Final Submission

MAGISTRATE COURT OF QUEENSLAND See More details at www.petmafia.com.au

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)
GPO Box 46
Brisbane Qld 4001

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

Final Submission

What happened

There had been a drought for 18 months, Geraldine Robertson's dam was empty and she had been purchasing water. The ground was dusty and all the grass had died. The lack of water and difficult conditions had caused Geraldine Robertson to get behind in her clipping. She had organised for help to clip her dogs. The witness Annette Barrell supported her in this in her Affidavit. Most of the dogs were clipped, there were only about 10 dogs in need of clipping. The RSPCA provided edited video footages showing the same 4 dogs being clipped over and over again from different angles.

Heavy rain, the worst in 20 years followed the drought. The loose dust and leaves were washed along as the heavy rain poured over the land up to 10 cm (4 inches) deep. This flood of surface water washed through the holding pens and kennels leaving dusty debris in the kennels and in the drainage system. The kennel sewage system could not cope and the internal drain became full of sludge which took longer to clear due to the fine filter system as all water is recycled and pumped onto the acreage. The water floated debris at the back of the house holding pens that had been cleaned ready for removal and distributed it over the yard. The continuous rain conditions made proper cleaning difficult.

When the RSPCA came most of the dogs had been moved to the holding pens at the house to enable efficient cleaning of both dogs and kennels. The few left in the kennels were to be moved later that morning. Two kennels had been cleaned and the dirt and debris had been lifted out onto the concrete beside the drain. The RSPCA witnesses claimed this flood debris (mud and leaves) was faeces and urine, it wasn't it was mud and debris. Some of the debris had been bagged and the bags placed outside the kennels ready for removal. This can be seen in the kennel video.

Geraldine Robertson had advised RSPCA at the raid, that because of the weather conditions, the kennel routine started early, all the dogs had been fed, watered and wormed the morning of the raid.

At the house the flash flooding had covered the holding pens (seen in the video) and the debris, palm seeds, faeces, leaves etc had floated in from the acreage. This yard had yet to be cleaned again. The priority was to clean the kennels and maintain regular kennel procedures for good health and hygiene. When the RSPCA came Geraldine Robertson was at the computer placing advertisements to sell her puppies and excess dogs on the Internet web site www.petlink.com.au.

If Geraldine Robertson had been give two (2) weeks all the pedigreed poodles in transit and sold, including puppies would have been delivered. The 109 dogs included 13 puppies which were booked to be shipped to their owners in Singapore, over 60 pedigreed poodles from puppies to adolescents and adult poodles were awaiting grooming and delivery to their owners after the festive season. The kennels would have been cleaned and back to normal and many of her dogs would have been clipped and washed. There was plenty of water and the rainwater tanks and dam were full. The planned Raid was at the worst possible time for Geraldine Robertson.********Email from Mayor of Shire****

The RSPCA planned a RAID to SEIZE (steal) ALL of Geraldine Robertson's DOGS.

Geraldine Robertson definitely requires a full and thorough Police Investigation. Geraldine Robertson has suffered from massive injustice and criminal acts.

What the RSPCA saw was a "vulnerable old woman on her own" with all her world famous pedigreed NEIGER poodles and the subject of a campaign of twenty years by Sue Graham. Geraldine Robertson's dogs had always won over Sue Graham's dogs in the dog shows. Sue Graham's dogs would cower around the ring and were easy to beat. What followed has been 20 years of defamation of Geraldine Robertson by Sue Graham through the poodle clubs. This "vulnerable old woman" would not be able to fight back against the Legal and Political might of the RSPCA and her dogs could easily be taken to be "fostered" by Sue Graham and other envious breeders from the Poodle Club of Queensland. The count of 104 was arrived at by Geraldine Robertson counting her dogs by name and giving the list to RSPCA. Geraldine Robertson later realised she missed about another 10 dogs in her count after seizure listing of the names of her dogs. RSPCA inspectors ignored Geraldine Robertson's rights as a citizen and her repeated requests for a Veterinarian to check and microchip her valuable pedigreed poodles at seizure and after seizure. The RSPCA plan was to take all Geraldine Robertson's poodles.

The RSPCA then had to organise evidence to support their raid so they selected the worst bits of file footage from Imagination Television and fabricated their evidence. Wet concrete had to become a sludge of faeces and urine with a putrid smell. One RSPCA witness, RSPCA Inspector Steven Barrand, in elaborating his lies, said the putrid smell was so bad he had to use a face mask. The dust mask he described is useless against the smells he described. It would have made no difference and is therefore an obvious lie. Dust and paper had to become a thick layer of urine and faeces. Rain wetted dogs had to become urine soaked dogs. The flood debris had to become urine and faeces. Healthy dogs were used to fabricate as having maggots infestations under anesthetic. Some dogs had to get eye infections and others had to get ear infections. Healthy happy puppies at seizure that were not weaned had to have died from Geraldine Robertson's neglect in the care of RSPCA three weeks later with doctored medical report prior to autopsy report. Over coated and felted happy and healthy dogs had to become distressed and troubled dogs with skin problems. None of Geraldine Robertson's had ever suffered from skin problems of any description in 50 years of owning poodles! Videos of these dogs happily bouncing around against the fence was used to demonstrate that these dogs were neglected by coating their legs and feet with "muddy material" to represent feaces. Felting had to became a health issue for the dogs even though this is their natural generally not preferred state. The "teddy bear look" which their owners preferred had to become evidence of a poor neglected poodle. The RSPCA veterinarians then had to say they found that the dogs had worms and other diseases which Geraldine Robertson had never experienced in her 20 years of operating her kennels.

Once the dogs were seized the RSPCA had to ambush Geraldine Robertson's appeal to DPI. RSPCA raided her again on the 22nd February 2008 - the date of lodgment of her Appeal when RSPCA Inspectors stole her personal assets and other properties distressing Geraldine Robertson even further and also took her computer and evidence, none of which has been used in Court. Her appeal to DPI was ambushed and she was allowed an extension of time to get it in.

The Appellant had to be demoralised and threatened into giving up her dogs. Attempts of doing deals under threat were done with the Appellant through her then lawyers costing the Appellant $60,000 in legal fees further weakening the Appellant's ability to get justice. An attempt was made to have the Appellant certified as mentally ill and have the Adult Guardian appointed such that she would lose all legal rights to manage her own case and to organise an Appeal to get her dogs back. The Appellant would be taken for everything she had. The threats that she would have her property sold from under her was made as she was told she would have to pay RSPCA's legal fees when she loses. She was told that she could not win because it was political. She was told she could not win in the courts because the judges would look after the government. The "save the poodles campaign" was organised by RSPCA to discredit the Appellant in the legal profession and the courts.

Geraldine Robertson has been robbed of her life's work breeding world famous NEIGER pedigreed poodles and then bullied into giving up on her legal rights to claim them back. This is an horrendous and improper use of the powers of the Animal Care and Protection Act and the courts. It is must be one of the most shameful, disgusting, abusive, unjust, unfair, and criminal acts committed upon a "vulnerable old woman on her own" for greed. Geraldine Robertson has heard that Sue Graham got to choose Geraldine Robertson's best dogs for herself. A full Police investigation is warranted and those responsible should be sacked, charged and given their fair day in court. Even they should not be subjected to the abuse they put the Appellant through in order to get a guilty verdict from them. It is just not right what they have done.

Geraldine Robertson does not recognise her best red and brown adolescent and mature standard Poodles in the list and photos of poodles being offered by the RSPCA as hers. This means the decision of His Honour even when the order is made to return her dogs will be appealed. Geraldine Robertson is very angry that this fraud is not being acknowledged by His Honour. When the RSPCA have told so many lies why would his Honour accept these lies about her poodles? A full Police Investigation is required to find these dogs worth more than $58,000 each. Their puppies were to be sold to Hong Kong for $6000.00 each.

Geraldine Robertson, in hindsight, now realises the RSPCA had a plan to take her poodles. They had the opportunity of the widely reported weather conditions to organise the seizure of all her dogs. The massive contingent of RSPCA inspectors, volunteers, Shire Council animal control staff, film crew from Animal Rescue, medias Courier Mail, Sunday Mail, Television Channel 2, 7, 9, and 10 followed 2 Police Vehicles arrived at Geraldine Robertson's property in the morning of 9 January 2008.

RSPCA Inspectors would not listen to Geraldine Robertson's explanations or her instructions about the continuing care of some of her dogs during and after seizure. RSPCA Inspectors simply ignored Geraldine Robertson and refused to allow her to see all her dogs being seized. They took no notice of any advice regarding the cruel and careless behaviour of RSPCA personnel busy strangling, hauling and shoving her dogs into small compartments. They simply mixed up all the puppies and adults, toy poodles with the standard poodles which is dangerous for their well being. At the witness box Shire Council staff said they did not have any dog trailers and they used the compartments in their vehicle. This meant that 104 dogs were shoved into 12 sealed dog compartments supplied by RSPCA and the rear of 4 Shire Council vehicles in a drive through peak hour traffic of at least over 1 hour.

From Evidence at the Witness Box and in RSPCA Affidavits,

Shayne Towers-Hammond had flown down from Rockhampton that morning meaning his flight would have been booked in advance.

The seizure was on hold waiting for Shayne Towers-Hammond's arrival. The order by Shayne Towers-Hammond to "seize all the dogs" had been made on his arrival. The statement was only a trigger to begin loading the dogs, the dogs arrived at the RSPCA Shelter 3.00pm as confirmed by RSPCA Vet Ann Covill. The drive from Geraldine Robertson's property to RSPCA Shelter was at least one and a half hours through heavy traffic. There was no intention to inspect the dogs and no dogs were inspected prior seizure.

The Shire Council staff were organised to wait till they were called to remove the dogs.

The media arrived with the RSPCA so they must have been informed of the raid in advance.

Imagination Television film crew were there at the beginning filming the interview outside by the driveway of the raid so they had been organised for the raid.

Poodle club breeders from all over Queensland from the Darling Downs, North Coast and the Gold Coast were available the next day to clip the poodles. *******See video of clipping & Channel 10 news*********

RSPCA staff were cleaning their kennels and the Shelter must have been emptied in preparation from the bounty of the raid. RSPCA reported in their media releases, they had to put down 40 dogs to make room for Geraldine Robertson's dogs. ******* see Media releases & newspapers *******

RSPCA veterinarians were on hand to examine all the dogs when they arrived at the RSPCA shelter. *****Ann Covill's evidence in the witness box ******

Massive defaming of Geraldine Robertson followed with numerous varied film footages in all television channels followed from 11 January 2008. This shocked, and was designed to shock Geraldine Robertson into a stupor of stress and fear. The RSPCA made a profit from this media exposure with massive donations from the public for the care of Geraldine Robertson's dogs. According to volunteers at the telephone marathorn appeal raised many hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, real estate and dog food from manufacturers. It was a fraud perpetrated by RSPCA for their self interest to get donations.

What should have happened.

The Animal Care and Protection Act provides for animal welfare directives that can be issued for the the care of animals. There were two issues that needed attention and they were:-

that the debris from the flash flooding should have been cleaned away and this was being done.
that some, about ten dogs shown in the evidence provided by RSPCA, were in need of clipping and this would have been done.

The proper action for the RSPCA Inspectors to have done would have been to issue these two animal welfare directives. When looking past the appearance of the dogs to the dogs themselves they can be seen bouncing around, barking with enthusiasm and interested at the goings on. The Video evidence shows these dogs were happy, healthy dogs. Some dogs looked in need of attention and were felted due to the wet weather conditions. The Video evidence shows these dogs were happy, healthy dogs with a very good temperament that the clippers were enjoying and falling in love with. All the dogs shown being clipped may be quiet due to being attended by strangers in a strange environment but certainly were alert and well behaved. The few shown over and over again at different angles in the RSPCA forfeiture submission comprised of about only four (4) poodles. The Channel 10 news footage, ignoring the words and defamation, showed a number of the poodles seized being clipped clearly indicated that most of the poodles were not in need of urgent clipping when they were dried off. This footage also shows how pleasant the dogs were.

What the orders should be.

The Appellant should be given all her dogs back and the Respondents made to pay the Appellants costs with punitive damages for their improper conduct. All the property the RSPCA seized should be returned in its entirity. There should be a Police investigation and those who have committed crimes charged and prosecuted for their crimes. There should also be a directive that RSPCA should not be administering their Inspectors as this amounts to RSPCA administering an Act of Parliament and this is Unconstitutional. DPI are incompetent in their administration of the Animal Care and Protection Act by delegating this administration function to RSPCA. ******

The Appellant does not recognise most of the dogs in the photos that the RSPCA claim to be hers. The Appellant wants her dogs back. There should be some type of Police Investigation to get her dogs back from those who have fostered them. Note there was only two litters born to dogs that were fostered. What happened to all the other puppies that were being bred for export orders? The Fraud and perjury is so great that nothing the RSPCA witnesses say can be trusted. People fall in love with their pets. People fostering the Appellant's dogs are unlikely to give them back. The Appellant has also heard that many of her dogs and puppies born to her dogs have been sold.

The Pedigreed record was destroyed by the RSPCA's failure to properly identify the dogs and their refusal to allow the Appellant to identify her dogs. The litigation does not stop at this hearing, it will be ongoing until all the Appellant's dogs are returned.

Count dogs in videos

There are only X dogs in the entry video Court Exhibit 2 that RSPCA did not realise had been given to her by the DPI and was not confisicated in their raid on the 22nd February 2008 because at that time this video was with the Appellant's then solicitors. 17 of these dogs are good looking dogs, the Benji_pet Kennel dogs and puppies were not in need of clipping. There was only X dogs that were matted. This entry video was taken for the purpose of showing the dogs and the conditions. That it shows so few of the 109 dogs on the property must immediately raise suspicions that the case put to the court is not the full truth, but a concoction designed to distort the truth.

There are only Y dogs being clipped in the Entry video Court Exhibit 2, the same dog is being shown being clipped in segments over and over again. This shows another attempt to distort the truth.

The hearing was an open hearing, but none of the hearing days were listed on the information board in the court. This makes the hearing suspect in that the public could not know when and where the hearings were. The media would not come. This, the Appellant was told by a registry staff, is what happens when the media is not wanted to be present in the hearing.

Improper Profit Motive

There is research that shows things go very wrong when government delegate powers without supervision. The Standford Prison Experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment demonstrated this very clearly. Also the Abu Ghraib Torture and prisoner abuse at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse. Fiona Ferguson said that DPI appoint Inspectors and have a private arrangement for RSPCA Chief Inspector Michael Pecic to administer those RSPCA Inspectors. Fiona Ferguson also said the DPI have no role in the Administration of RSPCA Inspectors. She said the DPI have provided guide lines that should be applied to the RSPCA Administration of the Animal Care and Protection Act. This is just the circumstances of the Stanford Prison Experiment.

RSPCA Has a profit motive. RSPCA had demonstrated their interests are not for the care and protection of the dogs seized as intended under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 but for the purpose of profit making. The profits are achieved in these ways:-

If the RSPCA really cared about animals they would have helped or organised some help for the Appellant to clean up the debris from the flash flooding that was washed into the kennels and they would have provided some help in clipping the ten or so dogs that needed clipping.
The RSPCA came with a warrant and Police, Logan City Council employees, Imagination Television, Courier Mail reporters and enough staff to seize all the dogs. It was a planned seizure and media campaign to discredit the Appellant. They had not been at the premises previously to examine the dogs, this was the first recent visit. There were no previous Animal Welfare Directives. The Logan City Council employees and the Film crew were asked to leave but didn't. Lawrie Stageman, on his tape, said the camera crew were there to collect evidence which has not been provided to the Hearing or the Appellant.
RSPCA had presented a bill for $ 253.999.46 for care of the Geraldine's dogs from January 9 2008 to April 2008. RSPCA is seeking an income for the “care” of the Appellant’s dogs when the Veterinary records show that the dogs suffered from lack of care and required an enormous number of veterinary procedures caused by RSPCA’s lack of care in the months following seizure. Geraldine's dogs could live in luxury eating fillet steak and getting the best of everything for years on that sort of money.
RSPCA will be seeking the legal costs of perusing their profit motive in Geraldine's Appeal to get her poodles returned thus making a significant profit for their lawyers who act for RSPCA for the sole purpose of getting those legal costs.
RSPCA have raised Hundreds of thousands of dollars and valuable real properties as donations from the public for the care of the “poor malnourished neglected poodles” from immediately after seizure by defaming Geraldine and her poor poodles.
RSPCA contacted dog food manufacturers who pledged many thousands $ in food for the “poor malnourished poodles”. RSPCA Vet Dr Ann Corvill, RSPCA spokesman Michael Beatty, Chief Inspector Michael Pecic and other employees in the weeks following 9 January 2008 in their telephone appeals, sought donations for the care of the Appellant’s poodles This was achieved by RSPCA's massive defaming of the Appellant in the media, on Internet web sites and in Internet forums continuously to date. (See RSPCA and Petrescue and other Internet sites). The Appellant’s dogs were in fact healthy, happy dogs at seizure.
The Poodle Club of Queensland inc sought donations from all the Poodle Clubs in Australia and others for donations of monies, food and equipment to care for Appellant’s Poodles. Sue Graham is the RSPCA and the Poodle Club of Queensland inc Standard Poodle Rescue Officer and the principle organizer of these appeals.
Fiona Ferguson (DPI) said from the witness box that RSPCA Chief Inspector, Michael Pecic, administers the RSPCA Inspectors using guidelines provided by DPI. She also said DPI do not provide any supervision in any form and it did not bother her that a RSPCA Chief Inspector administers an Act of Parliament. She also said that she relies on the "evidence" supplied to her by RSPCA when she forfeits animals (farmer's animals, pet owner's pets, business assets - live stock of primary producers, trading stock). Fiona Ferguson also said she was not aware that RSPCA was an incorporated business trading in live animals and had pet shop businesses. She said she did not take into consideration, nor did she care, that RSPCA had a self interest in seizing other people's animals (for nothing) for DPI to forfeit to RSPCA to be sold for RSPCA's profit.

RSPCA Have a Profit Motive.

RSPCA are using the court and the Animal care and Protection Act for profit making purposes. RSPCA had demonstrated their interests are not for the care and protection of the dogs seized as intended under the Act but for the purpose of profit making. The profits are achieved in three ways:- I say that the Respondent (2) became an incorporated trading entity within meaning and interpretation of section 51 (xx) of the Commonwealth Constitution and section 4 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 on 23 December 1999 within meaning and interpretation of law established by the Honourable High Court of Australia in R – v – Federal Court of Australia; ex parte W. A National Football League (1979) HCA 6 (1979) 143 CLR 190 or in the alternative; on 05 July 2002 within meaning and interpretation of law established by the Honourable Federal Court of Australia in Orion Pet Products Pty Ltd – v – Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Vic) [2002] FCA 860 (5 July 2002)

a. RSPCA had presented a bill for $ 253.999.46 for care of the Appellant’s dogs from January to April 2008. Respondent (2) is seeking an income for the “care” of the Appellant’s dogs when the Veterinary records show that the dogs suffered from lack of care and required an enormous number of veterinary procedures caused by Respondent (2)’s lack of care in the months following seizure. Exhibit GR6 to this Affidavit is the Affidavit of RSPCA Tracey Jackson which attaches this bill.
b. Respondent (2) will be seeking the legal costs of perusing their profit motive in this Appeal thus making a significant profit for their lawyers who act for Respondent (2) for the sole purpose of getting those legal costs.
c. Respondent (2) has raised Hundreds of thousands of dollars and valuable real properties as and in donations from the public for the care of the “poor malnourished neglected poodles” from immediately after seizure from the Appellant.
d. RSPCA contacted dog food manufacturers who pledged many thousands $ in food for the “poor malnourished poodles”. RSPCA Vet Dr Ann Corvill, RSPCA spokesman Michael Beatty, Chief Inspector Michael Pecic and other employees in the weeks following 9 January 2008 in their telephone appeals, sought donations for the care of the Appellant’s poodles This was achieved by RSPCA massive defaming of the Appellant in the media, on Internet web sites and in Internet forums continuously to date. (See RSPCA and Petrescue and other Internet sites). The Appellant’s dogs were in fact healthy, happy dogs at seizure.
e. The Poodle Club of Queensland inc sought donations from all the Poodle Clubs in Australia and others for donations of monies, food and equipment to care for Appellant’s Poodles. Sue Graham is the RSPCA and the Poodle Club of Queensland inc Standard Poodle Rescue Officer and the principle organizer of these appeals.

17. Respondent (2) makes income from its activities which includes income from activities related to it seizure of animals. The Annual Report of Respondent (2) details the following income:-
a. Approximately 4.427 Million Dollars AUD was derived from trading activities of its animal shelters:- selling pets etc;
b. Approximately 2.559 Million Dollars was derived from retailing activities;
c. Approximately 3.939 Million Dollars was derived from sale of merchandise.

18. Respondent (2) sells pets and in particular dogs calling the sale price “adoption price”. Exhibit GR8 to this Affidavit is a photo of the Respondent (2)’s price list taken at their Fairfield Shelter.

19. Respondent (2) hereto were competitors of the Appellant within the Pet Trade. Continuing to investigate, enforce and prosecute state law enacted by the Animal care and Protection Act 2001 would:-
(a) Contravene section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution;
(b) Create serious conflict of interest;
(c) Create serious potential for abuse of authority.

20. It is submitted that Respondent (2)’s actions in seizing the Appellant’s dogs is an illegal act as it is a breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974. It is a use of market power and the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 to deter and prevent the Appellant from engaging in competitive conduct in the dog market or any other market.

21. It is submitted that the Appellant has a lawful right to conduct her business and that right cannot be taken from her.

22. The Appellant cannot conduct her business because the RSPCA may, at any time, seize her dogs, then perjure them selves that the dog’s conditions were full of urine and faeces with a putrid smell and that they were neglected in need of veterinary care. The threats to her conducting her business are just too extreme. The Appellant has suffered hardship because, under fear of having all her client’s dogs taken, she has not been able to earn an income. In 2008 Respondent (2) profited by $459,744 from seizure of animals and related activities. Exhibit GR11 to this affidavit is page 20 from Respondent (2) Annual Report for the year 2008.

23. That there is considerable incentive on Respondent (2) to seize the Appellant’s dogs and fabricate evidence, perjure and commit fraud on the Appellant is supported by the Respondent’s Annual Report that shows Respondent (2) makes a significant profit from this activity,

24. The Appellant seeks from His Honour an order that the Appellant may conduct her business and earn an income from conducting her business and that she can do this without the threat of all her client’s dogs being seized by the Respondent (2) RSPCA.

25. Invasion of the property, even with a warrant, by Respondent (2) RSPCA hereto would constitute criminal trespass. Seizing animals that were and are stock in trade of the Appellant has and would;
(a) Seriously damage the Appellant’s business;
(b) Breached section 46 (c) of the Trade Practices Act 1974;
(c) Be a serious abuse of authority;
(d) Constitute serious abuse of authority.

The Conduct of the RSPCA

(1). That when Daniel Young and Tracy Jackson spoke to the witness Annette Barrell about the Appellant, both these RSPCA inspectors interfered with the Appellant’s witness.

(2). That Respondent (2) knew and would have known that in their execution of their warrant of the 22nd February 2008 they would obtain the Appellant’s legally privileged documents.

(3). That Margaret Watt’s evidence that she saw three cars full of property and saw Shayne Towers-Hammond going through the Appellant’s handbag without the Appellant being present, in her Affidavit be accepted as fact.

(4). That it was wrong for the Respondent (2) to direct the Appellant to stay out of their way while the warrant of the 22nd February 2008 was executed and property taken.

(5). That the proper thing is that the Appellant, on the 22nd February 2008, be advised of her rights to witness the property taken by Respondent (2).

(6). That failure to properly advise the Appellant of her rights to witness the seizure of the 22nd February 2008 is an indication of intention to take more than the warrant allowed for and is worse as it allowed Respondent (2)’s Inspectors to act criminally against the Appellant.

(7). The failure of Respondent (2) inspectors to issue detailed receipts of all the dogs seized on 9 January 2008 at seizure despite the Appellant insistence at seizure further support the Respondent (2)’s criminal intent.

(8). The failure of Respondent (2) inspectors to have a Veterinarian accompany their entourage to check for injured and sick dogs for seizure as per the Warrant on 9 January 2008 further support the Respondent (2)’s criminal intent.

(9). The failure of Respondent (2) inspectors to allow the Appellant’s requests for a Veterinarian to check out her dogs and identify all her dogs by microchip as they were valuable, irreplaceable pedigreed poodles, at seizure on 9 January 2008 further support the Respondent (2)’s criminal intent.

(10). The failure of Respondent (2) inspectors to issue detailed receipts of all the documents and properties taken on 22 February 2008 despite the Appellant insistence at seizure further support the Respondent (2)’s criminal intent.

(11). That, under the circumstances of an Appeal against Forfeiture to Department of Primary Industries was being prepared, the 28 days allowed for lodging the appeal against forfeiture being the 22 March 2008, the warrant of the 22nd February 2008 was ill advised, and/or alternatively, improper, and/or alternatively illegal and should not have been executed.

(12). That the three (3) employees of Burns Law who witnessed the warrant of the 22nd February being executed be called as witnesses by His Honour. His Honour is conducting a hearing and therefore has the power under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 to call what witnesses he so chooses to call to properly investigate the Appeal before him.

(13). That all the property taken in the warrant executed on the 22nd February 2008 be returned to the Appellant. None of it has been used by the Respondents or has in any way contributed to the Hearing of this Appeal in the Magistrate Court.

(14). That the warrant was for an improper purpose of taking from the Appellant her evidence: dead puppies killed by RSPCA, dog with broken neck, letters written to the Appellant from RSPCA staff about the improper nature of the seizure of her dogs, the interference with the Appellant’s ability to prepare an appeal to DPI, to obstruct the Appellant from conducting a proper appeal as well as concealment of theft of personal items, privileged documents etc, some of which were included in letters of complaints written to the Minister of DPI Respondent (1) were and are still being ignored.

(15). That there is a case that Respondent (2) took property they should not have taken. Valuable property belonging to the Appellant was in fact taken.

(16). That Respondent (2) improperly refused the Appellant access to property taken by Respondent (2).

(17). That there is a fraud occurring in that the dogs being offered up as the Appellant’s pedigreed dogs are in fact a pack of “mongrels” worth no more than $40,000

(18). That the puppies born to the Appellant’s poodles have not been accounted for by both Respondent (1) and Respondent (2) and that these puppies have disappeared is another fraud perpetrated by both the Respondent (1) and Respondent (2).

(19). That Respondent (2) refused to allow the Appellant access to her dogs for micro chipping and identification purposes.

(20). That Respondent (2) when they deliberately failed to properly identify the dogs at seizure destroyed the valuable pedigreed record of the dogs making them pet value instead of pedigreed valued dogs.

(21). That Respondent (2)’s using their Poodle Rescue Officer Sue Graham to conduct their email campaign to the law courts have attempted to pervert the course of justice and have acted improperly.

(22). That Respondent (2) conducted a campaign of harassment using the media to defame the Appellant and cause her harm in her pursuit of justice and safe return of all her invaluable pedigreed dogs which she and her deceased husband had spent 20 + years and a fortune to develop.

(23). That Respondent (2) set out to cause the Appellant hardship by acting to cause her to be unable to conduct her business.

(24). That the Appellant has been a victim of a criminal conspiracy to steal her dogs and then has been punished by respondent (2) for wanting her dogs returned.

(25). That Respondent (2) demonstrated by their conduct, their failure to properly identify the dogs and their refusal to allow the Appellant to identify her dogs, that they had no intention to return the Appellant’s dogs.

(26). That Respondent (2) is in fact in the business of selling dogs by calling it “adoption” and is a competitor of the Appellant’s and their behaviour in seizing all the Appellant’s dogs and seeking that the Appellant does not conduct her business breached section 46(c) of the Trade practices Act.

(27). That Respondent (2) profited from seizing the Appellant’s dogs.

Nature of Seizure

The RSPCA came prepared to seize all the dogs. They had prearranged with Logan City Council for help in transporting the dogs to the Fairfield Shelter. At the time of seizure there were not any Veterinarians in attendance. The warrant states it was for sick and injured animals. The Veterinarian Records show show that at the time of seizure there were no sick and injured animals, regardless of what the Veterinarians say in their evidence, it is the Appellant's submission that these records are the real evidence as it is the record of the treatments required by the Appellant's dogs. But worse, a look through these records show that the Appellant's dogs subsequently, weeks and months later, required lots of attention indicating that the RSPCA kennel management is extremely wanting.

Nature of the evidence Against the Appellant.

When evidence is presented where it has been prompted by someone else, that is, a witness has been told what to say by someone else, then it is dangerous to consider all the evidence of that witness. The nature of the evidence organised against the Appellant is that of a construction for a purpose. It is not normal. Affidavits should be what a person saw not what is needed to win a case.

Four of the witnesses must have been told what to say in their affidavits because they said what they did not see. Katrina Bartley para 5" I noticed when the dogs arrived that none were in cramped or overcrowded conditions. There was no sign of vomit on either the dogs or the floor of the trailers." Katie Heaton para 35"No dogs that I assisted in loading were overcrowded or vomiting. No dogs were injured during the entire loading or transportation process." Ann Corvill said she did not see any vomit and then went onto say there were dags in the floor of the transport cages which means the dogs must have been so badly treated by TSPCA that their hair was pulled out by the roots for the hairy dags to be on the floor. Steven Barrand said " No dogs were overcrowded whilst being transported, no dogs were vomiting or excreting whilst being loaded into the compartments, and no dogs were injured during the entire loading process. Steven Barrand also said "Generally dogs were loaded according to capacity for the trailers ie either 1 large or 2 small dogs per compartment. Some larger compartments were able to house (three) 3 small dogs or 2 (two) large dogs. " That he would say this on his own without prompting from someone else is unlikely. This was in issue because the Appellant in her previous Appeals to DPI had said the dogs were crammed into the dog compartments and were vomiting in fear and urinating and defecating on each other. The Appellant said this would have been the cause of the conditions described when the dogs arrived at the shelter.

Because of this all the evidence of Katrina Bartley and Katie Heaton should be dismissed. Where evidence is implausible "Katie Heaton also said she did in one hour what it would take a normal person 6 hours to do. See the Affidavit on the evidence (findings of facts)" it is dangerous to consider all the witnesses' evidence.

(1). That there was no putrid smell at the entrance yard to the left of the entrance (Shayne Towers-Hammond: “that burnt the back of my throat”)

(2). That His Honour accepts that the Appellant placed the Benji-Pet Kennel puppies into the cages in the house when the RSPCA and their entourage arrived.

(3). That the Benji-Pet Kennel puppies were wet from playing in the rain and were not covered in urine and faeces.

(4). That the Benji-Pet Kennel dogs were not neglected and were in good health.

(5). That the cages the Benji-Pet Kennel puppies were not full of a sludge of faeces and urine and they did not have faeces in their paws as stated by Katie Heaton, Shayne Towers-Hammond and Lawrence Stageman.

(6). That there was no putrid smell in the house where the Benji-Pet Kennel puppies were in their cages.

(7). That there was not a sludge of faeces and urine in the entrance yard left of the entrance as stated by Katie Heaton. There were no faces and urine with a putrid smell in this entrance yard as stated by Shayne Towers-Hammond and Lawrence Stageman.

(8). That the entrance yard was not cleaned between the taking of the Entrance Video (Court Exhibit 2) and the Exit Video (Court Exhibit 24) as stated by Shayne Towers-Hammond.

(9). That Shayne Towers-Hammond in making the statement under oath should be investigated and charged with making a false statement under oath and acted to pervert the course of justice

(10). That the Entrance yard had not been cleaned as stated by Lawrence Stageman, This can be established by viewing the entrance yard (Court Exhibit 2) and Listening to the Tape provided by Lawrence Stageman.

(11). That Lawrence Stageman in making the statement under oath should be investigated and charged with making a false statement under oath and acting to pervert the course of justice.

(12). That the Appellant’s 104 dogs were dragged in tight choker leads some for 330 metres and packed into spaces for 24 dogs for a 45 minutes drive therefore suffered as a consequence. That Respondent (2) be charged for animal cruelty under the Animal Care and Protection Act.

(13). That the kennels were not full of faeces and urine but instead had debris in them caused by the flooding rains.

(14). That two kennels in the 20 kennel block as clearly identified in the exit video had already been cleaned by the Appellant.

(15). That the dogs had been moved to the house holding pens while this cleaning was being done.

(16). That the dogs had been wormed on the morning of the 9th January 2008 as stated by the Appellant.

(17). That arrangements had been made by the Appellant with witness Annette Barrell as stated in her Affidavit and in Court for assistance to clip some of the Appellant poodles.

(18). That the Appellant was treating some dogs for health issues namely ear and eye bacterial infections.

(19). That long wool is not a problem for poodles and is not a threat to their health although it was undesirable to some people. That it is normal in a poodle kennel that a few dogs would sometimes require clipping.

(20). That the poodles with the felted coats were healthy happy dogs as seen bouncing around in the VHS Video Court exhibit 2.

(21). That in a kennel of 100 poodles there will always be some poodles needing clipping and that there were only a small number in need of clipping and this is not a neglect issue. Seen in video provided to television station Channel 10 by Respondent (2).

(22). That the dog (Jason) that died on pneumonia should not have been surgically clipped as the surgical clipping endangered his health. Dogs do not sweat and cool using their tongues and panting. Their “felted coats” although may be undesireable, have a dual purpose of keeping them cool as well as keeping them warm.

(23). That the dog called Ned referred to in Dr Victoria Lomax’s evidence that was Court Exhibit, photographed with maggots could not have had those maggots through normal fly strike.

(24). That the wet felt above Ned’s tail with maggots crawling through it was unlikely and abnormal. Maggots “nest” together and feed on blood and tissue. They do not wander around as seen in the video.

(25). That wet “felted wool” with faeces above Ned’s tail is abnormal and could not happen normally.

(26). That the most likely cause of Ned’s maggots crawling around frantically is a fabrication of evidence and that the maggots were put there.

(27). That Dr Victoria Lomax in making these statements under oath should be investigated and charged with making a false statement under oath and acting to pervert the course of justice.

(28). That the treatment of the dog named Sandy in the Vet’s records, with the ear infection was so extensive because of the neglect of this dog’s ear by RSPCA. It was this neglect that caused the requirement for such extensive treatment. That the RSPCA be charged for not performing their duty of care for this dog. Further examination of the Vet records in Court would reveal that other dogs owned by the Appellant had also been neglected and harmed (bitten by other dogs, infestation of hook worms, massive conjunctives, autopsy reports of death by starvation etc..) by Respondent (2) whilst in their care and charges should be made accordingly.

(29). That the three puppies referred to in Dr Anne Chester’s evidence died due to neglect by RSPCA. These puppies were referred to by bt5406, bt5407, bt5408 black tag numbers.

(30). That the RSPCA kennel manager, staff and vets be investigated and charged under the Animal Care and Protection Act for neglecting these puppies causing them to die from the effects of starvation and neglect.

(31). That these puppies could not have died from complications resulting from hookworm as stated by Dr Anne Chester as they had been treated for hookworm by the Appellant before seizure and the RSPCA after seizure. The fact that RSPCA kennels had an outbreak of hookworms and blamed on the Appellant should be noted and investigated accordingly

(32). That Dr Anne Chester in making the statement under oath should be investigated and charged with making a false statement under oath and acting to pervert the course of justice.

(33). That Katie Heaton could not have done what she said she did in one hour, instructing the Appellant on 2 occasions in dog handling which the Appellant had no recollection of even seeing her on 9 January 2008 and in making the statement under oath should be investigated and charged with making a false statement under oath and acting to pervert the course of justice.

(34). That Penelope Kirk’s evidence is not credible because her cards do not support her statements. That the dogs were packing and fighting each other and because dogs kept in kennels cannot pack as they were separately housed.

(35). That Penelope Kirk’s evidence is irrelevant as it is over ten years old. The fact that her hand written records appeared to be tampered with by numerous different handwritten and also deleted notes which were obviously tampered with should further support tampering of evidence.

20. The suffering of an injustice causes anger, the suffering of injustice in a court causes the greatest anger. The Appellant is very angry because of the injustice she has suffered,
a. when a life’s work was stolen by the RSPCA,
b. when she was defamed, threatened, harassed and assaulted,
c. when she was robbed on both warrants by RSPCA on the 9 January 2008 and 22 February 2008,
d. when she suffered an attempt to ambush her appeal to DPI in this raid – exactly 28 days after the seizure of her beloved dogs on 22 February 2008 when RSPCA removed her computer, business, private, privileged records and properties,
e. when they intimidated her solicitors who then tried to have her diagnosed as mentally unstable with the adult guardian being appointed so her solicitors could raid her assets taking everything she had and cause her to lose in this appeal,
f. when her witnesses were intimidated by RSPCA Inspectors,
g. when her regular veterinarians are afraid to come forward to give evidence for her as Respondent (1) controls their registration board,
h. when she has been told she is not to have animals ever again both by RSPCA lawyers as well as the Poodle Club of Queensland. Both parties were her business competitors,
i. when she was told by Respondent (2)’s lawyers she cannot operate her kennel boarding business
j. when she has already spent a fortune on solicitors for doing nothing much for her,
k. when she had to watch the Respondents witnesses perjury themselves and see the Magistrate acting to protect these witnesses’ crimes from being discovered and then say he will consider their evidence,
l. When the Magistrate tells the Appellant “those dogs were neglected”, “saying felting did not matter”,
m. When she knows many of her dogs have been sold by the RSPCA and others,
n. When the RSPCA are offering up a pack of mongrels in the place of her irreplaceable pedigreed dogs and the Magistrate is playing the game of proving continuity of identity after listening to and witnessing the RSPCA personnel as the most corrupt perjuring bunch of criminals he has probably ever had in his court,