Submission on the Conduct of the Respondents See More details at www.petmafia.com.au 

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)
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 - ON CONDUCT (finding of facts)

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. Criminal Conspiracy to steal the Appellant's property, destroy her business and income and then deny her Justice in the Court. (manifest fraud and Collusion)

R v Boston [1923] HCA 59; (1923) 33 CLR 386 (10 December 1923) 
"Willes J., in delivering to the House of Lords in Mulcahy v. The Queen the opinion of the Judges, said: "A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means."

On the 9th January 2008 the RSPCA Inspector's appropriate response to some poodles being felted and over coated would have been an animal welfare directive to clip those poodles. Instead all the Appellant's World Famous pedigreed Poodles and other dogs were seized. See GR1 to Affidavit on evidence (finding of facts) of Appellant.

The Identity of the dogs seized was deliberately concealed and the pedigreed Record destroyed. RSPCA Refused to provide access to records and dogs seized. There was no intention to return the seized dogs. The puppies born from the bitches have also been stolen and their existence concealed. The Criminal Conspiracy was continued into the trial in the Magistrates Court with perjury about the conditions of the kennels and the conditions of the dogs and perjury about the health of the dogs. See Affidavit on the evidence. 

The RSPCA Veterinarians maintained that the seized dogs suffered from ill health. RSPCA Veterinarian Records show that the dogs did not suffer from ill health at seizure. The ill health of the dogs was very significant well after seizure and could not have been caused by the Appellant's care but was caused by RSPCA's care. See Affidavit on Poodle Health.

On the 22nd February 2008 a warrant was executed and a lot of the Appellants' property was taken. RSPCA would have known there were professionally privileged documents created for the purpose of an appeal against the seizure and the Appellant's dogs. RSPCA would have known that the Appeal to the DPI could be ambushed by this action. The RSPCA did not use any of the documents taken in their defense of their seizure of the dogs and property in the trial in the Magistrates Court. The RSPCA would have known that the taking of the Appellant's computer would have disabled her in the preparation of her Appeal to the DPI. Without the intervention of a solicitor, Anthony Deane of Clayton Utz,  the warrant would not have been created and exercised. Documents and some of the property taken, was supplied to the RSPCA Solicitor,  Anthony Deane of Clayton Utz, acting for the Respondent (2).  This Warrant exercised on the 22nd February 2008 should be considered as a fraud for the purpose of  depriving others, the Appellant, of their property or of the opportunity to protect their interests. See Appellant's Affidavit - sworn 4th August 2008 - Things taken  

The RSPCA deliberately caused the Appellant hardship through loss of income from her business, grief at the loss of her beloved Poodles, fear and terror from the many threats, abuse, assaults she has suffered through the defaming RSPCA caused to be published. The Appellant has been unable to conduct business and is in a short term financial crisis because of this.

Baker v Campbell [1983] HCA 39; (1983) 153 CLR 52 (26 October 1983)
Question: In the event that legal professional privilege attaches to and is maintained in respect of the documents held by the firm can those documents be properly made the subject of a search warrant issued under s. 10 of the Crimes Act?
Answer: No. 
The Warrant clearly identifies documents that may be subject to Legal Professional Privilege, documents created about the kennels and the kennel management that were created for the purpose of the Appeal to the DPI for the return of the dogs. See Appellant's Affidavit - sworn 4th August 2008 - Things taken  

The RSPCA's through the Poodle Club of Queensland's Standard Poodle Rescue Officer, Sue Graham, who aided in organising the clipping and grooming, (Channel 10 Video See exhibit GR4 to the Affidavit on the evidence (finding of facts) of the Appellant) re-homing /fostering, whelping of pregnant bitches at seizure, selling the puppies born and conducted a campaign designed to cause the Appellant to be unable to obtain justice from the courts. The Appellant's solicitors would not accept the Appellant instructions and one made an attempt to have the Adult Guardian appointed and the Appellant declared mentally unfit to instruct her solicitors.

The Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, would have made use of professionally privileged documents in the construction of the conspiracy. The Appellant could not get any Veterinarians to support her in her Appeal. Witnesses have been perjuring themselves and in doing so have acted in concert. Significant parts of the Respondents evidence is "inconceivable", "highly improbable" and "implausible". It becomes apparent there is an agreement to use dishonest means - Intention to prejudice or imperil the rights or interest of the Appellant. The dishonesty is a characteristic of the means agreed to be employed to effect the fraud and is also descriptive of what is involved in fraud.

Lord Diplock in R v Scott. His Lordship observed: 
"Where the intended victim of a 'conspiracy to defraud' is a private individual the purpose of the conspirators must be to cause the victim economic loss by depriving him of some property or right, corporeal or incorporeal, to which he is or would or might become entitled. The intended means by which the purpose is to be achieved must be dishonest. They need not involve fraudulent misrepresentation such as is needed to constitute the civil tort of deceit. Dishonesty of any kind is enough." 

" The House of Lords accepted and acted on the opinion; and it has been adopted by the Privy Council (Attorney-General for Australia v. Adelaide Steamship Co.). It is not necessary to define the exact limits of the word "unlawful" in that connection, because it is beyond doubt that at all events they include the case where a member of Parliament agrees for pecuniary remuneration to violate the law regulating his duties in that capacity. Such violation may be positive or negative: it may consist of improper action or improper inaction. It is wholly independent of the merits of the matter in respect of which it takes place.

An application was made to the Court that the RSPCA were in contempt of Court. The Affidavit sworn 28th July 2008 supports this application. See Application and affidavit sworn 28th July 2008 contempt of Court by RSPCA

2.  The Appellant spent 20 years building her World Famous Pedigreed Poodle blood lines.

1. The Appellant had spent twenty years breeding her famous pedigreed quality poodles. The Appellant had rare apricot and red pedigreed poodles worth a premium because of their rare and special properties. The Appellant built her blood lines by carefully selecting and importing four dogs from the UK and by researching and carefully selecting and purchasing other dogs from within Australia many of which were themselves imported or from imported blood lines. The Appellant then used expensive genetic testing to eliminate genetic diseases. She also selectively bred for desirable traits. The Appellant built her high quality pedigree stock and had reached a stage in her business development where her world famous pedigree poodles were sought after by breeders around the world. A quick Google of "Neiger poodles" reveals the extent of her world reputation and the recognition of the quality of her poodles. A quick look at Geraldine Robertson's photo collection Poodle results shows how her world famous Neiger Poodles were loved around the world.

3.  Who Profited from the Criminal Conspiracy

1. The RSPCA Poodle  Rescue Officer and the Poodle Club of Queensland Poodle Rescue Officer is Sue Graham. The Appellant has been told and verily believe that the sale of over 600 rare and special poodle puppies born has been organised and managed by this Poodle Rescue Officer. At prices of over $1000.00 each for the puppies, this being the local price, and prices very much higher for adults, the estimated profit from this criminal conspiracy has to be about $1million.
2. Naturally nothing is being said in court about what happened to the dogs and puppies born to them. This fraud has to be covered up. His Honour is aiding and abetting this cover up by refusing to allow the Appellant to properly identify her dogs and discover this fraud.
3. The Appellant had orders from Hong Kong for her rare and special Poodles. GR1 to this Affidavit is an order from Hong Kong that the Appellant was unable to fill because her poodles were stolen. GR1 to this Affidavit is an order from Hong Kong
4. I have been told and I verily believe that some breeders have been passing my poodle puppies off as their own breeding and have been registering them as pedigreed poodles. The way these dogs are being sold in also illegal.

   "Criminal Code Act 1899 S. 431 Frauds on sale or mortgage of property Any person who, being a seller or mortgagor of any property, or being the solicitor or agent of any such seller or mortgagor, with intent to induce the purchaser or mortgagee to accept the title offered or produced to the purchaser or mortgagee, and with intent to defraud—
   (a) conceals from the purchaser or mortgagee any instrument material to the title, or any encumbrance; or
   (b) falsifies any pedigree on which the title depends or may depend;
   is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 2 years."

4.   Lies and their plausibility

1. Occam's Razor "Entities should not be multiplied more than necessary" because this reduces plausibility. The KISS principle says "Keep It Short and Simple". People who fabricate lies and want those lies to be big enough to work violate these principles. It is my submission that the evidence provided by the RSPCA clearly violate these principles. But worse, His Honour C J Strofield, is actually entertaining the implausible lies of the RSPCA as factual evidence. His Honour is thus either corrupt or a fool. Either way, he must resign, he cannot be a judge in this matter.
   
2. There are two types of lies, the rehearsed lie and the cognitive lie. Rehearsed lies are told very fluently and cognitive lies are told with the over head of a thought process and invention so are full of pauses and distractions. There are two types of liars, the defensive liar and the aggressive liar. Simply observing behaviour, especially when they have to cognitively lie, which does not appear in the transcripts, will indicate the liar type. Lawrence Stageman is an aggressive liar and Shayne Towers-Hammond is a defensive and cautious liar. The autonomic nervous system responds 300 milliseconds ahead of the controlled presentation. Simply observing facial expressions and behaviours is also an indication of lying. That His Honour C J Strofield allows lies and accepts lies makes him unfit to be a Judge.
   
3. One would expect a Judge to have the experience to be able to recognize liars even when their lies are plausible. His Honour C J Strofield deliberately watches the lies being told and accepts the implausible and plausible lies as evidence upon which he will make his decision. His Honour is either too corrupt or too incompetent to be a Judge and must go.

5.   Malice and Fraud by RSPCA - Intention to steal, deliberately concealing identities.

1. His Honour has refused to allow the Appellant to discover the act of malice and intention of theft by Respondent (2) when they deliberately destroyed the pedigree value of her world famous pedigree poodles. Respondent (2) after being told by the Appellant, her dogs were valuable pedigreed poodles and would like them to be identified and micro chipped  as they were being taken, refused to allow the Appellant to micro chip her poodles and refused to allow the Appellant to properly identify those dogs when and after the "Order To Seize ALL The Dogs" was given. Respondent (2) regularly refused and or ignored the Appellant's lawyers' requests over the following days and weeks, to allow the Appellant to inspect and identify her valuable pedigreed poodles.  These emails will confirm an effort was made to have dogs identified. Exhibit GR3 to the Affidavit of Geraldine Robertson sworn 21st July 08. That these arrangements were made for treatment and shipment of the Benji-Pet Kennel puppies with Defendant (2)’s Senior Inspector Pecic is confirmed in a letter written to Mr M Pecic on the 21st January 2008. Exhibit GR2 to this affidavit is this is that letter.  
   
2. Geraldine Robertson gave the RSPCA a list by names and full description of each dog seized on the 9th January 2008. This list included the dogs names and description of each dog and any special needs e.g. vaccinations due on the puppies, continued treatment of a couple of dogs that had bacterial and fungal infected ears and eyes and special diets and treatment for some old dogs.  The RSPCA refused to allow identification, micro chipping and deliberately renamed all of the dogs. The RSPCA destroyed the identities of all of Geraldine Robertson's world famous pedigree poodles. 
   
3. Respondent (2) did not issue proper receipts as described and as prescribed  by Section 150 of the Animal Care and Protection Act. Court Exhibit 16 is this improper receipt  4456, date of seizure 9.1.2008.  For dogs worth about $60,000 each this receipt is entirely inadequate.  Respondent (2) did not provide a colour photograph of each dog seized together with a full detailed description of each dog and the dog's identification details as promised by both RSPCA Inspectors Lawrence Stageman and Shayne Towers-Hammond at seizure. On 31 May 2008 Respondent (2) supplied the Appellant with a typed list of dogs seized (Court Exhibit 32) but this list of dogs seized bore little resemblance to the actual valuable dogs seized. The subsequent issue of photographs (Court Exhibits 31) were photographs of the same old aged dogs taken at different angles after seizure and others were taken in May 2008 of 4 months old puppies taken in May 2008 probably off springs left unshaven since birth from the pregnant pedigreed bitches. There were no photos of her valuable pedigreed breeding poodles. These dogs are still not properly identified by Respondent (2).
   
4. The Respondent (2) had in fact destroyed the pedigree records and devalued the dogs from being worth $58,000 each as pedigree breeding dogs to $250 as pets dogs. They caused a devaluation from $5,011,500 to $40,000 of the Appellant's dogs. See the calculations GR2 to the Appellant's Affidavit on the evidence (findings of fact). All of the poodles were pedigreed and their parentage could be traced up to 12 and more generations of breeding. These poodles pedigrees are irreplaceable as most of the lineage are long deceased as the Appellant has a history of not breeding her poodles until they are fully mature, at least 3 to 5 years old. They comprised of numerous pedigree lines to ensure the Appellant could breed sound unrelated or remotely related pedigreed poodles without known genetic diseases or faults and with known parentage. 
   
5. The refusal to allow the Appellant to properly identify her dogs means that this pedigree information has now been lost. A pedigreed poodle bitch with known pedigree that is well respected for its quality, can produce puppies worth an average of $5000 each and more. The Appellant's pedigreed poodle bitches has significant value and is highly sought after. The Appellant had world famous pedigree poodles worth $5million. A breeding adult pedigreed standard bitch can produce litters of an average of ten (10) puppies (from 9-13 puppies) worth $5,000 each and three of these litters can be bred in two years. $75,000 worth of valuable pedigree puppies can easily be derived from one or 2 litters annually. 
   
6. The Appellant's reputation and quality was such that she was able to supply a world demand for quality pedigree poodles. This was taken from her when Respondent (2) seized her dogs and refused to properly identify them and did not allow the Appellant to properly identify them herself.
   
7. The Appellant had a business selling pedigree poodles to the world See GR1 to the Appellant's Affidavit on the Evidence (finding of facts).  This business has been destroyed by the Actions of the Respondent (2), the RSPCA. 
   
8. The loss of income and the loss of capital value of this business is significant, not yet valued.

6.   Submission on Fraud and Theft by RSPCA - Identification of valuable properties.

1. His Honour has refused to allow the Appellant to discover the fraud of Respondent (2) when they substituted other dogs of significantly less value for her pedigree dogs. Dogs of pedigreed value have been replaced with dogs of pet value. Respondent (2) Senior Inspector Michael Pecic assured the Appellant's lawyers the dogs were all tagged with their "unassailable Black Tag" system being a plastic numbered tag attached to each dog. Exhibit GR3 to this affidavit is this letter.
   
2. One Poodle was in show trim. This poodle has totally disappeared from the pictures shown as Geraldine Robertson's poodles. This is not mistakable - sho9w trim makes a poodle standout and very obvious.
   
3. Respondent (2) Veterinarian Dr Lomax said in cross examination that often same tag numbers were used for other dogs. This assurance by RSPCA Senior Inspector Michael Pecic is a lie. Court Exhibit 31 is a photo list of mongrel poodles worth less than $40,000 that bears no resemblance to the Appellant's dogs. Respondant (2) is committing a fraud in the court and his Honour will not allow the Appellant to discover this fraud.
   
4. His Honour has refused to allow the Appellant to discover the fraud of Respondent (2) when they did not issue proper receipts for all business, private and personal records totally unrelated to kennel activities were removed. Court Exhibit 16 is not a receipt consistent with the requirements of Section 150 of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001.

7.  Submission on Fraud by RSPCA  - Puppies born 

1. His Honour has refused to allow the Appellant to discover the fraud by Respondent (2) of the puppies born to her pedigree dogs. At the time of seizure there was an order from Hong Kong for sixty (60) of those puppies at prices of (20 x $2000 each, 20 x $5000each and 20 x $6000each being a total of $260,000). The price for these dogs was because of their famous quality pedigree breeding. This puppy record Respondent (2) has caused to be lost. The Appellant had expected 126 puppies to be born to her pregnant bitches. 
   
2. The remaining 66 puppies would also have been sold for an average price of $3000each. Many would have been sold neutered for $2000 each, others for $3,000each and there the Appellant expected more overseas orders for from $4,000 to $6,000 each. The Appellant had customers for many of these dogs and had advertisements on the internet to sell the rest of them. Another $200,000 in income from these poodles was reasonably anticipated.
   
3. The loss of the pedigree record now makes these dogs worth $250 each as pets. This was done by the Respondent (1) and Respondent (2) when the Respondent (1) brags in its emails and web site "Profitable primary industries for Queensland". 
   
4. An examination of the Veterinarians Records bt 5595 Court Exhibit 33 and photograph 35 bt 5595 Court Exhibit 32 clearly indicated that this 6 months old puppy at seizure was bred with by RSPCA shortly after seizure See GR11 to the Affidavit on the evidence (finding of facts) of the Appellant. The Appellant's males and females dogs were always kept separated on the 5 acres fully developed parkland kennel property.   

8. Submission on the RSPCA conduct and improper motives and behaviour.

1. The RSPCA have powers delegated to its Inspectors by the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (DPI&F) under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. What the Inspectorate of RSPCA does it is supposed to do under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. 
   
2. RSPCA Inspectors are appointed by the DPI&F.  The DPI&F approve RSPCA seizures by forfeiting the animals seized by the RSPCA, for the RSPCA. This Act empowers the RSPCA Inspectors to seize animals IF they have a reasonable belief that the carer is not properly exercising a duty of care towards the animals in their custody. RSPCA Inspectors could not have had a reasonable belief that the animals were suffering neglect when they have to invent evidence with lies told to a court.  See:
   
3. See Affidavit on the evidence: fabrication of evidence, theft of property and evidence, perjury, fraud, interference with witnesses, intimidation ...
   
4. See affidavit on Poodle Health - Veterinarian Records  
   
5. The DPI&F have the power to forfeit the seized animals to the RSPCA when they are convinced by the RSPCA that the animals were neglected. Geraldine Robertson's poodles were forfeited  by DPI&F to the RSPCA based on the lies submitted to DPI&F. There was no investigation of the facts submitted by Geraldine Robertson in the Appeal to the DPI&F although DPI&F's Animal Manager Dr Rick Symons wrote in his confirmation of forfeiture "natural justice" was taken into account in his confirmation decision AFTER requesting a further report from RSPCA Vet Dr. Anne Chester which was not available to the Appellant previously,  and recommended that the Appellant be charged for allowing 50 grams new born puppies to die after RSPCA inspectors had taken their mothers away and left the newborn babies, was fully aware of RSPCA raid on 22 February 2008 (Scheduled date for forfeiture 28 days after seizure of Appellant's dogs) when all records and computer were removed and not returned until court order on 2 July 2008. The scheduled dateline for lodgement of Appeal against forfeiture was 28 days from date of forfeiture. See Affidavites and Exhibits lodged by Appellant and Respondents (1) and (2).

9. RSPCA Money Motive - Deliberate "Legal" Theft.

1. Would RSPCA Officers be prepared to lie to keep poodles worth $5million and their puppies worth $500,000.00?  
   
2. The RSPCA mated a female pup at 6 months, (See GR11 to the Affidavit on the evidence (finding of facts) of the Appellant) see also Vet Records for bt5595. This action by RSPCA is pure greed. At six (6) months of age the mother is still a baby. All males were kept separated from females in Appellant's kennel property. Geraldine Robertson does not breed her standard poodles until they are three (3) to five (5) years of age.  Sue Graham sold a brown standard male puppy from one of Geraldine Robertson's pregnant pedigreed bitch seized by RSPCA on 9th January 2008 to Marilyn Diamond for $150. Letter of Paulina Jones. Sue Graham also told Marilyn Diamond the puppy was from Geraldine Robertson's pregnant poodle seized on 9th January 2008 and if Geraldine Robertson found out she has the puppy she would have to pay a lot more monies for the puppy, also it must not to be taken out to public places as the puppy has kennel cough. Geraldine Robertson did not have any miniature poodles. She only had standards and toys. So where did the mini poodle come from that featured in RSPCA inspired newspaper articles and web pages? Exhibit GR4 to this affidavit is the Letter of Paulina Jones.
   
3. The RSPCA sell pets to the public to raise money for themselves under the pretence of adoption / fostering. Geraldine Robertson has been told by RSPCA witnesses in court that all her dogs have been placed into foster care. However these dogs have been sold. The sale of pets (from seizures) is a significant source of income for the RSPCA. The other significant source of income is donations raised from the sympathetic public in cash, houses and other assets. Donations raised in cash, houses and other assets through sympathy created by RSPCA media machine that manipulates the public into seeing animal neglect where there is none, is another major source of income to the RSPCA. Exhibit GR5 to this affidavit is photos proof that The RSPCA sell pets to the public to raise money for themselves.
   
4. The RSPCA are using the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 to raise monies for themselves.
   
5. The RSPCA have a conflict of interest in that:  

             i.    RSPCA have a money motive for seizing animals and (They sell pets)
             ii.   A duty to implement the Animal Care and Protection Act. 

    f    It is only to be expected there would be improper conduct and purposes in RSPCA actions when they seize animals. 

10.  The RSPCA attempted to ambush/prevent Geraldine Robertson's Appeal against the DPI forfeiture of her dogs. 

1. His Honour refused to accept relevant evidence in Margaret Watt's statutory declarations.
   
2. The RSPCA had obtained a second warrant to collect records from her premises. This time they took her computer, kennel records and personal and private records and valuables. This included her Vet reports, receipts for sales of poodles, bank statements, share certificates, cash, jewellery and many other valuables. Some of what the RSPCA took has been listed in the Appellant Affidavit of 4_8_08 things taken. Margaret Watts witnessed this warrant being exercised. Margaret Watt put down what she saw on an affidavit dated 12 March 2008 and another affidavit 26 July 2008. She said she saw RSPCA Inspector Shayne Towers-Hammond going through Geraldine Robertson's handbag in her absence, watched by RSPCA Inspector Daniel Young. Margaret Watts also said she saw three cars loaded with Geraldine Robertson's property.
   
3. What did the the warrant executed on the 22nd February 2008 achieve for the RSPCA? 
4. It gave the RSPCA an opportunity to get some more evidence, but none of this evidence has been used by them in Court.
5. It gave the RSPCA a chance to cover up by stealing evidence, the puppies RSPCA killed in their seizure and the dog who's neck broke stored in the freezer went missing. 
6. Lots of letters and documents provided to the Appellant about the seizure from people in the know also went missing.
7. The evidence that the Appellant could use to show her dogs were well fed, vaccinated and wormed, that they were cared for went missing.
8. It gave the RSPCA a chance to find out what the Appellant's case was and they collected all her legally privileged documents including all correspondence to her solicitors and the documents that were stored on her computer.
9. It caused the Appellant hardship in the preparation of her appeal to the Department of Primary Industries, the loss of her computer and records made preparing an appeal to the DPI more difficult. 
10. It caused the Appellant lost access to the internet and the Appellant could no longer communicate with her solicitors efficiently. The Appellant had to use a slow old type writer in place of her computer to record evidence and provide solicitors with the details for her Appeal.
11. When they stole personal belongings and her valuables it caused her greater distress. The depression and fear this raid caused further impaired the Appellant in perusing her cause. 
12. The kennel records contained the names, addresses and phone numbers of all the people who had been to Geraldine Robertson's kennels and put their dogs into her kennels in the previous years. In the Christmas and New Year period there were about twenty (20) people who boarded their dogs with Geraldine Robertson. When RSPCA stole these records they took Geraldine Robertson's witnesses to the condition of the kennels prior to seizure. (The witnesses who were prepared to come forward for Geraldine Robertson were contacted by RSPCA and intimidated, some then refused to help.)
13. Conclusion: The Raid was for an improper purpose, a purpose other that the purpose stated on the warrant.

11.  The RSPCA had no intention to return Geraldine Robertson's dogs and puppies. 

1. The photos of Geraldine Robertson's dogs subsequently provided to her and stated as being all her dogs at seizure, (court exhibits 31 and 32) did not include the red and brown adult standard poodles and are mostly young male dogs, most likely some of  the puppies born since seizure. There has not been any mention of the 260 poodle puppies born since seizure. They are not mentioned anywhere. Her dogs would have come into season again and would have been mated again. What is happening to her dogs?
   
2. This is supported by RSPCA's deliberate continuous refusals since 9th January 2008 to allow Geraldine Robertson to properly identify her dogs and microchip them. Every effort was made and letters were written to arrange inspection and identification of Geraldine Robertson's dogs. 
   
3. Letter Robertson O'Gorman to Clayton Utz summarizes the situation and makes these requests.  Exhibit GR3 to Affidavit of Appellant sworn 21 / 7/08 contains this letter and related emails showing the efforts made. That the Respondent (2) RSPCA cancelled appointments made and refused these efforts is also supported in this exhibit.
   
4. The Respondent (2) (RSPCA) was asked, under S151 Animal Care and Protection Act 2001, to allow Geraldine Robertson to inspect her dogs seized on 9th January 2008.  This is Geraldine Robertson's legal right. The RSPCA do not obey the law. They could not obey the law because 46 of the dogs were shipped out (sold) to breeding kennels immediately after seizure. This evidence was supplied to Geraldine Robertson and was seized and stolen by the RSPCA in their raid of the 22nd February 2008 when the RSPCA Inspectors took her computer and other material. This is detailed in the Appellant's Affidavit sworn 4/8/08  the affidavit of things taken. An Application filed 28th July 2008  was made to the Magistrates Court that the RSPCA be found to be in contempt of Court. The Appellant's Affidavit sworn 28th July 2008 support this Application. This Application, Affidavit and Exhibits was dismissed by His Honour.
   

12. Due to the massive amount of perjury and His Honour’s stated willingness to consider this perjury the Appellant fears there will not be a just decision.

a.  The Appellant has been impaired in her being able to get Natural Justice and a  fair hearing because:- 

1. Witnesses have been intimidated by RSPCA Inspectors Tracey Jackson. Daniel Young.  
   

2. Property was taken and removed from the Appellant. The evidence she could have used to show she exercised her duty of care towards her dogs. This has been detailed in an Application and Affidavit filed 28th July 2008 to the court that the RSPCA is in contempt of court. 
   

3. Veterinarians in private practices have demonstrated fear of giving evidence against the RSPCA because of their fear of how this would impact their business and reputation. Veterinarians practicing registrations must be registered through the DPI&F and vets say they do not want trouble with their registration nor the associated adverse publicity..
   

4. The RSPCA’s vicious and malicious media publicity See Exhibit GR6 to the Appellant's Affidavit sworn 21st July 2008. Also RSPCA inspired Sue Graham Poodle club of Queensland "save the poodles campaign See Exhibit GR10 to the Appellant's Affidavit sworn 21st July 2008. Respondent (2)'s RSPCA's Michael Beatty's press releases have intimidated and scared witnesses for the Appellant away from the court  See Exhibit GR11 to the Appellant's Affidavit sworn 21st July 2008.
   

5. The Appellant has been caused prejudice as the RSPCA Media publicity has made the issue a political issue resulting in the possibility of a political decision rather than a judicial decision. A petition aimed at Judges and the Legal Council of Australia that would cause bias was circulated via email. See Exhibit GR3 to the Appellant's Affidavit sworn 4th August 2008.   Also emails by Sue Graham, RSPCA's standard poodle rescue officer, See Exhibit GR4 to the Appellant's Affidavit sworn 21st July 2008. 
   

6. There is a stench of corruption as there has been involvement of the Poodle Club of Queensland and others who have a self interest and want the poodles for themselves. There are behaviours that raise suspicion of corruption. The Pet Mafia and the numerous recent seizures.  
   

7. Queensland courts have been lobbied by the Poodle Club of Queensland to make a decision against the Appellant. See Exhibit GR3 to the Appellant's Affidavit sworn 4th August 2008. (at end of pdf file).
   

8. Witnesses are lying to the court and his Honour has indicated he is going to accept their perjured evidence. His Honour has stepped in and frustrated the Appellant in her attempts to prove this perjury. See the Appellant's Application and affidavit filed 26th August 2008.
   

9. Geraldine Robertson's computer was seized by the RSPCA Inspectors Shayne Towers-Hammond, Lawrence Stageman and Daniel Young. Geraldine Robertson's computer seized on 22 February 2008 was held by RSPCA until 3 April 2008 when it was delivered to Clayton Utz Lawyers and held until 2 July 2008 when the Court ordered it be returned to Geraldine Robertson. Significant numbers of files had been removed and some had been replaced with Clayton Utz Documents. Exhibit GR6 to this affidavit demonstrates this by the screen shots of replacement files.
   

10. The Appellant has been so concerned that she will not get the law applied to the real facts that she made an application to the Court that His Honour resign due to his demonstrated bias. On the 26th August the Appellant filed an application that the judge resigns because he is biased.

13.  The RSPCA conducted a campaign of harassment.  

1. The RSPCA used the Media and the Poodle Club of Queensland to conduct a campaign of harassment with an improper purpose of perverting the course of Justice and causing the Appellant grief in the court. This is supported by Exhibit GR4 to Affidavit of Appellant sworn 21 / 7/08
   
2.  This campaign of harassment was detailed in the Appellant's affidavit sworn 21st July 2008. Further support for a campaign of harassment was the RSPCA's determine to cause the Appellant to have no income from her business. Letter from Clayton Utz 29th February 2008- Not to conduct business. Exhibit GR7 to this affidavit is this letter.
   
3. His Honour, with Respondent (2)'s barrister, Kerry Mellifont,  deliberately arranged to restrict the matters in the trial to the two issues of the reasonable belief of the Respondent (2)'s Inspectors when they seized the dogs and to the decision by Respondent (1) when the order to forfeit the dogs was made. In doing this they deliberately eliminated any investigation of the conduct of Respondent (2) and thus aided and abetted the frauds to the Court by Respondent (1) and Respondent (2). When his Honour did conspire with Respondent (1) to do this his Honour proved his corruption and bias. This was not an error in law, but was a deliberate decision for a corrupt purpose. His Honour must resign as judge because he is corrupt and biased. 
   
4. Queensland Criminal Code Act 1899 and Queensland Defamation Act 2005 (Inciting violence) (criminal defamation) (defamation)
   

5. The Appellant has had her poodles worth $5million taken, her business closed, her expected puppies worth at least $250,000 of which RSPCA had sold without acknowledgement & other business 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. 
   

6. Sue Graham Life Member of the Poodle Club, Standard Poodle Rescue Officer with Poodle Club of Qld has been circulating malicious and vicious emails to the public asking them to support their Save the Poodles Petition since 9 January 2008. This petition is still ongoing - see GR4 to this Appellant's affidavit sworn 21/7/08. Geraldine Robertson verily believes it has caused people to make complaints against her to the RSPCA and others and has caused people to be hostile towards her. It states "We the undersigned call on the Law Courts of Queensland to put a stop to the abuse, cruelty and neglect of the 100+ Poodles that were seized by RSPCA on Wednesday the 9th January 2008, by not allowing the owner - Mrs Geraldine Fooi Fong Robertson to retain ownership. We also petition that she never be allowed to own animals of any description again." 
   

7. The RSPCA made and showed numerous film movie footage made by TV Channel 7 at RSPCA premises, which were shown on national and international television. This footage was constructed to deliberately mislead the public about the condition of Geraldine Robertson's dogs. Geraldine Robertson submit this film footage was highly prejudicial towards her and has invoked hatred and anger towards her. The RSPCA have release fabricated malicious defaming statements with photos taken at RSPCA premises printed in newspapers and posted on the internet repeatedly, following the seizure on 9 January 2008 causing the Appellant prejudice and thus the Appellant was unable to get a fair hearing. Exhibit GR6 to the Appellant's affidavit sworn 21/7/08 is an example of this material. Sue Graham Poodle club of Queensland also made an effort to help in this campaign. See  Exhibit GR6 to the Appellant's affidavit sworn 21/7/08. RSPCA's  Michael Beatty also put in his effort. Exhibit GR6 to the Appellant's affidavit sworn 21/7/08. 
   

8. RSPCA Vet Dr Anne Elizabeth Covill was shown on national television pointing at Jason (my beloved Simba) a 12 years old apricot standard poodle after having ordered he be clipped to his skin saying " she was funding her retirement from breeding from these poor malnourisned dogs". Simba died from pneumonia in March 2008 whilst in RSPCA care. RSPCA kept him in a shipping container converted into wired pens, he used to live happily in a brick kennel larger than 5 metres long and 1.5 metres wide with full access to grass acreage yard. This film footage also shown the business sign with address and telephone number of my kennel property.

14. RSPCA used the Poodle Club of Queensland to pervert the course of Justice

1. The Appellant also had two firms of lawyers who would not accept and act on her instructions and whom she had to dismiss and then had to become self represented in her Appeal against the forfeiture and seizure of her dogs. That one of those firms made an application to the court for the Appellant to see a psychiatrist and have the Adult Guardian appointed to manage her affairs indicates how harmful this campaign was to the Appellant. 
   
2. (582 Charge of procuring commission of offence or wrongful act) (132 Conspiring to defeat justice) (defamation)
   
3. Email by Sue Graham are included in the file. See Exhibit GR3 to the Appellant's affidavit sworn 4th August 2008. 
4. Sue Graham made false accusations that the poodles were packing and attacking each other. An impossibility as they were in their own kennels. This was stated on Channel 10 News. See GR5 to the Affidavit on the evidence (finding of fact) of the Appellant.

15.  RSPCA Refused to provide access to Dogs and Records Seized (breach of section 151 of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001) Refused proper identification.

1. His Honour has refused to allow the Appellant to discover that the Respondent (2) (RSPCA) did not comply with Section 150 and Section 151 nor the Spirit of the legislation of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 when they did not provide a proper receipt or allow for proper identification of the dogs seized. Respondent (2) failed to properly identify these dogs and refused the Appellant access to her dogs for proper identification by micro chipping her dogs. 
   
2. The receipts issued did not comply with the Act or the Spirit of the Act in particular to the nature and circumstances of the seizure - raid by Respondent (2) accompanied by an entourage of full complement of Television and News Media based on a foundless complaint whereby all 104 dogs present were seized, no dog seized was sick or injured.
   
3. The RSPCA refused to provide Geraldine Robertson access to her records (seized property).  Clayton Utz Letter of the 4th March 2008 "As this matter remains an investigation at this stage, our client does not presently intend to give you access to the investigation records (including the photographs and video footage referred to in your facsimile)."  This is in direct conflict with the Provisions and Intent of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. What is amazing is that the RSPCA have no powers themselves under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 and they behave as though they own the act and have cost the Appellant $60,000.00 in legal fees which arose as costs of dealing with the RSPCA through lawyers. Geraldine was not allowed access to her seized records and computer to prepare her Appeal to the DPI&F. Exhibit GR8 to this affidavit is this letter.
   

4. The RSPCA refused to provide Geraldine Robertson access to inspect and identify her dogs. Since the dogs were "in foster homes" there was no way for her to see her dogs again. Paragraph 4 of this letter GR8 " Animals seized on 9 January 2008  (b) Certain of the animals have been placed in foster homes while your client's Review Application is being dealt with. This is because our client's resources do not stretch to the maintenance of all the animals at its premises. Our client assures you that these animals are in temporary foster homes and have not been re-homed." This is in direct conflict with the Provisions and Intent of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001.
   

5. On 31st March 2008 Geraldine Robertson's lawyers, Burnslaw, again wrote to Clayton Utz (RSPCA Lawyers) regarding.  
   

6. Section 153 Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 - return of property. 

7. Section 151 Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 - access to seized property
   

8. Requests were made for items seized on 9th January 2008 and 22nd February 2008 including items not receipted.
   i.   Aluminum grooming box
   ii.   Month a day Diary 2007 and 2008
   iii.  Medical records for animals seized
   iv.  Copies of documents seized
   v.   Identification of animals seized
   

9. Response required in 7 days. There was no response as usual. Exhibit GR9 to this affidavit is this letter.

16.  Fraud and Theft of records by RSPCA 

1. His Honour Refused to allow discovery of theft of property and evidence.
   
2. His Honour Refused to allow Margaret Watts to give evidence that she saw the Appellant's hand bag being searched with out the Appellant being present, she saw Respondent (2)'s inspectors leaving the Appellant's bedroom with objects, she saw three vehicles loaded with the Appellant's property. This all goes the support the Appellant's claim that she was robbed of property, personal property and evidence. Appellant's affidavit of the 4th August 2008 detailed in the issue above "Theft of evidence and property by Respondent (2)."  and Margaret Watt's two Affidavits of: Application filed 28th July 2008   Statutory Declaration by Margaret Watt who witnessed raid. See GR4 to the Appellant's Affidavit sworn 28th July 2008   RSPCA is in contempt of court for interfering with witnesses and evidence. 
   
3. The Appellant has prepared an affidavit of the property, personal property and evidence taken by RSPCA Inspectors.  The RSPCA took 109 dogs, computer system, three car loads of private personal records and property.  See Appellant's affidavit sworn 4 August 2008 (8 pages, 27 paragraphs) Listing all the things taken.
   
4. That Respondent (1) is aware of the theft of evidence and property by RSPCA Inspectors not related to the kennel records is confirmed by the Cross examination of the Appellant when the Appellant was asked about her income tax and about he maiden name and bank accounts in her maiden name. The Appellant was asked why she had not paid tax and done tax returns. This information could only have come from the taxation records RSPCA Inspectors stole during the raid on the 22nd February 2008. Her maiden name could only have come from transcripts that were stolen about an assault charge and false name which was discharged by the Judge as a malicious charge. The bank account questions could only have come from old bank account records RSPCA Inspectors also stole.
   
5. All the necessary records relating to the dogs seized were also seized by RSPCA on the raid of 9 January 2008. These records were never receipted.  The warrant was for " Any Animals living in inappropriate Living conditions, any Animals with disease or' injury untreated Any documentation of Animals boarded at the kennels"
   
6. The RSPCA again raided on 22 February 2008 to seize relevant kennel records " Any document or record, in relation to the boarding, management, maintenance and/or care of animals boarding or living at the Kennels or having previously been boarding or living at the Kennels until seized by the RSPCA on 9 January 2008. For the purpose of this warrant the terms: "document" includes:
   (a) any paper or other material on which there is writing;
   (b) any paper or other material on which there are marks, figures, symbols or periorations having a meaning for persons qualified to interpret them; and
   (c) any article or material from which sounds, images or writings are capable of being reproduced with or without the aid of any other article or device. "record" includes information stored or recorded by means of a computer."  This warrant was in fact a fishing exercise, See the Affidavit of Fiona Ferguson sworn 29th day of July 2008. It was a double dip, to find defaming material and personal records. During this raid 3 truck full of records included private, personal and legally privileged records going back to 1975. Personal items of jewellery, household items, computer hard drive and cash were taken. See the Appellant's Affidavit of the Appellant, things taken, sworn 4th August 2008. 
   
7. Again non descriptive receipts were not issued until much later. Receipt for Seized Property no. 004295 & 004296.  Affidavit by Margaret Watt --March 2008 and --July 2008. Denied by RSPCA witness Shayne Towers Hammond.
   
8. Under threats of obstruction charges Geraldine Robertson was told by her Lawyer Patrick Earl of Burns Law who was present at this raid with 2 other members of the Firm, to stay out of the RSPCA Inspectors Shayne Towers-Hammond, Laurie Stageman and Daniel George Young's way. The 3 employees from Geraldine Robertson's then Lawyers Burnslaw also stayed out of the RSPCA's way. Margaret Watt who was visiting did witness Inspector Shayne Towers-Hammond rifling through Geraldine Robertson's handbag watched by Daniel Young, saw Daniel Young coming out of Geraldine Robertson's bedroom, heard Shayne Towers-Hammond saying into his mobile telephone "...we do not have enough, we need the DPI." Mrs Watt also witnessed items placed into a truck by Shayne Towers-Hammond which were not receipted nor documented nor returned. Geraldine Robertson saw and heard Daniel Young speaking to his mobile phone about drugs (old prescribed medication) found in the refrigerator in her kitchen on afternoon of 22 February 2008. These items were also removed and partially receipted.
   
9. Numerous threats of "......more raids and charges pending to be made for the following 12 months after 9 January 2008 available under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001" were told to Geraldine Robertson by Geraldine Robertson's lawyer Patrick Earl of Burnslaw as advised by Anthony Deane of Clayton Utz (RSPCA Lawyers). Geraldine Robertson's numerous requests for return of her computer hard drive and records necessary to lodge her Appeal to the DPI&F which had a deadline was ignored. The computer hard drive and copies of some records were subsequently returned at the Court's orders on 2 July 2008. Geraldine Robertson's Appeal to DPI&F dateline although extended to 31 March 2008 was done without reference to her records nor information stored in my computer and documents seized on 22 February 2008.
   
10. Assurances made to Geraldine Robertson by Anthony Deane of Clayton Utz (RSPCA) Lawyers that all Geraldine Robertson's records since seizure on 22 February 2008 were immediately delivered for safe custody with their Firm were in fact kept in "safe storage" at RSPCA premises until 3 April 2008 and delivered to Clayton Utz RSPCA lawyers who held these records until Court Ordered on 2nd July 2008 for return to Geraldine Robertson.  As per affidavit of RSPCA Senior Inspector in charge of Queensland Prosecutions (previously a Police Officer) Affidavit of Tracey Jackson paragraph 2 appointed on 28 March 2008. Since appointment had prepared an  account (page 4 -) for Geraldine Robertson to 10 April 2008 for $145,813 for the care of Geraldine Robertson dogs. see GR6 to Appellant Affidavit Neglect sworn 28/7/08

17.  Interference with witnesses (attempting to pervert the course of justice)

1. RSPCA  Senior Inspector Prosecutions Tracey Jackson and Inspector Daniel George Young interfered with a witness of Geraldine Robertson 's, Annette Barrell, Her affidavit sworn on the 27th March 2008, and discussed  Geraldine Robertson's case on 14 April 2008. The witness Annette Barrell's association with Geraldine Robertson was unknown to RSPCA until the lodgement of Geraldine Robertson's Appeal on 28 March 2008 to the DPI&F whereby Annette Barrell's Statutory Declaration sworn 27th March 2008 was included. 
   
2. Another witness John Dougall whose Statutory Declaration was also included in Geraldine Robertson's Appeal to the DPI&F received emails from Sue Graham with some 20 years liaison with RSPCA and who was in charge of donations as well as organizing the fostering of Geraldine Robertson's poodles - Jimboomba Times 23/1/08 -  and who had been organizing "Save The Poodles Petition", See GR4 to the Appellant's Affidavit sworn 21st July 2008,  emailed to John Dougall  telling him not to support Geraldine Robertson. John Dougall's email address was only available from the information in his Statutory Declaration supplied as part of Geraldine Robertson's Appeal to the DPI&F. GR10 to this affidavit is the article in the Jimboomba Times.
   
3. Assurances by Clayton Utz (RSPCA) Lawyers that all Geraldine Robertson's records since seizure on 22 February 2008 were immediately delivered for safe custody with their Firm were in fact kept in "safe storage" at RSPCA premises until 3 April 2008 as per affidavit of RSPCA Senior Inspector Tracey Jackson (Affidavit of Tracey Jackson sworn 14th August 2008) in charge of Queensland Prosecutions (previously a Police Officer) Tracey Jackson appointed on 28 March 2008 and since appointment had prepared an account for Geraldine Robertson to 10 April 2008 for $145,813 for the care of Geraldine Robertson's dogs as well as found to be interfering with witness through visiting one of Geraldine Robertson's witnesses , Annette Barrell see GR6 tot he Affidavit on the evidence (finding of facts) of the Appellant, and discussing her case on 14 April 2008. The name of this witness was shown in Geraldine Robertson's Appeal to The DPI&F lodged on 28 March 2008.the Appellant on Friday morning. These questions was seen to be passed by Tracy Jackson to Mellifont in a note from which Mellifont read. Some of these questions included issues such as the Appellant’s poodles eating each other and other things that were defamatory to the Appellant.  
   
   i.     Didn’t you say Geraldine’s dogs were eating each other?  
   ii.   Geraldine didn’t care about the dogs and was only in dogs for the money?
   iii.  If I had been given a written warning about problems on your property?
   iv.  Were you given a verbal warning about problems?  
   
4. That there was such a discussion with Annette Barrel and Tracy Jackson who is the chief  prosecution officer for the RSPCA is not only improper but is also an interference with a witness in a matter that Tracy Jackson has control of. As an ex-police officer Tracey Jackson would have known this was a criminal offence she was committing.

18. Restraint of Trade.

Geraldine Robertson had been conducting a registered business called Waterford Boarding Kennels and Cattery at 17-23 Buccan Road Buccan till the 9th January 2008 when the Respondent (2) seized all her dogs. This is the printout of this registered business name from the ASIC names search.

Geraldine Robertson has been conducting the business “Waterford Boarding Kennels and Cattery” since 1992. The Business Name Registration Certificate was stolen by RSPCA and never returned. This the business name registration renewal certificate. 

On the 29th February 2008 RSPCA Solicitors Clayton Utz  wrote to Geraldine Robertson’s Solicitor, Mr Patrick Earl Burnslaw Legal Protection, and said-
“Our client seeks your client's written undertaking that, pending the finalisation of our client's investigation into your client's maintenance and care of the 104 dogs seized from your client by our client on 9 January 2008, She will not seek to re-establish herself as conducting a commercial business from her existing facilities of:
(a) commercially breeding dogs;
(b) commercially boarding / caring for dogs; or
(c) engaging otherwise in the business of animal husbandry 
unless 14 days prior notice in writing has been delivered.
We look forward to hearing from you in respect of the above within 7 days of this fax.”
This is that letter from Clayton Utz, the solicitors for the RSPCA.

Geraldine Robertson is aware of a petition conducted by the RSPCA by their Poodle Rescue Officer Sue Graham to the Queensland Law Courts. Geraldine Robertson understands that during the nine months thousands of people signed this petition and that it went to judges and barristers in the Queensland Courts. This Petition reads “We the undersigned call on the Law Courts of Queensland to put a stop to the abuse, cruelty and neglect of the 100+ Poodles that were seized by the RSPCA on Wednesday the 9th January 2008 by not allowing the owner – Mrs Geraldine Fooi Fong Robertson to retain ownership. We also petition that she never be allowed to own animals of any description again.” This is one sample of this email petition.

Sue Graham and her de facto husband David Graham are competitors to the Appellant as they breed pedigree standard poodles. Their Pedigree Poodle breeders prefix is Segram. David Graham also sells Pedigree Poodles under the name Grandslam. David Graham has made defamatory statements to the effect that Sue Graham has been involved to put Geraldine Robertson out of business. The letter written to Geraldine Robertson by Susan Kiean who stated what David Graham told her.

Geraldine Robertson has been told and verily believes that Sue Graham had the management role as Poodle Rescue Officer of whelping/delivering, fostering, re-homing and selling Geraldine Robertson’s dogs and puppies born after seizure and that many of her valuable pedigreed poodles have been sold both with her own falsified pedigree, breeding stock as well as unregistered pedigree pets by Sue Graham and that a very large profit was made by the sale of the Appellant’s dogs. This is confirmed partially by this attached letter.

On the 22nd February 2008 Geraldine Robertson’s last dog called Flirt, a 12 years old neutered bitch was seized by RSPCA Inspector Shayne Towers-Hammond claiming the dog required medical treatment. Geraldine Robertson had been treating the dog for a bacteria eye problem caused by the weather conditions, but this fact was ignored and the dog was seized anyway. The receipt supplied by the RSPCA when this dog was taken.

Geraldine Robertson has become aware that a RSPCA Inspector Tracey Jackson regularly phones neighbour, Tennille Holmes who informs on Geraldine Robertson to the RSPCA.  With RSPCA's campaign of harassment and spying continuing Geraldine Robertson fears they will again put her out of business. This is one such record of information supplied to the RSPCA. 

Geraldine Robertson was told by her solicitor Patrick Earl that Tony Deane of Clayton Utz, had said that the RSPCA will take the Appellant’s clients dogs should she recommence business. 

Sue Graham RSPCA Standard Poodle Rescue Officer, emailed John Dougall (she could only have obtained John Dougall ‘s email address from his affidavit lodged with the Appellant’s appeal to the DPI on 30 March 2008) and a copy of this email is attached. It states that the Appellant should not be allowed to own dogs again. This is that email.

Geraldine Robertson has been maligned in the media and numerous Internet forums and her reputation in this market has been extremely damaged.  

Geraldine Robertson relies on the Trade Practices Act 1974 Section 46 Misuse of market power.
“(1) A corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market shall not take advantage of that power in that or any other market for the purpose of:
(a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the corporation or of a body corporate that is related to the corporation in that or any other market;
(b) preventing the entry of a person into that or any other market;
or
(c) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market.”

The Trade Practices Act 1974 applies to all courts of Australia and applies in this court. This law must be applied to the facts in this case and over rides the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 such that RSPCA cannot use the Animal Care and Protection Act to prevent tGeraldine Robertson from Trading in a business that is competition to RSPCA .

RSPCA 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) 

RSPCA & DPI both well knew or, ought to have both well known, RSPCA  was an incorporated commercial trading entity subordinate to Federal Law, when authority to investigate, enforce and prosecute State Law was delegated to it under section 114 (2) (a) (ii) of the Queensland Animal Care and Protection Act 2001, that was granted Royal Assent on 25 October 2001.

RSPCA  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. 

RSPCA  sells pets and in particular dogs calling the sale price “adoption price”. This is a photo of the RSPCA's price list taken at their Fairfield Shelter.

RSPCA 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.

It is submitted that RSPCA’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 Geraldine Robertson  from engaging in competitive conduct in the dog market or any other market.

It is submitted that Geraldine Robertson has a lawful right to conduct her business and that right cannot be taken from her. 

Geraldine Robertson 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. Geraldine Robertson 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 RSPCA profited by $459,744 from seizure of animals and related activities. Page 20 from RSPCA's Annual Report for the year 2008.

That there is considerable incentive on RSPCA to seize Geraldine Robertson’s dogs and fabricate evidence, perjure and commit fraud on Geraldine Robertson is supported by RSPCA’s Annual Report that shows RSPCA makes a significant profit from this activity,

SWORN by the deponent

at BRISBANE this _____  day of November 2008.

                                                 before me
                                                                                    Justice of the peace