaning as in the Government Owned Corporations Act 1993.

'Commonwealth Constitution' means the Constitution of the Commonwealth

9. I refer to the definition of the word 'Aborigine' in section 36 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Qld). Aboriginal people hold their land under the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 and the Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991 as a traditional group of Aboriginal people holding the native title and Torres Strait Islander land. By the changing of the definition from Aboriginal people to 'a person of the Aboriginal race' that means that a group of traditional owners or a group of aboriginal people no longer hold the title under the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 or the Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991 as they are now defined, as I am, as a 'person' and in the abovementioned definition a person includes an individual and a corporation.
10. The Commonwealth Constitution is the Constitution commencing at section 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act - it shows that it is the Constitution only, not the Act.

11. Under the Lands Legislation Amendment Act No. 64 of 1992 © The State of Queensland and further now in the corporation of the State known as the Brigalow Corporation and further by amendment of the Constitution Act 1867 Reprint 2A which clearly defines that any estate or interest in the land to be acquired from any other person, the definition of land clearly does not include any estate, therefore the only land held has been transferred from the Real Property Acts of 1861; 1877; 1952 and 1956 into the Land Title Act 1994(Qld) Reprint 7 ©State of Queensland 2003 and we hold our land in a statutory title only, without any further element of tenure of the Crown and the Courts are inside the Government and subject to the rules of the Court as found in the Statutory Instruments Act 1992© The State of Queensland.

12. I refer to the decision of Chief Justice de Jersey on 19th November 2004 - page 2 paragraph 5 "these contentions are plainly untenable, Mrs Burns certainly has an indefeasible interest as a registered proprietor of an estate in fee simple". His judgment erred in fact and law by clearly separating the ownership of private land from the Deed of Grant or title through the unrepresentative use of the word “Proprietor” and the lack of legal comprehension of the difference between an Unregistered Executory Interest as defined at s6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1989 (C’wth) in the manner and form of Statutory Instruments and a Registered Interest as defined in the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) or as the case may be, the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld).

13. My private land that I hold, by definition under the Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Qld) is an undefined interest in the land only as the common law estate in fee simple which I purchased from the Crown, which is an estate of inheritance at common law and which is now the property of the State and if I may say, I myself am a mere chattel of the State because we, as persons, are included in the State's corporations.

14. Further, Chief Justice de Jersey stated that, “the burden is on me, not on my land”.

15. The Supreme Court of Appeal declined to forward this matter to the High Court of Australia as I requested. The Government of Queensland has created, without a referendum an independent sovereign State under the Constitution of Queensland 2001 and the Supreme and District Courts are inside and indefeasible of the Government. There is now no Crown or common law in this State and we, as citizens, no longer have the protection of the Crown or the common law under s80 and s77M of the Judiciary Act 1903(C’wth). An estate of inheritance in land or equity can not and must not, be subject to Statute Law that in effect extinguishes or regulates that same inheritance, completely ignoring s52 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, for to do so, anarchy and ruin will prevail. For as soon as the financial institutions withdraw because of lack of tenure in the land held of common law, poverty will soon follow.

16. I personally have not voted in any referendum to remove the entrenched provisions as described in the Constitution Act 1867, section 53 - Certain measures to be supported by referendum, described in Reprint 2, reprinted 27th January 1998, section 53(1), section 1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B, 14; and, section 53(1).

17. The State of Queensland has acquired my land without just compensation. I still
pay rates on my entire acreage. I have taken this proceeding before the abovementioned three Courts of "the State" of Queensland and had my appeals dismissed on all three occasions by virtue of Bone v Mothershaw[2002] QCA 120 - a decision of the Court of Appeal of Queensland. In this decision, the Bench stated that Queensland had 'a plenary power as an independent sovereign State' to make laws regulating my use of my land which effectively has cost me a viable resale value of the land and the loss of approximately twenty four and a half acres of land which is to be left for mahogany glider habitat for, one assumes, the public benefit. The Minister of the Department of Natural Resources and Mines the Honourable Stephen Robertson did advise Mr. Walter in writing, that the State is not required to pay compensation or, for the payment of compulsory acquisition of my private land.

18. The Courts of the State of Queensland upheld the decision of Bone v Mothershaw [2002] QCA120 which states that Queensland is an independent sovereign State and that State is subject to the Constitution of Queensland 2001 assented to on 3rd December 2001. The assent by the Governor was defective as the Governor is inside of Government as a parliamentary secretary and now forms part of the corporate Government of Queensland along with the Supreme and District Courts of the State, and the Planning & Environment Court and the District court are subject to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. As the courts are inside the Government it follows that they must protect the assets of the corporation of the State. As my land is now an asset of the State of Queensland and by the definition of 'person' s36 - Meaning of commonly used words and expressions in the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 I am an 'individual and a corporation'.

19. My Deed of Grant in fee simple is now a statutory title only, and that title is upheld by the civil laws of the Supreme and District Courts of the corporate Government of Queensland and the Judges of the Supreme and District Courts who are inside the Government. My common law estate in fee simple is now held by the corporate Government of the Sovereign State of Queensland.
20. Under the definitions in the Acts Interpretation 1954(Qld), section 36, the definition of 'property' and 'land', the State of Queensland now owns all my property, which includes money, real and personal property from the past and any future property which includes my will. I refer to the definition of 'land' under section 22 - Meaning of certain words (aa) 'individual' and (c) 'land' of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(C'wth) and the definition of 'property' in section 130.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth) The Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Qld) is ultra vires to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth), Chapter 7 - The proper administration of Government; the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(C'wth).

21. My land is now held by the Government of Queensland in the Brigalow Corporation with no compensation paid to me for that acquisition. For “Even though the King may not enter” (Plenty v. Dillon [1991] HCA 5; 171 CLR 635 F.C. 91/004 (7 March 1991) the Queensland Government and the delegated authorities thereof can, without fine.

22. I, the Applicant, Catherine Elizabeth Burns, hold registered land in an estate in fee simple, situated at Lot 6 CP10416, Stony Creek Road, Cardwell Shire.

i) The title reference is 20818084, date created 7th December 1970.

ii) The land, in an estate of fee simple, was purchased at public auction on 22nd August 1968 for the sum of $525.00. The property, held at Lot 6 CP10416, Stony Creek Road, Cardwell Shire was alienated from the Crown lands in the State of Queensland by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Sovereign of Australia and the Chief Executive of the Commonwealth of Australia as cited under section 61 of the Constitution of Australia - Executive Power.

iii) The land was alienated from the Crown land in the State of Queensland in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Land Act 1962 - 1968.

iv) My Deed of Grant has been signed by the representative of the Sovereign
of Australia in the State of Queensland, Sir Alan James Mansfield, the Governor 'in and over Our State of Queensland and its Dependencies in the Commonwealth of Australia, at Government House, Brisbane in Queensland'. My Deed of Grant has been sealed with the Seal of the Sovereign of Australia.

v) Her majesty, in accordance with the laws and regulations in the Land Act 1962, section 6(3), reserved the right in the gold, minerals, helium and petroleum, to the Crown.

vi) As required under the Constitution Act 1867(Qld) section 34 the sum of $525.00 was paid into the Treasury of the Crown, thus completing the contract with the Crown.

23. I have in my possession and I will, if required, have Mr David Walter produce my original signed and sealed Deed of Grant to the Court. I hold the Deed of Grant in an estate of inheritance which is a common law contract with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the Sovereign of Australia.

24. The Deed of Grant in fee simple is a contract at common law, under the hand of the Sovereign, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, passing to me a common law estate of inheritance in fee simple. The common law contract has now been broken as a result of my being required to make an application to clear the native vegetation on my land by members of the Department of Natural Resources Mines and Water who advised that the laws pertaining to land ownership had changed in Queensland. All land and equity, my inheritable estate, now have been repossessed by the State of Queensland and I am not entitled to compensation under section 51(xxxi) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act or pursuant to the Lands Acquisition Act 1989 (C’wth).

25. On 6th September 2003 Mr David John Walter, who is my intervener in this matter and who also holds my full power of attorney in these proceedings wrote on my behalf to the Honourable Peter Beattie, Premier and Minister for Trade at PO Box 185, Brisbane Albert Street, Queensland 4002. I now refer to paragraph 3 of that correspondence.

"Mrs Burns’ property rights on her freehold land have now been removed by the State refusing to allow her to clear the regrowth on her property under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 without offering her compensation. Section 109 of the Australian Constitution shows that if there is inconsistency of laws between the States and the Commonwealth, the laws of the Commonwealth shall prevail and the inconsistency by the State will be invalid. The Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act 1901 refers. Section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution shows that with the acquisition of property on just terms from a person, compensation must be paid and this is also shown in the Queensland Legislative Standards Act 1992."

26. The Premier never replied to Mr Walter but on 15th October 2003 the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines the Honourable Stephen Robertson MP wrote to Mr Walter in reply to his correspondence of 6th September 2003 to the Honourable Peter Beattie.

27. I refer to paragraph 5 and 6 of that correspondence.

"Under the current law, no compensation is payable where an application to clear native vegetation is refused. Applicants may appeal the Decision Notice to refuse an application under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 within the prescribed time.

Information about appeal rights was supplied to the Applicant at the time the decision notice was issued.

Under the State/Commonwealth proposal to phase out broadscale landclearing, a package of financial measures is being negotiated to assist farm businesses affected by the new vegetation management arrangements. Criteria for assistance under the new package are yet to be determined and will focus on assisting landholders disadvantaged by any new measures."

28. (a) I am not a landholder as described under the State Policy for Vegetation Management on Freehold Land or as defined in the Natural Heritage Trust Partnership Agreement which refers to tree clearing on leasehold and Crown land. I am the holder of a common law estate in fee simple and my land is registered under the Real Property Act 1861. In November 1997 the Natural Heritage Trust Partnership Agreement was signed between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland. This allowed the State of Queensland and all other signatories ie. other States and Territories of the Commonwealth, to have access to funds from the Natural Heritage Trust Account and those funds were the funds of the sovereign people of Australia from the partial sale of Telstra, the sum of $1.35 billion dollars.

Natural Heritage Trust Partnership Agreement
(ii) Roles of Queensland

6.3 Queensland will:
(f) activity on private land will be funded taking into account the amount of public benefit received relative to the private benefit derived from the activity

(iv) BUSHCARE: The National Vegetation Initiative
1. National Goal
To reverse the long-term decline in the quality and extent of Australia's native vegetation cover.

4.3 Strategies:
(a) Finalise and implement the Broadscale Tree Clearing Policy and Local Tree Clearing Guidelines for Leasehold and Crown land ....................

(b) The Mahogany Glider Recovery Plan 2000 - 2004 between the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia - helping communities - helping Australia. Approximately $11 million had been paid from the Natural Heritage Trust Funds to landowners in the Hinchinbrook and Cardwell Shires to purchase their properties to secure their land under the Natural Heritage Trust for the protection of the mahogany glider under the Mahogany Glider Recovery Plan. I received no such request to purchase my land under that plan and that plan has been upheld by the Courts of Queensland under the Decision Notice issued by Luke Croton.

The animals (Mahogany Glider) are not found on a protected area – refer Nature Conservation Act 1992(Qld) Reprint 3B © State of Queensland 2003 – to be read in conjunction with Part 4 – protected areas, Part 10 Evidentiary provisions– section 160 – definitions section 7 – animals. The Mahogany Glider Recovery Plan 2000 - 2004, upheld in the Decision Notice, for private land, is subject to the Natural Heritage Trust for compensation for the loss of the use of the land for the environmental public benefit

29. On the 3rd December 2001 the Governor of Queensland with the authority of the entrenched provisions contained in the Constitution Act 1867 (Reprint No.1) and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act which in their manner and form hold the entrenched provision of , "The Governor of Queensland", and exercising the delegated authority of 'The Crown' did unilaterally 'Assent' to the 'Constitution of Queensland Pa

Love for Life

Search Love for Life

Main Menu

Navigation

Mailing List

Active forum topics

New forum topics

Recent comments

MOST URGENT MESSAGE FOR ALL AUSTRALIANS by Linda Hewitt 15th October 2007

Name:
E-mail: