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
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:
The Appellant submits:-
If the raid on 9 January 2008 was a genuine raid from a genuine complaint, the proper approach the RSPCA Officers should have taken when they were concerned for the welfare of the Appellant's dogs was to issue an Animal Welfare Directive. This directive would have stated:-
1) To clip the poodles that were over-coated, and,
2) To clean up the debris from the flooding rains. and,
3) Subsequent inspection within a reasonable period to ensure that the orders had been complied with.
PROOF OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
The raid by RSPCA was a criminal conspiracy to steal all the valuable pedigreed poodles. The facts to support this theft are:-
There was a State wide alert to the public about massive flooding the week before the raid. The worst heaviest rainfall in 20 years where half of the Appellant's Shire was under water. It was still raining lightly during the raid.
RSPCA continuous releases of malicious defaming reports since 12 January 2008 in national and international newspapers and internet sites to current date,
Both RSPCA and Petrescue (owned by RSPCA) continued defaming the Appellant by postings on numerous internet sites press releases from 12 January 2008 to current date,
The early arrival of RSPCA for the raid on 9 January 2008 with an entourage escorted by 2 police vehicles & 4 police officers, indicated RSPCA came from 2 planned locations. The full complement of television media camera crew, Courier Mail and Sunday Mail reporters and camera crew, Some 20 + RSPCA personel with cameras, video and movie cameras - Court Exhibits in CDs and tape are from numerous cut and paste footage of still photos, videos and film, previously organised Shire Council transportation through the Mayor's office, organised members of Poodle Club of Queensland (included from country areas as reported by the medias) to clip and groom Appellant's poodles at RSPCA premises.
Seizure of all dogs, not some dogs were seized clearly indicated the RSPCA's real purpose to steal all the Appellant's valuable pedigreed poodles,
No proper receipts or identification of the dogs was done at seizure in spite of the Appellant's requests at and after seizure, in spite of the Appellant informing the RSPCA that her poodles were valuable,
Receipts issued subsequently 2 weeks after seizure were a deliberate attempt to disguise the identification of the dog. The receipts did not describe any dogs i.e. standard poodle or toy poodle, colour, sex, or age. The dogs were given new names by RSPCA,
The lists of dogs seized supplied by the Appellant to RSPCA listed, colour, sex, name since birth were ignored,
The lists of special needs of some dogs especially the babies and the oldies were also ignored,
The continuing treatment of a few of the dogs for bacterial ear and eye treatment, caused by weather conditions were ignored
The Appellant told RSPCA Inspector Lawerence Stageman who said he told the RSPCA shelter manager and vets, that all the dogs other than 4 dogs, were fed and wormed that morning was also ignored,
The leftover food from the morning feeding is clearly seen in the film footage taken by RSPCA and the media present.
That puppies were expected from pregnant bitches listed and given to RSPCA by the Appellant were not acknowledged,
That males must be kept away from the females as some bitches were in season were obviously ignored as reported by volunteers to RSPCA and members of the Poodle Club of Queensland "...there were 30 bitches pregnant who had puppies..",
That there were 2 litters of puppies seized who were 6 weeks old and not yet weaned by their mothers was totally ignored. Three (3) of these puppies died as a consequence,
No dog was sick or injured at seizure was confirmed by RSPCA veterinarian records The RSPCA through their ignorance of the correct care and treatment of poodles caused these dogs to be sick and died, mated and bred under aged dogs (puppies), kenneled Appellant's poodles with other breeds causing them to be bitten by other breeds of dogs are shown in their records,
Refused to allow Appellant to identify and microchip her dogs. The list of dogs given to the Appellant on 30 May 2008 listed approximate ages of dogs the Appellant did not own at seizure. The photographs supplied as Court Exhibits clearly identified some of the dogs as the 4 months old puppies born since seizure. The others were mostly not identifiable,
RSPCA Chief Inspector Michael Pecic wrote stating their "Black Tag" identification - a numerical plastic numbered tag attached to a dog's collar was "unassailable",
RSPCA Vet Victoria Lomax at the witness box said that the "Black Tag" same numbers are often used for different dogs,
Continous defaming of the Appellant and her dogs by RSPCA spokesman Michael Beatty in the Courier Mail, Sunday Mail, all suburban newspapers, national newspapers and on the internet since 12 January 2008 to current date,
Defaming lies of the Appellant made by RSPCA veterinarians Ann Covill and others to the media,
Defaming comments made by RSPCA Senior Inspector Michael Pecic about the Appellant and her dogs to newspapers, television and internet media,
Sue Graham in liaison as volunteer with RSPCA of 20 years, poodle breeder, the Poodle Rescue Officer of the Poodle Club of Queensland admitting in the Jimboomba Times her continuing vendetta of some 20 years with the Appellant initially causing the Appellant to lose her kennel license with the Shire Council, in criminal conspiracy with RSPCA defaming the Appellant and her dogs on national television, organising the "Save The Poodles Petition" by collecting thousands of signatures for submission to the legal counsels of Australia to ban the Appellant from ever owning any animal for as long as she lives,
RSPCA press releases promoted and encouraged continuous malicious gossip by numerous alias and synonym persons on various pet forums and breeders forums internet sites. Most of these were only removed in October 2008 when Appellant emailed websites owners indicating likely defaming actions,
The lies and perjury of RSPCA Inspectors Shayne Towers-Hammond, Lawrence Stageman, Katie Heaton whom the Appellant did not recollect seeing at her premises. More lies and perjury from RSPCA Veterinarians Anne Chester, Vicki Lomax and Ann Covill who also blatantly stated pointing at Jason (Simba, a 12 years old male apricot standard poodle ordered by RSPCA Vet to deliberately clipped with a surgical clipping blade all over his body and left 2 clumps of longish wool over his hips to accentuate his hip joints as poking out) both on Channel 7 News on 12 and 13 January 2008 and in the newspapers that the Appellant was "...funding her retirement with these malnourished dogs..."
RSPCA Vet Anne Chester who lied at the witness box blaming the death of the 3 standard poodle puppies not yet weaned but regularly wormed, shown in the video clip in Court Exhibit as healthy, pouncing at each other playing happily just prior to seizure. Her incompetence when she tested a sample of feaces handed to her from the "puppies kennels" for hook worms indicated that those puppies had hook worms. The proper test was to test each individual puppy,
RSPCA Vet Victoria Lomax fabricated Ned's (Jack's) rear end as infested with maggots the day after seizure and after she had administered a sedative to Ned before she planted the maggots. Also in another part of the video footage supplied by RSPCA and Court Exhibit clearly shown Ned with no maggots and a dry coat, happily running along to the RSPCA Kennels on arrival and also drinking a lot of water in RSPCA kennels after the 45 minutes drive to RSPCA Fairfield premises. The photo of Ned's woolen coat shaved off shown in Court Exhibit clearly did not have any signs of the alleged maggot infestation. The maggots were not clumped together which is normal for fly strikes, but were crawling over ned's coat in different directions. Ned's coat was wet and maggots and faeces looking material was above Ned's tail. Impossible for a male dog.
RSPCA veterinarian records as confirmed by RSPCA vets as very accurate and correct, clearly shown none of the Appellant dogs were sick or injured on arrival. The treatments given out on 10 January 2008 were sedative and pain killers for injuries caused by the improper close clipping of the poodles' wool coats causing clipper burns and the stress caused by RSPCA from inappropriate treatments e.g. planting maggots on Ned (Jack) and clipping off to his skin all Jason's (Simba's) coat. The Appellant's beloved Simba subsequently died from pneumonia after suffering from 10 January 2008 under RSPCA's "care".
The continuing massive sickness and injuries caused to the Appellant's dogs as mentioned in their veterinarian records for the months following seizure caused by the neglect and improper care of Appellant's pedigreed poodles,
The lies told by RSPCA to prevent the release and shipping of third party dogs namely Benji Pet Kennels, Margaret Watt, and others,
The large number of members of the Poodle Club of Queensland from all over Queensland as said on the television film footage, arriving at RSPCA premises is further evidence RSPCA had conspired with the Poodle Club of Queensland and organised the raid. Sue Graham defaming the Appellant saying the dogs were packing and attacking each other. This is not possible as the dogs were kept separated in kennels. There were no injuries treated by the Veterinarians in recorded in their records at seizure or shortly after seizure.
The pedigreed puppies born since seizure are valuable property belonging to the Appellant. None of these puppies were recorded for the Appellant nor were they accounted for by Respondent (2) nor were they forfeited by Respondent (1). Respondent (2) refused to acknowledge the puppies born from Appellant's bitches after seizure and Respondent ignored the Appellant's claims. Dr Rick Symons Chief Manager Animal Welfare Officer for Respondent (1) clearly stated he took into account Natural Justice in his review of the Appellant's Appeal and again ignored these puppies as well as recommended the Appellant be charged for allowing the newborn puppies to die. These newborn puppies were ignored and left by the Respondent (2) Inspectors in their seizure of their mothers,
To this date the RSPCA has refused the Appellant to view her pedigreed poodles, puppies born and other property seized.
The RSPCA on raid of the 22 February 2008 seized documents which included privileged documents. From 22 February 2008 to 3 April 2008 RSPCA had custody and from 3 April to 2 July 2008 RSPCA lawyers Clayton Utz had custody. The receipts was issued by RSPCA days later after seizure, again like the receipts for the dogs seized were vague. The Appellant's rights to client / solicitor privilege were violated and none of these records have been used in the hearing in the Magistrates Court. The "evidence" stolen has not been relevant to the Respondent's case against the Appellant. It is highly probable the raid of 22 February 2008 was done to frustrate the Appellant in her appeal to the DPI against forfeiture and to cause the Appellant's cause harm.
Items on Appellant's computer had been deleted by Clayton Utz without notification to the Appellant.
The items seized and unaccounted for relating to the Appellant's kennel management and including the private and privileged material seized could have been destroyed by RSPCA. These items are irreplaceable.
The Appellant believed that most of the items seized had been destroyed. The personal items taken included personal jewellery, cash, household items, and items not yet identified could also be kept by Inspectors who conducted the raid,
Eye witness Margaret Watt who saw the 3 trucks full of seized items and produced two (2) affidavits were not taken into account in the trial,
Three (3) trucks full of records, personal and household items were seized but only 4 medium size boxes of copies of documents were returned after Court order on 2 July 2008. Either RSPCA or their lawyers kept or destroyed most of the items seized,
Letter from Respondent's (2) Lawyers Clayton Utz telling Appellant not to conduct her business is a breach of the Trade Practices Act section 46(c) and demonstrates an improper purpose of eliminating competition in the dog breeding business.
The Shire Council employees were also party to the criminal conspiracy. Affidavits submitted to the trial was given by 3 employees of the Shire Council. RSPCA witnesses in the witness box under cross examination said there were 5 Shire Council employees who attended and assisted in the raid. The Mayor of the Shire Council said only 2 Shire Council employees were instructed to attend and only to assist by supplying road transport.
Senior Counsel Anthony Deane refused to answer due to self incrimination at cross examination when asked whether he was aware of the Appellant's Lawyers Robertson O'Gorman applying to the Court for adjournment to enable the Appellant's mentally unstable certification, for an Adult Guardian to be appointed, and withdrawing from the case as Appellant's lawyers.
What the Appellant would have had if her dogs were not seized.
The Appellant told RSPCA Inspctor Lawrence Stageman, her dogs were pedigreed and irreplaceable. RSPCA destroyed the pedigree records by not properly identifying the dogs themselves and/or by not allowing the Appellant to identify and micro chip the dogs. RSPCA by this action devalued the dogs to pet value animals. Worse, the dogs RSPCA are offering as the Appellant's dogs are not the Appellant's dogs. The Appellant knows her dogs and they are not hers.
Her pedigree Poodles known around the world. The good reputation of the dogs "Neiger Poodles" which the Appellant spent twenty plus years developing the genetically clean healthy lines that are now lost forever.
The costs of selective breeding which ran into hundreds of thousands of $. The major costs were in the maintenance of all the dogs in a healthy condition to a mature age. The formula was selective controlled breeding together with natural feeding which meant fresh red meats, vitamins additative , raw meat & bone. Trying to extract the good genetic make up from old near obsolete lineage through running on all the puppies from a litter for years and sample test breeding, running on the resultant puppies & repeating the cycle then after accessing the achievements. For many years, experimentally developed dogs under 3 years old were not bred from until after all the health issues had been satisfied. Ten years & so ago DNA testing was virtually non existing as to colour and many known prevalent diseases. It was only through many years of controlled selective trial and test breeding that the Appellant was able to achieve the goals of good genetic health, excellent temperament in the lineage.
Some of the achievements reflected in most of the poodles included extremely high intelligence, sweet natures, eradicated gastric torsion, depth of coat/wool colour especially important in rare colours, sound conformation/construction - moves correctly with good reach & drive, good head and tail set, dark brown to jet black eyes and proper coloured points, rarely line or inbred, sound hips, no SA, sebaceous gland problems, no PRA progressive retinal atrophy, virtually no cataracts, no HD hip dysphasia, longevity with good health,
All the Appellants records, her genetic test records, veterinary records, history, sales records and contacts, etc..were seized by RSPCA and destroyed,
The Appellant's breeding stock, puppies not even acknowledged by Respondents (1) and (2) and the export business exporting dogs overseas has been destroyed,
The breeding and boarding business, good will and loss of income destroyed by the malicious actions and defamations of Respondent (2) supported by Respondent (1),
???????????The kennel fettered license on the Appellant's property is destroyed by the actions of RSPCA,
The Appellant's good name, reputation, privacy which she had built up over 40+ years and valued highly is also destroyed,
The legal costs, mental and physical anguish and concern to the Appellant caused by the actions and lack of actions to date to correct the injustices of and by both the RSPCA and DPI is vast,
The investment of many years and hundreds of thousands of $ on her dogs, the breeding and testing of her dogs, the data collected over 20 years was destroyed by the criminal acts of RSPCA in collusion with other parties supported by the DPI and government legislation,
The Appellant's cash flow, her retirement income and interest is being spent on the ongoing fight to obtain justice in the courts,
The Appellant lost $5,000,000 in Poodles.
The Appellant's Pedigreed Poodles were valued at $5,000.000 and the spread sheet calculation is available to show their real value. These Pedigreed Poodles were producing puppies that were being exported for $6000, $5000 and $2000 each depending upon the Poodle qualities. The Appellant had a firm order worth $260,000 from Paul Ho in Hong Kong that her pedigreed Poodles had been mated to fill. There were other export and local orders which the RSPCA in their raid of the 22nd February stole and did not return.
The Appellant lost the kennel fettered license on the Appellant's property through the actions of RSPCA. The evidence that there was a fettered licence was stolen by RSPCA Inspectors on the execution of the warrant of the 22nd February 2008.
The Kennel License required continuous operation as a kennel the failure caused the loss of this licence.
The Appellant lost her good reputation as a quality breeder and cannot expect to be able to earn the income she was expecting of $500,000 per year. This would have been achieved as her poodles were capable of supplying 30+ litters per year. The orders and business available had a demand greater than 10 litters at 10 puppies per litters per year.
For ten years this is $5,000,000 in lost income and her beloved poodles $5,000,000 market value at seizure.
The Appellant has suffered great mental and physical injuries and stress, mental trauma.
Since this is a case of a criminal conspiracy to steal the Appellant's dogs the RSPCA must be punished. I submit that an amount such as to ensure this does not happen again must be ordered. ?????? pecunery damages.
SWORN by the deponent
at BRISBANE this _____ day of November 2008.
before me
Justice of the peace