Submission
MAGISTRATE COURT OF QUEENSLAND
REGISTRY: BRISBANE
NUMBER:
M6213/08
Appellant:
Geraldine Fooi-Fong Robertson
17-23 Buccan Road
Buccan, Qld. 4207
Respondent:
(1) The Chief
Executive
Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (DPI)
80 Ann Street
Brisbane Qld 4000
Respondent:
(2) The Royal
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
C/o Clayton Utz Lawyers
GPO Box 55
Brisbane Qld 4001
The raid by RSPCA Inspectors on Geraldine Robertson's property was planned when the rains and flooding was reported during the weekend before 9 January 2008. RSPCA Inspectors did not have reasonable belief that a duty of care had not been exercised for the dogs. The Warrant To Enter taken out on 8 January 2008 said they were coming out to look for injured and or sick dogs and inadequate housing. That fact was supported by Shayne Towers-Hammond order to seize all the dogs immediately on arrival. RSPCA arrived early in the morning from two (2) locations Fairfield and Jimboomba was supported by the arrival with two (2) Police Vehicles, numerous RSPCA inspectors and volunteers, film crew from Imagination Television (Animal Rescue), Sunday Mail and Courier Mail reporters Shire Council Officers and television film and reporters from all the television Channels. Geraldine Robertson's neighbours witnessed their arivals that morning and contacted her after RSPCA left that afternoon at 4.30pm. RSPCA inspectors did not inspect any of Geraldine Robertson's dogs prior to and during seizure and spent all their time filming and seizing all her dogs although no dog was sick or injured.
Their media manager Michael Beatty released that that "Geraldine Robertson will appear in Brisbane Magistrate Court on Thursday 7 April at 9am to appeal the forfeiture... The hearing is likely to last two days". The fact was there was no hearing scheduled on 7 April 2008 nor did the hearing lasted 2 days because Geraldine Robertson will not be intimidated by the fabricated lies that poured through the massive media releases in newspapers, television and internet websites of all medias, forums etc.. both nationally as well as internationally causing the public to make continuous abusive and threatening telephone calls, letters, both physical and mental abuse from the public including from the legal profession. All RSPCA's evidence placed before the Court were fabricated The "witnesses" all lied about everything feasible.
Background to this Submission.
1.
Geraldine
Robertson
is aggrieved and has come to the Court expecting a fair
hearing where the law will be applied to the real facts not perjured facts.
2.
Geraldine
Robertson
has had all her poodles worth $5million taken, her business
closed, her expected puppies from pregnant dogs seized worth at least $250,000
have disappeared & other asets and income has been taken from her. She has been
defamed in the media as an abuser of poodles and this has prompted people to be
hostile towards her. She 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 had a lump on her head
where she was hit with a bottle.
Geraldine
Robertson
had piles of
garbage dumped in her drive way and had to live in real fear and terror. Geraldine
Robertson
has lived in a state of depression anxiety and grief at the loss of
her loved poodles and the emotional harm she has suffered.
3.
The RSPCA have demonstrated improper purpose in that they used the media
and the defaming of Geraldine
Robertson
to gain massive public support for their
actions (at Geraldine
Robertson's expense and harm as a poodle breeder abuser) and
received from the public About $1million in real property and cash to fund their
organization and the Poodle Club of Queensland through their RSPCA volunteer
liaison officer Sue Graham. The RSPCA have behaved wantonly and despicably
towards the Appellant.
4.
When the RSPCA came on the 9th January 2008 there had been a
flash flood and lots of rain. Water had run through the kennels carrying debris
and silt with it into the Kennels. Dogs had been and were being moved from these
kennels to a holding yards at the house. Some cleaning of the pens had been
commenced with two pens cleaned already. All the dogs, (except for 4 only) had
been just wormed for hookworm, allwormer and monthly heart worm on the morning
of the 9th January. This is supported by Court Exhibit 25 (Stageman’s
audio tape) and Stageman’s evidence (even though much of it is perjury).
5.
No dogs were sick or injured at time of seizure. There were several dogs
with minor medical problems being treated at the time of seizure. There were
four dogs being treated for ear problems with Malaseb, an antibiotic, antifungal
and anti inflammatory treatment. There were about six dogs being treated for eye
problems caused by the dry drought conditions followed by the heavy rains.
6.
The Appellant has owned pedigree poodles for forty eight years and bred
them for twenty years. The Appellant is the expert in poodle grooming, their
coats, and their care and maintenance. The two Apricot Standard Poodles in the
video (Court Exhibit 2) bouncing around at the fence were happy healthy dogs.
The felting of their coats was not a problem to them contrary to what the RSPCA
witnesses state. When the RSPCA used surgical clipper blades on one of these
dogs they killed it, it died from pneumonia. Surgical clipper blades are harmful
for clipping pet poodles. The damage done by this clipping resulted in the dogs
needing pain killers. The clipper burns caused significant skin irritations and
sores. (Vet Report) The rain and weather had caused the felting to look
worse. The RSPCA, when they inappropriately clipped the twelve years old Apricot
Standard Poodle Simba, killed him by causing him to get pneumonia from which he
died.
7.
Simba was clipped with a surgical clipper blade whilst his wool coat was
wet. The surgical blade would have removed all his wool to the skin. The RSPCA
did not provide Simba with protection in the form of a coat to protect his bare
skin. As his skin had been protected by wool the close shave / the entire
removal of his coat would cause irritation to the skin from wool rash. The
continuous clipping on his skin would make the clippers hot and this would cause
clipper rash.
8.
The other dogs they clipped would also have suffered severely from
clipper rash and the weather.
9.
The dogs were going to be clipped in the following weeks and there is
evidence that Wendy Lake and Annette Barrell had been organized to help with
this clipping.
10.
The RSPCA Chief Inspector Michael Pecic was prepared to ship the Benji-Pet
Kennel puppies to Singapore as confirmed in copy of letter dated 21st
January 2008 by Robertson O’Gorman Solicitors attached to the affidavit dated
21st July 2008 (exhibit GR3) lodged with the Amended Appeal of the
same date. This indicates that all the puppies seized including the Benji-Pet
Kennels puppies were in good health and condition.
11.
Witnesses have perjured
themselves and have fabricated evidence. His Honour, C.J.Strofield has indicated
he will be considering the perjury evidence in his decision making process. He
will consider the evidence of Shayne Towers-Hammond and Lawrie Stageman who both
said the Appellant cleaned up the court yard left of the entrance. This cleaning
was shown not to have happened. Shayne Towers-Hammond said it happened after he
came to Waterford Kennels, after the entry video (Court Exhibit 2) was taken.
The two videos (Court Exhibit 2 and 24) show that this yard was in the same
condition both before and after the stated cleaning and so the cleaning could
not have happened. Lawrie Stageman said the cleaning happened before the Entry
Video (Court Exhibit 2) was taken. This could not have happened because there
was a discussion between the Appellant and Stageman prior to entry recorded by
the audio tape (court exhibit 25) and then Stageman took the video camera and
started videoing the court yard. There are other issues of credibility such as
the wet dogs in the holding pens in the house being covered in urine and faeces.
The dogs being shipped to Benji-Pet Kennels were in ready for export condition.
The flood debris was wrongly called faeces and urine. The putrid smell
couldn’t have been true because of the rain. The scraping noises in the Exit
Video indicate fabrication of evidence. There are more credibility issues.
12.
The Appellant has been impaired in her being able to get a fair hearing
because:
a.
Witnesses have been
intimidated by RSPCA Inspectors.
b.
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.
c.
Veterinarians have
demonstrated fear of giving evidence against the RSPCA because of their fear of
how this would impact their business and reputation.
d.
The RSPCA’s vicious and
malicious media publicity releases have intimidated and scared witnesses for the
Appellant away from the court.
e.
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.
f.
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.
g.
Queensland courts have
been lobbied by the Poodle Club of Queensland to make a decision against the
Appellant.
Due to the massive amount of perjury and His Honour’s willingness to
consider this perjury the Appellant fears there will not be a just decision.
13.
The Appellant thus submits the evidence of both Towers-Hammond, Katie
Heatin and
Stageman cannot be given any credibility at all and thus their reasonable belief
when they seized all the dogs can not be supported in law. I submit the
Appellant must get all her dogs back.
14.
His Honour, C.J.Strofield
is no longer acting as a judge but has become an active party to the abuse,
threat, fear, loss and terror the RSPCA have inflicted upon the Appellant. The
RSPCA are in breach of Section 359E of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld),
Unlawful Stalking and also criminal defamation in that the RSPCA published in a
manner that would cause others to harm the Appellant, and they did harm the
Appellant and it was foreseeable that the Appellant would be harmed. RSPCA
Officers have acted criminally towards the Appellant when they stole her
personal property and evidence she could use to show her dogs were properly
looked after. Her witnesses and herself have received intimidation directly from
the RSPCA and through others. Exhibit GR4 to this affidavit are some of the
newspaper articles that invoked hatred from the community towards the Appellant.
15.
I submit that it is
His Honour, C.J.Strofield’s duty to ensure a fair trial of the facts. Allowing
perjury to go unexplored and acting to conceal perjury is an improper act by His
Honour C. J. Strofield. This was done for witness Shayne Towers-Hammond. This
act causes a perception of bias and destroys the Appellant’s belief in the
Court and, in her belief in her ability to get a fair trial.
16.
There was clear
evidence that witness Shayne Towers-Hammond, sworn under oath, has perjured
himself. All that was required was a comparison of two video images (Court
exhibit 2 and Court exhibit 24) that would show that the images of the entrance
court yard showed the area was the same before and after the claimed
“cleaning” by witness Shayne Towers-Hammond. The witness insisted that the
area was “cleaned” after being shown the Videos. Exhibit GR1 & GR2 to
this affidavit are frames of these Court Exhibits that showed the area has not
been cleaned.
17.
The wet poodles is
also evidence of another perjury by Shayne Towers-Hammond. He said they were
covered in faeces and urine and the floor of their cages stunk from faeces and
urine. That the dogs were wet in such a manner supports the Appellant when she
says they had been put into the cages when the RSPCA came, as it had been
raining and the dogs had been playing in the rain. This was very relevant as the
RSPCA case includes that the dogs were living in filthy unclean unhygienic
conditions and therefore the Appellant was not exercising her duty of care. His
Honour, C.J.Strofield allowed this to pass unquestioned. A disgrace for a judge
to allow perjury in his court and to consider perjured evidence in his
consideration. His Honour, C.J.Strofield is clearly corrupt.
18. His Honour, when the application was made, should have resigned for his bias. It was deomostrated very clearly that the Appellant was very concerned that he was biased by the way he protected witnesses from being exposed for their perjury and allowed witnesses to perjure themselves.
19. Geraldine Robertson was refused access to her all her dogs at all times. Geraldine Robertson sought an order from His Honour that she be allowed access pursuant to s.151 of the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 to which his Honour replied that he was reviewing the forfeiture decision only. His Honour has erred in law in that it is his duty is to administer the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. This would have aided her appeal in that it would have allowed her to know which dogs have gone missing.
Inspecting these dogs would have helped Geraldine Robertson in her appeal as she would have better known which dogs the Vets and other witnesses were referring to in their evidence. All the dogs which they have identified on a list provided ******
The
facts were:
1.
The application
for the warrant to enter was based on unverified reports eleven months old after
massive media reports of flash flooding in the Logan and Buccan areas from the 5th
January 2008 to the 9th January 2008.
2.
The warrant to
enter was based on suspected breach of duty of care 17(2) failure to provide
appropriate living conditions and failure to provide appropriate treatment for
disease or injury.
3.
Neither of
these conditions in (2) above existed on the 9th January 2008, the
date of seizure. There were no sick or injured dogs. The normal living
conditions were more than adequate. Due to an unusual weather event - flooding
and rain – there was flood debris and silting in kennels and the dogs were
being moved to the house holding yard and the kennels were in the process of
being cleaned up.
4.
Shayne
Towers-Hammond and Lawrie Stageman created inappropriate living conditions as a
fantasy with perjury. They said there were faeces and urine and a putrid smell.
The yard to the left of the entrance was clean as seen in the entrance video and
exit video. They said it was full of faeces and urine that smelt and had been
cleaned. It was shown that this cleaning could not and had not happened. That
they had to invent cleaning to support their case that the living conditions
were inappropriate meant they could not have had a reasonable belief when they
took the dogs.
5.
There had been
very heavy rain and flooding of the kennels that carried debris into the
kennels, the first time in twenty years in the Buccan area where half of the
shire was under flood water. This should not become a reason for taking the dogs
as it had only a temporary effect.
6.
Most of the
dogs had been removed from the kennels (the rest 6 kennels of dogs out of 20
kennels would have been moved if the RSPCA had not arrived before this was
finished) to the house yard where they had been wormed. Two kennel yards had
been cleaned and the debris bagged and placed on the septic system.
7.
The puppies at
the house had been put temporarily into holding pens in the house out of the way
of the RSPCA people when they entered the premises.
8.
Poodles are
more than three thousand years old as a breed and felting is normal for this
breed. They have a pure unbarbed wool coat and are a water-loving retriever
breed. Provided the coat is not restricting them they are happy dogs. The
clipping is only done for appearance and in a manner preferred by owners. Some
owners like their poodles unclipped in modern fashion, others prefer them in
their natural state.
9.
The RSPCA would
not let the Appellant have her vet, or any vet, microchip her dogs for
identification purposes at seizure.
If the
RSPCA witnesses had been telling the truth the trial would not have lasted so
long and might not have been required because my poodles should not have been
taken in the first place.
Since
Shayne Towers-Hammond and Lawrie Stageman had to invent evidence they could not
have had reasonable belief. Therefore the Appellant should get all her poodles
returned to her.
Witnesses for the Appellant
Geraldine Robertson (2 days giving evidence)
There had been a drought and the dam was empty and she had been purchasing water. The ground had become dusty and most of the vegetation had died. The lack of water and difficult conditions had caused Geraldine to get behind in her clipping. She had organised for help to clipp her dogs and one witness, Annette Barrell supported her in this.
Then heavy rain came, the worst in 20 years. The loose dust and leaves were washed as the heavy rain drained over the land up to 10 cm (4 inches) deep. This flood of surface water washed through the kennels leaving debris in the kennels and in the kennel drainage system. The kennel sewage system could not cope and the internal drain became full of mud. When the RSPCA came most of the dogs had been moved to the house pens and more were to be moved. two kennels had been cleaned and the dirt and mud in the internal drain 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 kennels.
Because of the conditions and the possibility that they would spread worms and disease all the dogs had been wormed the morinig of the raid.
At the house the flash flooding had filled the house pen seen in the video and the debris, palm seeds, faeces, leaves etc had floated from the area they had been scraped to ready for removal to across the yard. This yard had yet to be cleaned. The priority was to clean the kennels and to sell off as many dogs as possible to reduce the numbers. When the RSPCA came Geraldine was at the computer placing adds to sell her dogs in the Internet web site dogsonline.com.au.
If Geraldine had been give a couple of weeks many dogs would have been sold reducing her numbers, the kennels would have been cleaned and back to normal and many of the dogs would have been clipped and washed - there was now plenty of water and the dam was full. The Raid was at the worst possible time for Geraldine.
Annette Barrell Affidavit of Annette Barrell
Questions were put to Annette Barrell by Barrister Kerri Mellifont that Annette Barrell told RSPCA Inspectors Tracey Jackson and Daniel George Young stories about Geraldine Robertson and her dogs. These stories included that the dogs were not properly fed and were eating each other.
In follow up Annette Barrell said that she was visited by RSPCA Inspectors Tracey Jackson and Daniel George Young on the 14th April 2008 and was told stories about the Appellant Geraldine Robertson, including that Geraldine Robertson's dogs were not being fed and were so hungry that they were eating each other.
Annette Barrell also said that Geraldine Robertson had asked her to help her clip some of her dogs.
Annette
Barrell was asked questions by DPI&F Barrister in relationship to the
conversations about 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.
a.
Didn’t you
say Geraldine’s dogs were eating each other?
b.
Geraldine
didn’t care about the dogs and was only in dogs for the money?
c.
If I had been
given a written warning about problems on your property?
d.
Were you given
a verbal warning about problems?
Margaret Watt Affidavit of Margaret Watt sworn 22nd July 2008 Affidavit of Margaret Watt sworn 12th March 2008
Dr Robertson - 9am (your witness) 27th November 2008
Dr Robertson confirmed that he had made two appointments to see and identify Geraldine's dogs and both appointments had been cancelled by RSPCA. Dr Robertson also confirmed that Geraldine had been exporting poodles to the US, Hong Kong, Japan, ,,, and had a shipment prepared and organised to be shipped to Benji-Pet Kennels in Singapore. Dr Robertson made efforts to see these dogs and prepare them for shipments and this was denied by RSPCA.
Witnesses for the Respondent
Dr
Kennedy.
1. Dr Kennedy, the independent Vet seconded by RSPCA Inspectors Shayne Towers-Hammond and Lawrie Stageman, could only see faeces and urine. It is well known that when a situation is presented to some one (that is framed in psychological jargon) the person then sees what is consistent with the context developed by the framing. It was obvious there was flood debris in the video, this was pointed out to Dr Kennedy, but he could not incorporate this information into his evidence. All the wetness is obviously caused by the rain, not urine. Dr Kennedy’s evidence has to be discounted as contaminated by Towers-Hammond and Stageman when they presented the video to him to watch.
Shayne Towers-Hammond
2.
Gave the order
to seize all the dogs – evidence of Lawrie Stageman and Appellant.
3.
Showed he lied
about entrance court yard – that the yard had been cleaned up. It was obvious
that the yard before “cleaning” and after “cleaning” was exactly the
same see exhibits 2 and 24. (A clear case of perjury).
4.
Poodles have
wool coats and do not smell.
5.
On entry said
smelly putrid smell of faeces and urine. The rain would have washed away all the
smells. Even the mess in the laneway of mud washed down from the court yard in
the heavy rain of the morning of the 9/1/08 would not have smelt.
6.
The rain soaked
wet puppies in the holding cages on the white tiles in the living room could not
have been there very long on the newspaper laid over the unused dusty pens as
they were still wet. They would not
have urinated or deficated and so there would not have been a smell or urine and
faeces as described by Shayne Towers-Hammond.
7.
It is not
believable that a person, even in an untidy house, would tolerate putrid smells
that burnt the back of their throat, in their own home.
8.
That the
animals were dirty and soaked in urine and faeces when there had been so much
rain is also totally unreasonable and unbelievable. When shown in the Sunday
Mail, Affidavit of Geraldine Robinson sworn 21st July Exhibit GR-6
have an RSPCA person carrying dogs with a clean belly. The dogs weren’t
dirty in the photo.
9.
From the half
empty plates on top of the holding pens which were placed there to entice the
puppies in from the front court yard on sighting the arrival of RSPCA entourage
the puppies were fed outside. They had food and water. There was also food and
water in some of the pens.
10. The
flash flooding was obvious by the build up of litter that was obviously carried
to and through the kennels and against the fence. The investigating Officer,
Stageman, was definitely told about this problem and this is recorded on his
tape exhibit 25. Stageman was also told of the efforts to move the dogs from the
flooded pens to the house yard where the intention was to groom in the following
days and return them to cleaned up kennels. That the cleanup of the kennels had
begun is evidenced by the video showing two clean pens.
Towers-Hammond when shown the two cleaned up pens in the kennels insisted
they were not cleaned.
11. The
matted and felted fur on the poodles is not a problem to the poodles. Charlie in
the Video jumping and bouncing at the fence in the video was obviously a happy
dog moving freely. There is no evidence that felting of fur on poodles is a
problem to them. That the felting was a problem is only an opinion of the
Inspectors, not a fact.
Lawrence Stageman Affidavit of Lawrence Stageman Tape transcript of Lawrence Stageman Listen to Lawrence Stageman's Tape recording
12. Information
Notice – seized property 002732. Reasons for seizure:- “Because of the state
of the kennels with the build up of faeces and the condition of the dogs coats,
knotted and matted thick fur some dogs having caked in faeces it was decided to
seize all the dogs on the property due to living conditions and the state of the
dogs”. He said Shayne Towers-Hammond Senior Inspector came in 45 minutes later
and ordered the seizure of the dogs after a meeting with Steve Barron, Jedda
Goodfella and Lawrence Stageman.
13. It
had been raining and poodles love the water and play in the rain. They would not
have been caked in faeces. Urine had been washed away. There would not have been
a stench as said by Stageman.
14. Lawrie
Stageman said there was faeces and urine in the entrance left of reception. When
put to him that the Entry Video Exhibit 2 showed no faeces and urine he said it
had been cleaned up. The Audio tape showed that this could not have happened
between the time he entered the premises and when the Entry Video was taken.
This is another clear example of perjury.
15. Stageman,
by his manner, demonstrated he is an aggressive liar. The more he lied the more
aggressive he became. This is another indication that he was perjuring himself.
16. The
wet poodles in the cage in the house was said to be dry by Stageman. They looked
soaked by rain and were put there out of the way of the 20 odd RSPCA people who
were about to enter the premises. It went against his evidence for these poodles
to be wet because in his affidavit he had said they had urine and faeces on
them. Another perjury.
17. Stageman
said he was not a poodle expert
but still decided they were over coated and should be clipped. This was a
decision made outside of his knowledge and was an unreasonable decision for him
to make.
18. Stageman
agreed with the following that he was told by the Appellant:-
(a)
about the
floods and that car was flooded out.
(b)
The effects of the flash flooding. The claim that the silt and debris
deposited by the flash flood is faeces and urine shown in film and video was
false. The Exit video shows this very clearly.
(c)
about rain and the problems it caused.
(d)
that kennels are cleaned out every day.
(e)
Haven’t been able to be cleaned properly for two days because of the
continuous rain and flooding
(f)
Benji kennels 12 puppies must be shipped in the next couple of days.
(g)
that I had been trying to reduce dog numbers. (I had advertisements on
the internet and in papers)
(h)
that I love my dogs
(i)
of worming of pups at house, worming of dogs at house
(j)
all dogs were vaccinated
(k)
all dogs were fed and watered that morning.
(l)
about Simba’s infected ear – discovered
and treated the day before and would require continued treatment.
(m)
about Milli’s ears – that I had finished treating – completed two
week course of antibiotics.
(n)
about Boyo’s ears that had recently commenced treating about 4 days ago
(o)
about the 2 litters of toys born that morning – I hadn’t slept
because I had been waiting for delivery of the pups.
(p)
that all dogs except the 4 male dogs in the half way kennels, had been
fed and watered that morning.
(q)
I will clear flood debris and show you, Indication how clean the kennels
would normally be, attempts to
clean kennels i.e. 1st 2 kennels.
19. Since
the kennels were being cleaned and the dogs were being looked after the only
reason left was faeces and urine and stench. But he had to lie about this and
has been caught out. Stageman couldn’t have had a reasonable belief given this
information that the dogs were being cared for and the premises is being
cleaned. Stageman by his statement that he would not have taken all the dogs has
effectively admitted that he did not have a reasonable belief that all the dogs
should be taken.
20. Stageman
failed to identify the dogs belonging to Benji-Pet Kennels. Stageman said he
gave the Benji-Pet Kennels documents to the kennel manager Nanda ten-Grotenhuis.
Who allegedly took twelve puppies to the AQIS accredit vet for treatment. RSPCA
would not allow the Appellant to identify Benji-Pet Kennels’ $19,500.00 dogs
for shipping purposes.
21. Stageman
also mentioned that he had received documentation from the Appellant about the
dogs that required continued treatment and had special needs. He said he gave
this documentation to the Vets and the kennel manager. This shows that he was
aware that the dogs were being treated and cared for by the Appellant. The
Appellant was exercising her duty of care.
22. Lawrence
Stageman has misled the court when he said the dogs were not packed in tightly
in the vehicle cages. He said the RSPCA used 2 x 8 dog trailers, 1 x 4 dog
trailer and 4 x dog cages to
transport the 104 standard and toy poodles.
Accepting that one 8 dog trailer did two trips (unlikely due to time
constraints) then the carrying capacity was 24 dogs.
That means that the dogs were compressed to three times the normal carrying
capacity. (NOTE two thirds of the 104 dogs were large standard poodles, the size
of Dobermans and German shepherds.). The dogs were transported in horrific
overcrowded conditions and thus this is another perjury by a witness.
Tracy Jackson Affidavit of Tracey Jackson
Issues:
Documents
Intimidation of witness
23. Tracey
Jackson said she got the File for G Robertson vs RSPCA & DPI on 3rd
April 2008 – Appointed on 28 March 2008 as senior Inspector in charge of
Prosecutions for S E Qld. She would have known the details for G Robertson vs
RSPCA & DPI.
24. On
or about 14th April 2008 spoke to Annette Barrell at her property.
25. Annette
Barrell was asked questions by DPI&F Barrister in relationship to the
conversations about 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.
a.
Didn’t you
say Geraldine’s dogs were eating each other?
b.
Geraldine
didn’t care about the dogs and was only in dogs for the money?
c.
If I had been
given a written warning about problems on your property?
d.
Were you given
a verbal warning about problems?
26. Tracey
Jackson denied these conversations took place.
27. Annette
Jackson in cross examination said that these conversations did take place and
this would be confirmed by Ms Mellifont asking the questions of Annette Barrell
as she did.
28. The
conclusion therefore must be that Tracey Ann Jackson did interfere with a
witness.
Penelope
Kirk.
29. The
Appellant had a real fear that Penelope Kirk’s statements would be used in the
media by RSPCA to further defame her and thus support corruption in the judicial
process by providing a media coverage supporting a corrupt and wrong decision.
30. P
Kirk’s evidence showed that the Appellant was using a vet to help her care for
her dogs. To do vaccinations and genetic health testing. This supports the
Appellant’s case that she was exercising her duty of care to her animals.
31. The
Evidence in the medical cards supports the Appellant’s assertion that Penelope
Kirk’s vet Wendy brought parvo virus onto her property. In these cards are
entries consistent with parvo virus problems. The Appellant stated there was
about 30 puppies under twelve weeks old killed by parvo virus and this would be
consistent with some dogs being given to P Kirk for disposal.
32. Penelope
Kirk’s evidence also shows she has a grievance with the Appellant in that her
reputation was damaged with her other breeder clients by this event.
33. The
Appellant disputes that there were 27 dogs put down for culling purposes as
claimed by Penelope Kirk. But, if this were true, it also supports the Appellant
because it would demonstrate that the Appellant was exercising a duty of care by
seeking help from a vet to make the kennels more managable.
34. Penelope
Kirk’s evidence also supports the Appellant’s case by demonstrating that the
Appellant did clip and look after her dogs and sought help in so doing.
When Penelope Kirk said that the Appellant's dogs were fighting and eating each other she was wrong and lying. Dogs in kennels can not do this as they are in their own kennels separated from other dogs. When dogs are put together only dogs that get along with each other are put together. That this would be said has a smell of improper motives. It is the malicious invented statements of Sue Graham who has had a vendetta against the Appellant ever since the Appellant's dogs always beat Sue Graham's dogs in the Poodle dog shows.
Katie
Heaton
RSPCA have the benefit of the Imagination Television video footage. They can view it over and over again, discuss issues, and work out their evidence even when they were not there. The best RSPCA liars can be put in front of all the film footage and prepare their statements and then lie to those statements. When this is done they make mistakes like Katie Heaton did, She aggrandized herself by stating she did many time the things it is possible to do in one hour. This was her mistake. The conclusion that she was never there must carry some weight.
It
is becoming obvious that the fix is in. The Appellant can no longer expect to
get a fair hearing. The Appellant is being humoured and given the appearance of
procedural fairness as she is being stitched up. Katie Heaton was allowed to
make statements that were recorded on the tape and so in the transcripts that
will support His Honour who had asked for additional witnesses to support him
when he makes the finding that the RSPCA Inspectors had a reasonable belief when
the animals were seized. This witness was allowed to give “evidence”
pointing to a sludge of faeces in a video when it was obvious that the area
pointed to was wet concrete and there was no sludge of faeces. His Honour
supported this witness when he said she did not commit perjury. His Honour
humoured the court by looking at this witness give perjured evidence and
appearing to take her evidence very seriously.
Katie
Heaton said she arrived at 12:35 and left at 1:34
and did all of the following in 1 hour. This is just not believable.
She
parked about 50 meters up the road from the house.
Paragraph 5 Arrived at 12:34pm.
Paragraph 26 Assisted to collect dogs from house
Paragraph 27 A number of times approached applicant – dragging dogs by
front legs
Paragraph 28 – clothing soaked in dog urine and faeces
Paragraph 28 – large white worm (Stageman never said anything about
this), she said she put this worm into a container in her car.
She said she walked to the kennels, about 330meters and inspected the
kennels with Lawrence Stageman and Shayne Towers-Hammond.
Paragraph 29 Saw council vehicles leave
Paragraph 30 went down drive with car and trailer
She said she loaded about 30dogs into the trailers for transport to
Fairfield.
Paragraph 31 instruct to not drag dogs by front legs
Paragraph 32
Paragraph 33 puppies soaked in faces and urine – every one (house
holding pens)
Paragraph 35 No dogs were overcrowded or vomiting.
Paragraph 38 What document was completed? Left at 1:34.
Katie
Heaton said she the dogs were not overcrowded or vomiting. Lawrence
Stageman said the RSPCA used 2 x 8 dog trailers, 1 x 4 dog trailer and 4 x 1 dog
cages a capacity for 24 dogs used to transport 104 dogs. This is clearly not
right.
In
Paragraph 12 Katie Heaton said the puppies in the house were Saturated with
urine and faeces. She was unwilling to admit that the puppies were wet from the
rain and that there was no faeces or urine.
The
worm was irrelevant and did nothing to advance the RSPCA case, it was not
investigated by Vets and nothing was done to follow this up.
Daniel George Young
Daniel Young was with Tracey Jackson when they visited Annette Barrel on the 14th April, after the appeal had been lodged with DPI&F on the 28th March 2008, and spoke with Annette Barrell about the Appellant, talking about dogs eating each other.
Daniel Young’s evidence is in conflict with the
evidence of Margaret Watt.
Margaret
Watts said she saw Shayne Towers-Hammond had his hand in Appellant’s handbag
holding it with the other hand. Daniel Young was standing beside him while this
was happening. Daniel Young had some A4 plastic covered papers held in his hand.
He
said there was two cars whereas Margaret Watts said she saw three cars being
loaded with property from the Waterford kennels.
He
stuck to his affidavit.
Victoria Lomax
Vicki
Lomax was asked to compare the care of my dogs by me with the care of my dogs by
RSPCA. When looking at the RSPCA Vet report my dogs had many more problems and
diseases that they had to be treated for than they did when they were received
by the RSPCA. That my dogs were so sick and needed so much veterinary treatment
is an indication that the RSPCA care was much worse than my care.
His
Honour erred in law when he refused the Appellant the opportunity to have the
Vets compare the performance of RSPCA and the Appellant in the care of the
Appellant’s dogs. There are always small problems in caring for animals. The
amount of these problems can be greatly reduced by the way the dogs are cared
for. It is the Appellant’s submission that the way she cared for her dogs was
vastly superior to the way the RSPCA cared for her dogs. The Appellant was
refused the opportunity to show this by the ruling of His Honour. This is not
unexpected as it is obvious the fix is in. There is no longer an attempt to hide
the corruption. It has become obvious in the way his Honour has invited more
witnesses to lie and increase his justification in making his decision. When he
looks at the video with the wet concrete and agrees that this is putrid smelling
sludge of faces and urine he is obviously corrupt and the fix is in.
It is the Appellant’s submission that this comparison is relevant to his decision making.
The massive amount of veterinary treatment does not mean the dogs were cared for, it really means the dogs were neglected and the problems became so severe that the veterinarians had to get involved.
The dog the Appellant calls "Jack in the Box" or "Jack" for short can be seen in Court Exhibit 2 being led on a lead at the RSPCA Shelter before the maggots were put onto him.
Anne Chester Affidavit of Anne Chester sworn 2nd August 2008 Affidavit of Anne Chester sworn 4 February 2008 Statement of Anne Chester undated
Puppies
that died she said were caused by my neglect.
I
have done some research and talked a vet. The puppies that died 10 days after
you received them couldn’t have died from hookworm or complications from
hookworm infestation because they had two lots of treatment. I treated them that
morning of the seizure and you treated them on arrival at the Fairfield refuge.
This is clearly a lie.
Anne
Chester has Ned as her own reward for doing over the Appellant. Knowing my dogs
I can say they are the most loving and pleasant temperament animals and I would
expect that she has fallen in love with my dog. She would do anything to keep my
dog. Likewise all those other people who have my dogs would be the same. This I
submit is why I get so many abusive calls telling me to stop the Appeal because
I will not get my dogs back.
Anne
Chester was asked to compare the care of my dogs by me with the care of
my dogs by RSPCA. When looking at the RSPCA Vet report my dogs had many more
problems and diseases that they had to be treated for than they did when they
were received by the RSPCA. That my dogs were so sick and needed so much
veterinary treatment is an indication that the RSPCA care was much worse than my
care.
His
Honour erred in law when he refused the Appellant the opportunity to have the
Vets compare the performance of RSPCA and the Appellant in the care of the
Appellant’s dogs. There are always small problems in caring for animals. The
amount of these problems can be greatly reduced by the way the dogs are cared
for. It is the Appellant’s submission that the way she cared for her dogs was
vastly superior to the way the RSPCA cared for her dogs. The Appellant was
refused the opportunity to show this by the ruling of His Honour. This is not
unexpected as it is obvious the fix is in. There is no longer an attempt to hide
the corruption. It has become obvious in the way his Honour has invited more
witnesses to lie and increase his justification in making his decision. When he
looks at the video with the wet concrete and agrees that this is putrid smelling
sludge of faces and urine he is obviously corrupt and the fix is in.
It
is the Appellant’s submission that this comparison is relevant to his decision
making. All the dogs, not counting the 125 pups born since seizure, have had
health problems while in the care of the RSPCA. The 125 pups have disappeared.
That 102 dogs were transported on a hot day in January in enclosed trailers designed for 24 dogs, according to the Vet, did not cause any problems for any dogs. This is unbelievable. But His Honour has ignored this factor as the fix is in and he allows the witnesses to perjure themselves with immunity. (Wet concete becomes a putrid sludge of faeces and urine).
Anne Chester 20th November 2008
Anne Chester tried to say the 3 puppies that died died due to the neglect of the Appellant when they were starved to death.
When shown Jack in the Box (RSPCA Ned) without maggots before he had maggots added to him Anne Chester tried to claim it was another dog. The videos show maggots crawling through the felt. Maggots do not commit suicide. They stay where the food source is. Wandering maggots are wandering because they have been disturbed.
Nanda Ten Grotanhuis Affidavit of Nanda Ten Grotanhuis 21st November 2008
The Manager of the kennels had little hands on and admitted that what was in her affidavit was mostly what she was told by her staff.
That this witness is lying is verified by her statement paragraph 4 " ...... they had trouble walking properly, and it was impossible to sex them until you saw them urinate - although not all male dogs cock their legs." This is said by a person with a degree in animal husbandry and she cannot identify the sex of a dog. Everyone in an animal business would know that simply lifting a dog's tail and counting the holes tells their sex. This witness must think His Honour is a fool.
Again in paragraph 5. "Many of the dogs exhibited trust issues associated with a lack of socialisation and many could not walk on a lead or be handled and had to be carried around the shelter." The Channel 10 video shows the dogs being very sociable with the poodle club members clipping them. The Poodle club members show great fondness of the dogs and the way they
The RSPCA mantra is again stated in paragraph 7." All the dogs reeked of urine and faeces and the matting on the coats of almost all the adult dogs was solidified with faeces and urine. The stench and the state of the dogs was the worst I have encountered in my time with the RSPCA.". The Channel 10 video shows dogs in good order getting little tidy ups and a big performance being made over them. All the dogs were not with matted coats. Dogs do not lie in their own urine and faces, it is against their nature. They will get dirty from playing with each other in yards and this is not abnormal for dogs. Poodles love playing in rain and they always look untidy when wet, this is because they have woolen coats.
Katrina Bartley Affidavit of Katrina Bartley 21st November 2008
She cleaned the kennels and allocated where they were going. Assistant kennel manager. said she helped unload dogs and did not see and crammed or vomit
Mark Duncan Affidavit of Mark Duncan 24th November 2008
Said vomit was faces with a tape worm.
Jeane Wadner Affidavit of Jeane Wadner 24th November 2008
Said dogs were lovable
Leslie Valhos Affidavit of Leslie Valhos 24th November 2008
Clipped dogs and lied about dogs being given to her for rehoming.
Fiona Ferguson Affidavit for forfeiture Fiona Ferguson Affidavit for forfeiture Fiona Ferguson 24th November 2008
Said Michael Pecic administers the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. Pubbles and wet concrete was urine, the volume exceeds the capacity of dogs to urinate by a thousand fold. Could not have been true.
Steven Barrand - Affidavit
of Steven Barrand 27th November 2008 9.45am
Lisa Ramsay - Affidavit
of
Lisa Ramsay 27th November 2008 11am
John Lyons - Affidavit
of
John Lyons 27th November 2008 12pm
Anne Covill - Affidavit
of
Anne Covill 27th November 2008 3pm