Exemplary Justice - Queensland Style
Tim Mulherin MP DEEDI (DPI) has been telling everyone: “In administering the Act and in the conduct of litigation under it, the Department observes the State of Queensland’s Model Litigant Principles, which reflect the community’s and the courts’ expectation that the State conduct itself in a manner that exemplifies the principles of justice, so that the power of the State is used for the public good and in the public interest”.
What Tim Mulherin MP meant by " The State conduct itself in a manner that exemplifies the principles of Justice ” is as follows: (To Justify HIS Fraud and Theft)
On the 8th February 2008 the ownership of these dogs was given to RSPCA This
vital document dated 8/2/08 was not supplied to
Geraldine Robertson or the courts until 8/3/10
when at the Court of Appeal, counsel Richard Fryberg for RSPCA, to ensure RSPCA was not struck out as a party to Geraldine Robertson’s appeals, produced this
to the Court. This document from Tim Mulherin's executive Fiona Ferguson in paragraphs 3 and 4 said
Under section 157 of the Act I am transferring the animals to RSPCA . I also advise that under section 155(1) of the Act, an Information Notice about the decision to forfeit the animals will be issued to
the former owner
. I also advise that under section 155(1) of the Act, an Information Notice about the decision to forfeit the animals will be issued to the former owner" . Counsel Richard Fryberg told the Court, the law is wrong, the Act/law must be changed to allow RSPCA the right to own seized property and defend forfeiture.
In the subsequent Information Notice dated 8/2/08 to Geraldine Robertson there was no mention of the transfer of Geraldine Robertson's dogs to RSPCA, only that these dogs were forfeited to the State. RSPCA Solicitor Clayton Utz letter on 11/2/08 in paragraph 4 Forfeiture, informed Geraldine Robertson's solicitors Robertson O'Gorman, Geraldine Robertson dogs were forfeited to the State and ownership of Geraldine Robertson's dogs were transferred to the State on the 5/2/08 . The Information Notice transfers ownership to the State according to Law BUT Tim Mulherin had always transferred ownership of seized animals to RSPCA . RSPCA seized animals DO NOT become the property of the State as should be the case under the Law. Tim Mulherin & RSPCA had concealed this vital document from Geraldine Robertson for over 2 years, so much for the "Model Litigant Principles"!
Tim Mulherin gave Geraldine Robertson's world famous NEIGER Poodles to RSPCA before notifying Geraldine Robertson of the forfeiture. There is no power for the State or the Courts to order RSPCA to return the dogs to their former owners. RSPCA had already sold some of Geraldine Robertson's dogs for RSPCA own profits immediately after seizure. RSPCA prosecutes for profit. Tim Mulherin gave letters written to him by Geraldine Robertson to RSPCA which helped RSPCA and precipitated another raid by RSPCA to seize her evidence, including the dog with the neck broken by RSPCA and the 7 puppies trampled to death by RSPCA.
All Geraldine Robertson's appeals for the return of her dogs could not win her dogs back. Geraldine Robertson not knowing her dogs had been given away by the State on 8/2/08 and could not be returned to her, pursued her dogs through these Appeals since 9/1/08:
The Appeal to DPI for the return of her dogs could not be successful;
The Application to review the Appeal decision could not be successful;
The Appeal to the Magistrate Court could not be successful - her dogs could not be returned to her;
The Appeal to the District Court could not be successful;
The Appeal to the Court of Appeal could not be successful as their is nothing in the Animal Care & Protection Act for the court to order RSPCA to return Gerldine Robertson's dogs (sold/fostered by RSPCA over 2 years ago)
Fiona Ferguson DEEDI (DPI) executive of Tim Mulherin's Office "formally forfeit" to RSPCA. This means that RSPCA had been and now DEEDI Manager Vet Rick Symons is assisting RSPCA seizing other people's properties for RSPCA's profits.
The above shows both Tim Mulherin MP (representing The State of Queensland) and RSPCA, (a private incorporated organisation trading in pets, fabricating evidence and making movies of it as a "saviour of abused animals", spending AU$3million annually on promoting itself and damning it's victims, operating telethons begging and receiving $millions in tax deductible donations (cash, pet food, legacies of assets and cash) "to save the poor animals", had been operating fraudently and illegally since at least from the enactment of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001.
RSPCA came with a warrant based on invented allegations with the intent to seize all of Geraldine Robertson's dogs.
On the 9 January 2008 inspector Lawrence Stageman recorded his conversations (preparing evidence, ie talking to this tape) during the seizure of Geraldine Robertson’s dogs . The decision to seize all of Geraldine Robertson’s dogs had been made before the warrant to enter was exercised. RSPCA came organised with people and the resources to seize all Geraldine Robertson’s dogs. The only decision was when the dogs would be seized. Page 23 line 40 of the tape transcript Stageman: “[on the phone (not talking to tape)] …. We've got 3 council vehicles they'll be able to take 14 dogs. We can take 8 in our other trailer … ” Page 11 line 4 Stageman: “I'd be giving her strict short direction and then comeback Friday and if she hasn't complied and seize ……” “Well you won't have an illegal seizure worries …… “ “she'll play straight into your hand so we giving her a direction,”
RSPCA and The State (DEEDI ex DPI) covered up RSPCA and the State's FRAUD - by managing the courts conduct, striking out evidence, telling lies, fabricating evidence, punishing the victims with their so called "exemplifies ” (to serve as examples) “the principles of justice, so that the power of the State is used for the public good and in the public interest”.
RSPCA caused the media to trespass and invade Geraldine Robertson's privacy. The seizure was an organised media event designed to savage Geraldine Robertson.
Lawrence Stageman’s Tape Recording Geraldine Robertson Page 1.27 “but the media is not welcome.” Page 1 line 40: Stageman: “The media is coming with me to film anything that I require for evidence.” Page 1 line 55 Stageman: “Well it wouldn't be any video evidence being shown to the RSPCA.” Page 3 line 10 “I'm going to invite the film crew in to take evidence with anything we find that's a breach of the duty of care. So could you come in” … Page 23 line 40 “Have you already taken footage inside the house? We've taken footage inside the house,…. it's just…. there. We've taken footage everywhere with the video camera. Right.” 24 line 1 (Continuing from last paragraph) .... “Oh we've got heaps of video footage, I because Narelle told them not to go in. I don't know. I said we can invite them in just to film, to film evidence, you know” ... Page 26 line 60 ... “Who are this lot? They're from the Sunday Mail”.
RSPCA, by fostering/selling Geraldine Robertson’s valuable and rare poodles to members of the Poodle Club of Queensland Inc and others, recruited an “army”, driven by its members own greed/self
interest to keep Geraldine Robertson’s poodles, to campaign against Geraldine Robertson and they did with vicious comments in the media, to other people, the save the poodle petition, the
petition, on Internet forums .
The RSPCA lies have been extensive. RSPCA liars/perjurers( included Managers, veterinarians, inspectors) will never be charged with perjury.
a. Lawrence Stageman:
i. Said the entrance yard to the left of the entrance was a sludge of faeces and urine;
ii. Said this entrance yard had been cleaned before he took the video evidence – Court exhibit 2.
iii. Court exhibit 2 has a date and time stamp on it that could not possibly be correct – this evidence has been fabricated.
iv. He, according to the Submissions of RSPCA, must have knowingly accepted property stolen from the State when he accepted ownership for RSPCA of the dogs surrendered by Vlahos.
v. Came with a warrant and the intention of seizing all the Applicant/Appellant’s dogs.
b. Lesley Joy Vlahos:
i. She, according to the Submissions of RSPCA, in claiming ownership of the four dogs belonging to the Appellant and then transferred ownership to RSPCA must have stolen them from the State.
c. Shayne Towers-Hammond:
i. Said the entrance yard to the left of the entrance wet concrete from the rain, was a sludge of urine and faeces;
ii. Said the entrance yard had since been cleaned;
d. Gwen Katie Heaton:
i. Said the entrance yard was a sludge of urine and faeces;
e. Dr Anne Chester:
i. Said a dog called Ned had maggots on him when video of this dog was, M6213/08 Court Exhibit, taken at RSPCA premises before Ned received his maggots.
ii. Said three puppies died from complications caused by hookworms caused by the Appellant when there is video of these dogs happily playing at the Appellant’s premises before being seized and RSPCA Kennel Manager Nanda Ten Grotenus taking the puppies home with her on 09/01/08 from RSPCA premises.
iii. There was no evidence of these puppies being sick per M6213/08 Court Exhibit 33 veterinarian record (Index book 1 Document 53 page 367).
f. Dr Victoria Lomax:
i. Said she handled Ned the dog that had maggots put onto him by RSPCA;
ii. DVD footages subpoenaed to the court, shown the fabrication of maggots by both Veterinarians Dr Anne Chester and Dr Vicki Lomax at RSPCA veterinary clinic.
g. Nanda Ten Grotenus:
i. Said under oath in court she did not have much to do with the seized dogs and was away on leave when it was clearly shown on DVD subpoenaed to the court, that on 09/01/08 the day of the seizure, she took the Geraldine Robertson’s puppies home with her that afternoon;
ii. Nanda Ten Grotenus was shown in DVDs subpoenaed to the court, taking Geraldine Robertson's puppies home and admitting in the DVDs Geraldine Robertson's dogs had delivered and Nanda Ten Grotenus raised the puppies in her home.
iii The DVDs subpoenaed to the court, also shown Nanda Ten Grotenus rehearsing counting Geraldine Robertson's dogs in the RSPCA Shelter. She was also shown on DVD raising the Geraldine Robertson’s puppies born from the seized dogs in her home.
Appeal - The Magistrates Court M6213/08 helped RSPCA by Striking out more of Geraldine Robertson's evidence
Geraldine Robertson tried to get the issue of pretrial publicity and the misconduct of RSPCA before the courts. The Amended Notice of Appeal lodged 21/7/08 included these issue in its grounds, which were
struck out by Magistrate Bradford-Morgan . BENCH: Paragraphs 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. All right. So, the - if you just want to write a note, the only ones that are out are 2 - you just need to put a line through
20. Geraldine Robertson raised additional issues in her affidavit lodged 28/7/08 and Magistrate Bradford-Morgan struck out paragraphs 2, 9, part of 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 56, 57, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68 .
21. Geraldine Robertson could not deny RSPCA Inspectors access to all her records as RSPCA had two warrants to enter, the Agreement between DPI&F and RSPCA, RSPCA Inspectors under ACPA. Geraldine Robertson was twice cautioned by police officers at both the service of the warrants. DPI&F, RSPCA and RSPCA Inspectors each had a fiduciary duty to Geraldine Robertson. All three (3) parties breached their fiduciary duties when they condoned and permit usage of private and personal information, fabricated evidence and conducted a public campaign they called “save the Poodles” using emails , media releases and a Channel 7 telethon, vilifying Geraldine Robertson to raise money as donations deceiving the public. This public campaign would definitely have a direct effect of scaring away and fortifying witnesses and potential witnesses against Geraldine Robertson. Geraldine Robertson submits this conduct was very relevant to her Appeal Hearing for the return of her dogs.
Charges Magistrates Court Beenleigh.
The 149 animal cruelty and neglect criminal charges filed by RSPCA on the 9/1/09 at the Beenleigh Magistrate Court where RSPCA had said were relying on the Decision of M6213/08 for its evidence;
The monies owed by Geraldine Robertson for the maintenance of her dogs according to RSPCA costing AU$2million;
The defamation published since 13/1/08 from materials released by RSPCA
District Court Struck out Geraldine Robertson's "Notice of Appeal" against Magistrate Strofield's decision without hearing her Appeal. RSPCA, having sold Geraldine Robertson's valuable poodles could not allow her to win them back.
RSPCA (Second Respondent) submitted that Dey v. Victorian Railways Commissioners  HCA 1; (1949) 78 CLR 62 VOL CXII-9 applied where he says (1949) 78 CLR, at p 91 : "A case must be very clear
indeed to justify the summary intervention of the court to prevent a plaintiff submitting his case for determination in the appointed manner by the court with or without a jury. … But once it appears that
there is a real question to be determined whether of fact or law and that the rights of the parties depend upon it, then it is not competent for the court to dismiss the action as frivolous and vexatious and an
abuse of process." It is my submission that valid grounds include Grounds covering issues related to the Appellant being stripped of her evidence and thus not being able to get Natural Justice. Natural
Justice is Law. These Grounds include:
a. Ground 10 a: Seizure of records caused the Appellant to lose evidence and her opportunity to contact possible witnesses. The Appellant ran a boarding kennel and had customers who went into her kennels over the Christmas/new year period to board their dogs. These people would have been witnesses to the conditions of the Appellant’s kennels. The contact details were lost to the Appellant and only two witnesses came forward but their evidence was somewhat dated.
b. Ground 10 h. Imagination Television tutored the Second Respondent’s witnesses in the making of their RSPCA Animal Rescue Television show. The Second Respondent in the Appeal Hearing kept this video from the Appellant.
c. Ground 2: a. Pre-trial publicity fortified witnesses against the Appellant which is why there was so much fabricated evidence and perjury.
d. Ground 2 b. Witnesses were scared away.
e. Ground 3. Pre-trial rulings removed from the Appellant the prospect of showing how the pre-trial publicity had affected her witnesses.
f. Ground 8. The Respondent’s witnesses were tutored.
g. Ground 11. The Second Respondent’s campaign against the Appellant and the effect it had on her ability to get natural justice was not allowed to be introduced into the Court.
h. Ground 12. The Magistrate limited the Hearing to only two issues, the reasonable belief of the RSPCA Inspectors when they seized the dogs and the Forfeiture. In so doing the Appellant was unable to show the effect the Second respondent’s actions had on her ability to properly put her case.
i. Ground 16, 17, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 30, are issues to the credibility of the Respondents and their witnesses and should have shown that if they have to invent stories and fabricate evidence they could not have had a reasonable belief in the seizure of the Appellant’s dogs.
j. There are many grounds that are valid grounds but the validity of these grounds were not tested in the hearing on the 30 October 2009.
Robertson v Imagination Television, RSPCA & DPI