Affidavit of bias

Affidavit of the Appellant sworn 16th August 2008

MAGISTRATE COURT OF QUEENSLAND

REGISTRY: BRISBANE
NUMBER: M6213/08

Appellant:                 Geraldine Fooi-Fong Robertson
                                17-23 Buccan Road
                                Buccan, Qld. 4207

Respondent: (1)         The Chief Executive
                                  Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (DPI)
                                80 Ann Street
                                Brisbane Qld 4000

Respondent: (2)         The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
                                  Animals Queensland (RSPCA)
                                    C/o Clayton Utz Lawyers
                                GPO Box 55
                                Brisbane Qld 4001

                                AFFIDAVIT

I, Geraldine Fooi-Fong Robertson of 17-23 Buccan Road, Buccan, in the state of Queensland, a widow, retired professional accountant, kennel owner and a pedigreed poodle breeder of 20 years, states on oath:

1. The Appellant is aggrieved and has come to the Court expecting a fair hearing where the law will be applied to the facts. This is not happening because His Honour, C.J.Strofield is allowing and supporting witnesses who are perjuring themselves and have fabricated evidence. His Honour, C.J.Strofield has indicated he will be considering the perjury evidence in his decision making process. The Appellant has lost all confidence in the possibility of getting a fair hearing and finds the dishonesty of His Honour, C.J.Strofield and the RSPCA witnesses shocking and unbelievable. It is not possible to have confidence in a court that allows and condones perjury of this nature.

2. The Appellant has had her poodles worth $2million taken, her business closed, her expected puppies worth at least $250,000 of which RSPCA had sold without acknowledgement & other income taken from her. She has been defamed in the media and has had continuous abuse by the public over the telephone & in public places. She has had visits from angry people abusing her on her property and some have thrown stones at her, others have thrown cans at her, others have thrown bottles at her and she still has a lump on her head where she was hit with a bottle. The Appellant has many times had piles of garbage dumped in her drive way and has had to live in real fear and terror. His Honour, C.J.Strofield is supporting the RSPCA and their acts of causing the Appellant real harm when he allowed Penelope Kirk’s 13 year old “evidence”, made falsely. Penelope Kirk would want to misrepresent the fact that she is a dirty vet and brought parvo virus to the Appellant’s kennel. The parvo virus killed about fifty puppies. The RSPCA will use the malicious statements by Penelope Kirk by passing it onto the media so the media will publish it and cause the Plaintiff more harm. Exhibit GR3 to this affidavit is part of the Evidence Act that shows why this should not be admitted as evidence.

3. His Honour, C.J.Strofield is no longer acting as a judge but has become an active party to the abuse, threat, fear, loss and terror the RSPCA have inflicted upon the Appellant. The RSPCA are in breach of Section 359E of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), Unlawful Stalking and also criminal defamation in that the RSPCA published in a manner that would cause others to harm the Appellant, and they did harm the Appellant and it was foreseeable that the Appellant would be harmed. RSPCA Officers have acted criminally towards the Appellant when they stole her personal property and evidence she could use to show her dogs were properly looked after. Her witnesses and herself have received intimidation directly from the RSPCA and through others. Exhibit GR4 to this affidavit are some of the newspaper articles that invoked hatred from the community towards the Appellant.

4. I submit that it is His Honour, C.J.Strofield’s duty to ensure a fair trial of the facts. Allowing perjury to go unexplored and acting to conceal perjury is an improper act by His Honour C. J. Strofield. This was done for witness Shayne Towers-Hammond. This act causes a perception of bias and destroys the Appellant’s belief in the Court and, in her belief in her ability to get a fair trial.

5. There was clear evidence that witness Shayne Towers-Hammond, sworn under oath, has perjured himself. All that was required was a comparison of two video images (Court exhibit 2 and Court exhibit 24) that would show that the images of the entrance court yard showed the area was the same before and after the claimed “cleaning” by witness Shayne Towers-Hammond. The witness insisted that the area was “cleaned” after being shown the Videos. Exhibit GR1 & GR2 to this affidavit are frames of these Court Exhibits that showed the area has not been cleaned.

6. The wet poodles is also evidence of another perjury by Shayne Towers-Hammond. He said they were covered in faeces and urine and the floor of their cages stunk from faeces and urine. That the dogs were wet in such a manner supports the Appellant when she says they had been put into the cages when the RSPCA came, as it had been raining and the dogs had been playing in the rain. This was very relevant as the RSPCA case includes that the dogs were living in filthy unclean unhygienic conditions and therefore the Appellant was not exercising her duty of care. His Honour, C.J.Strofield allowed this to pass unquestioned. A disgrace for a judge to allow perjury in his court and to consider perjured evidence in his consideration. His Honour, C.J.Strofield is clearly corrupt.

7. The evidence was tacitly accepted by His Honour C.J.Strofield. Exhibit GR1 and GR2 are photos of this area and show that the area is the same both before and after the perjury of Shayne Towers-Hammond of cleaning by the Appellant. Exhibit GR1 and GR2 to this affidavit are images of the entrance area from each Court Exhibit 2 and Court Exhibit 24.

8. But worse, His Honour C.J.Strofield refused to allow the Appellant to explore this evidence when he said words to the effect that we won’t go there, and said he would consider it when considering the credibility of the witness.

9. I submit His Honour C.J.Strofield has a duty to investigate perjury and to ensure it does not occur in his Court. The exit video (Court exhibit 24) also has accompanying loud scraping noises obviously added to it. These scraping sounds were clearly not consistent with the environment which was quiet and peaceful located in a rural zoning. The Appellant having suffered a major shock of all her beloved pedigreed dogs being forcefully removed under shocking cruel circumstances was in no condition to clean an area, which was clean to start with. The RSPCA refused to have the Appellant’s dogs microchiped even though they were informed the dogs were worth $2million. That the evidence has been fabricated with dubbed sounds was not considered or investigated by His Honour C.J.Strofield and so would be considered as a cover up by His Honour C.J.Strofield.

10. That the RSPCA have video editing facilities and can make these changes was refused to be allowed to be explored by his Honour C.J.Strofield. This was relevant to the case in that the prosecution claim is that there was a strong putrid smell and there were faeces and urine in that court yard at the time of entry by the RSPCA Inspectors when the video clearly showed otherwise.

11. Witness Lawrence Stageman also states in his affidavit, paragraph 6 “Just off to the left of the entrance I sighted a number of poodle dogs in an outside yard. It was lightly raining and I saw that there was a large amount of dog faeces all over the ground”. The RSPCA Video evidence which both these witnesses relied on, shows the opposite, another case of perjury.

12. Again Witness Lawrence Stageman has misled the court when he said the dogs were not packed in tightly in the vehicle cages. He said the RSPCA used 2 x 8 dog trailers, 1 x 4 dog trailer and 4 x dog cages to transport the 104 standard and toy poodles. Accepting that one 8 dog trailer did two trips (unlikely due to time constraints) then the carrying capacity was 32 dogs. That means that the dogs were compressed to three times the normal carrying capacity. (NOTE two thirds of the 104 dogs were large standard poodles, the size of Dobermans and German shepherds.). The dogs were transported in horrific overcrowded conditions and thus this is another perjury by a witness.

13. Another fabricated piece of evidence is the maggots of the brown dog called Jack. The fur on the dog’s body was wet when normally the body heat would make it dry and there was maggots in this fur. Maggots eat flesh and there were no wounds on the dog. The fleece was completely dry and had no maggots in it. This evidence is not plausible. His Honour C.J.Strofield said, “I am familiar with fly blown sheep” and did not allow further examination of this issue by the Appellant.

14. Another issue of bias and prejudice is the claim that felting of the poodles coats means they were not properly cared for. The matted and felted fur on the poodles is not a problem to the poodles. Charlie in the Video jumping and bouncing at the fence in the video was obviously a happy dog moving freely. There is no evidence that felting of fur on poodles is a problem to them. That the felting was a problem is only an opinion of the Inspectors, not a fact.

15. There is also the denial of the effects of the flash flooding. The claim that the silt and debris deposited by the flash flood is faeces and urine is another perjury. This is being ignored by His Honour C.J.Strofield.

16. The conditions shown in the videos are relevant. They were a reason for seizure and forfeiture of the Appellants poodles worth $2million.

17. His Honour C.J.Strofield did not allow the comparison of the two images to be done by advising the Appellant that she does not have to do this because he will take into consideration the credibility of the witness. This is a cover up of perjury and destroys the Appellant’s confidence in getting a fair trial.

18. His Honour C.J.Strofield has acted to protect a witness, Shayne Towers-Hammond, who has perjured himself.

19. His Honour C.J.Strofield has acted to protect a witness, Shayne Towers-Hammond, who has fabricated evidence. Shayne Towers-Hammond gave evidence under oath that he made the exit video – Court Exhibit 24.

20. His Honour C.J.Strofield has also decided by his actions that perjury in his Court is an acceptable conduct for subsequent witnesses.

21. His Honour C.J.Strofield has demonstrated by his actions that he will not allow a fair trial of the facts and cannot be expected to properly apply the law to the facts. His Honour C.J.Strofield has demonstrated bias.

22. His Honour C.J.Strofield’s failure to properly investigate the RSPCA Senior Inspector Tracy Jackson and Inspector Daniel Young intimidating the Appellant’s witness, Annette Barrell, causes the Appellant to fear bias.

23. There was clear evidence that Tracy Jackson had spoken in an adverse way with Annette Barrell about the Appellant and in doing so interfered with the Court’s process. This is a criminal offence. I submit his Honour C.J.Strofield should have made a finding that there is a clear infringement of the criminal law and that the Police should investigate for the purposes of prosecuting Tracy Jackson and Daniel Young.

24. His Honour C.J.Strofield has also failed to properly examine the RSPCA’s 22nd February 2008 raid where they took evidence that caused the Appellant unfairness in her trial as well as loss of property and her feeling of being secure in her home. This should also be investigated by the Police even though a cover up would be expected.

25. His Honour C.J.Strofield is allowing the Respondent (1) to cause delay by allowing the Respondent to have irrelevant witnesses. There is a real fear that the trial may never end and the Appellant will never get her poodles back. Exhibit GR3 attached to this Affidavit are from the Evidence Act and His Honour C.J.Strofield should have taken this into consideration when allowing the witness Penelope Kirk.

26. The Respondent is clearly using the court improperly and abusing the processes of the court with so many witnesses. The issues are the reasonable belief of the Inspectors when they seized the poodles and the supporting evidence of the condition of the poodles. This should be the only evidence.

27. For all the above reasons the Appellant can no longer trusts his Honour C.J.Strofield to provide her with a fair trial and a correct and proper decision.

28. Since there is provable perjury in Respondent (2)’s evidence the proper thing for His Honour C.J.Strofield to do is dismiss the Respondent (1)’s case and find for the Appellant. When a dog’s coat is wetted and maggots are put onto it and then videoed as evidence of neglect we should all be concerned about the RSPCA. That there were no wounds indicates the maggots were planted.

29. This case is a despicable set of inventions and lies – it is clearly based on the Respondent (2)’s perjury. The RSPCA swooped at a time of natural disaster and stole $2million worth of breeding poodles then defamed the Appellant viciously in the media intensively and continuously for seven months. She suffered fear and terror. She had and still receives assaults upon her, death threats, abuse.

30. It is appalling that a Judge would act to protect individuals perjuring themselves who did this to a fellow citizen.

SWORN by the deponent

at BRISBANE this 16TH day of August 2008.

before me
Justice of the peace