A corrupt Minister for Justice, 

When his corrupt Judges and Magistrates are not corrupt enough he hands out his own criminal convictions, guilty findings and penalties. This is what he has done to Geraldine Robertson and he stands by them. See his letter dated 19 January 2010. Note they are recorded in his computer system as a criminal record. After reading this tell the Minister and Premier what you think they should be doing including having judges elected to rid Queensland of corruption. When you have something someone else wants and are vulnerable or old this could happen to you too.    See more at www.petmafia.com.au 

RSPCA, on the 9th January seized all Geraldine Robertson's poodles and began a campaign to force her into surrendering these poodles to RSPCA. This Campaign is still ongoing and is being helped by our CORRUPT Minister for Justice. When RSPCA sold ("fostered") Geraldine Robertson's poodles to reporters, staff, breeders, people of influence and power RSPCA created an army of people who acted without limit to terrify Geraldine Robertson into surrendering her Poodles. This influence is in the Courts and the Government. This is why Geraldine Robertson cannot get a fair hearing in the Courts. This is also why RSPCA have been so ruthless with their lies, fabricated evidence, theft of her evidence, intimidation of witnesses, etc.

Geraldine Robertson made an application to the Beenleigh Magistrates Court where she is defending 149 charges of Animal cruelty and breach of duty of care and was found guilty of:  Look at Advice of conviction or order No 0005560103. It says:

WAS CRUEL TO AN ANIMAL BY CAUSING IT
UNNECESSARY OR UNREASONABLE PAIN
BREACH DUTY OF CARE TO ANIMAL
BREACH DUTY OF CARE TO ANIMAL
BREACH DUTY OF CARE TO ANIMAL

One penalty was ordered for all charges listed above

Geraldine Robertson received a SPERS enforcement Notice. 

Magistrate White's Order does not say the above so it is the Minister who has added these guilty findings and the penalty to Geraldine Robertson's criminal record. A penalty means a guilty finding and a punishment. (In the old days this could be a flogging). The order is for civil costs, that is to cover RSPCA's legal fees for winning, it should never have been a penalty. 

On the 22nd February 2008 just before Geraldine Robertson was to lodge her Appeal for the return of her dogs RSPCA seized all her evidence, computer system, personal effects including jewellery, share certificates, accounting information, tax records etc worth $180,000. This Magistrate decided Geraldine Robertson had to defend herself without the witnesses to the conditions of her kennels who placed their dogs into her kennels just before the flooding rains of January 2008. But this was not enough for our corrupt Minister for Justice - he had to do it better with guilty and penalty.

Geraldine Robertson sought to have this problem remedied so she was punished again with another penalty. Advice of conviction or order No 0005699816 a totally new Advice of Conviction or order. This is a totally new penalty “One penalty was ordered for all applications listed above. One wonders why the Minister did not order jail time too?

Geraldine Robertson has chalked up 4 x guilty and 2 x $250.00 penalties just for wanting her records back, her potential witness contact details.

Out of frustration because the Beenleigh Registry (The Minister's staff) would not remedy this "clerical error" Geraldine Robertson Appealed to the Beenleigh District Court. The transcripts of this hearing

Geraldine Robertson provided these transcripts to the Beenleigh Registry and again asked for them to fix the problem, instead they claimed every thing was right.

Because RSPCA with their massive media campaign against Geraldine Robertson had scared away her witnesses, witnesses had been tutored, evidence was fabricated, Geraldine Robertson's witnesses had been intimidated and Geraldine Robertson had been vilified to her witnesses, RSPCA had taken her evidence and witnesses away from her Geraldine Robertson made another Application to the Beenleigh Magistrates Court with Affidavit for the charges to be struck out. Geraldine Robertson received another penalty. The revised advice of order still has a penalty.

The Minister must now want to have Geraldine Robertson struck down with stones, bottles and cans. Well with the support of his Agents RSPCA and others he did have Geraldine Robertson assaulted, harassed, threatened and made to suffer real terror. By orchestrating a campaign of defamation on Geraldine Robertson he incited others to act against her.

(a)       Offensive material was dropped and or mailed to her letterbox.

(b)      When shopping, people came up to her in public places and abused her. 

(c)       The Plaintiff had people come to her on her property to abuse and assault her verbally and throw stones, cans and bottles at her. 

(d)      She had rubbish dumped onto her property. 

(e)       She was physically assaulted by a man with a bottle and was hit on the head with the bottle. 

(f)        She suffered many months of continuous abusive and threatening telephone calls which caused the Plaintiff to fear she would be  assaulted and then murdered. Statements included: 

                                                               i.      Calling her vile names, offensive racist descriptions; 

                                                             ii.      Promising her they would punish her for her evil acts; 

                                                            iii.      Threatening to treat her “exactly as she had treated those poor dogs”; 

                                                           iv.      She deserved to be “beaten to death”. 

2.       Since the 13^th January 2008, and as a consequence of the continued behaviour and activities, tGeraldine Robertson suffered fear and terror and emotional breakdowns. 

3.       As a result of the Minister and his Agent's conduct Geraldine Robertson was considerably inconvenienced:- 

a.               She had to shop at night to avoid people for fear of abuse from them; 

b.               She had to shop in company; 

c.               She could not go anywhere without company; 

d.               She could no longer go to her club as several people there had threatened and abused her; 

e.               She lived in fear of abuse and had to stop answering the telephone; 

f.                 In fear she was afraid for over seven months to have her lights on at night fearing someone would see she was home and come and carry out their threats to murder her or worst beat her to death as they had said over the telephone.

 6.       She had a person unknown to her come to her property and hit her on the head with a bottle. 

7.       This person verbally abused her about her  “treatment of her dogs”. 

8.       This incident was reported to Police who visited her some 5 hours after the incident. 

9.       She became so terrified by the fear she would be harmed and the many promises that she received from threatening telephone calls that she lived in fear and terror. 

This Corrupt Minister should be proud of his corrupt judges and magistrates for what they have already achieved for him.

The Court of Appeal said RSPCA, Imagination Television and DEEDI were “deserving of justice and mercy” when the costs were awarded against the Plaintiff in the appeal to the Court of Appeal when the defendants:

 a.       Published in the media, material obtained by trespass and invasion of privacy that caused the Plaintiff to suffer many months of threatening abusive phone calls, be physically and verbally assaulted and intimidated, have garbage dumped in her driveway, suffered verbal abuse from people coming to her property and over the telephone, have her precious jewellery and other personal properties stolen, have her witnesses contacted and scared away, have her evidence seized from her pocession, be vilified and condemned in the media, have her put out of business and suffer attrition.

b.      RSPCA went to the Plaintiff property with the intention of taking everything she had, her dogs and her properties. RSPCA Legal fees, charges for “caring” for her dogs, which were sold shortly after seizure, and loss of business from the adverse publicity were designed to leave the Plaintiff helpless and become a bankrupt.

c.       RSPCA caused the Plaintiff to live in fear not game enough to have lights or television on at night for fear people would realise she was home and arrive to carry out their threats.

The District Court condoned RSPCA actions in the following. According to the that District Court the following grounds are not grounds for her to Appeal against the Magistrates Court decision to confirm the forfeiture by DEEDI who had formally forfeited her dogs to RSPCA: The District Court Decision is awaiting for leave to be appealed in the Court of Appeal.

a.       RSPCA seized all her evidence and contact details of her witnesses to the conditions of her kennels before the flooding rains of January 2008 and just before the seizure of her dogs by RSPCA.

b.      RSPCA ambushed her Appeal to DPI for the return of her dogs. The seizure of her property included her computer and privileged documents/correspondence to her then Solicitors;

c.       RSPCA used the media to scare away all her witnesses;

d.      RSPCA personally contacted her witnesses and vilified her to them;

e.       RSPCA tutored its witnesses;

f.        RSPCA conducted a “Save the Poodles campaign” against the Plaintiff vilifying her in the process;

g.       RSPCA intimidated the Plaintiff witnesses;

h.       RSPCA put fabricated evidence into the Court;

i.         RSPCA witnesses gave perjured evidence against her; Lies that the dogs were covered in urine and faeces, lies about the condition of her entrance yard, lies about putrid smells, lies about felting causing dogs harm, lies about health problems of the dogs, lies about puppies dying in RSPCA care because of the Plaintiff’s neglect when they were shown in RSPCA’s film evidence as healthy happy puppies playing just prior seizure and later in being taken home by RSPCA Kennel Manager;

j.        The Magistrate ignored the effects of the flooding rains on her ability to keep the kennels clean while in the crisis of cleaning, debris washed into her kennels by that flooding rains;

k.      RSPCA placed maggots onto a dog shown in RSPCA film evidence and attributed this to the Plaintiff s neglect of her dogs;

l.         RSPCA ran a campaign of attrition against the Plaintiff;

m.     RSPCA conspired with the Plaintiff ‘s lawyers attempted to have her certified “mentally unstable” and an administrator appointed to force her to surrender her dogs and take all her properties from her;