L E T T E R S

October 19, 2007

RE: "The State" of Queensland - an independent Sovereign State outside of the Commonwealth of Australia, without a referendum of the sovereign people under section 53 of the Constitution Act 1867(Qld) as of 29th January 1999.
 

Your Excellency I bring this extremely serious matter to your attention as the Governor-General
of the Commonwealth of Australia and the Representative of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.
 
On 29th January 1999 the Governor of the State of Queensland, the Representative of the Crown in Queensland was moved into the Constitution Act 1867 as a parliamentary secretary and a public official. This fractured the separation of powers and common law in the State of Queensland and also removed Queensland as a State of the Commonwealth of Australia and out of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act without a referendum of the sovereign people to remove the entrenched provisions as described in the Constitution Act 1867, section 53 - Certain measures to be supported by referendum, described in Reprint 2, reprinted 27th January 1998, section 53(1), section 1, 2, 2A, 11A, 11B, 14; and, section 53(1).
 
On 9th November 2001 the then Premier of the State of Queensland, the Honourable Peter Beattie presented to Parliament the new Constitution of Queensland 2001 Bill. The elected Members for the people of Queensland, the Members of the Legislative Assembly, passed the Bill, said only to 'modernise' the Constitution of Queensland. This constitution was assented to by the Governor on 3rd December 2001 and upon assent, under section 95 of the new Constitution, Acts subject to the Constitution Act 1867 were repealed. Section 92 immediately came into force which repealed parts of the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1922. This allowed the Parliament to move back prior to the removal of the Legislative Council at referendum in 1922 and 'recreate' the positions of that former Legislative Council.
 
The Acts Interpretation (State Commercial Activities) Act 1994 amended the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 to define "the State" to mean the Executive government of the State of Queensland. Under the provisions of this Act, "the State" may carry out commercial activities 'without further statutory authority' and 'without prior appropriation from the public accounts' {s47C.(3)} Section 47C. defines 'commercial activities to include 'commercial activities that are not within the ordinary functions of the State' and these functions may be delegated by a Minister to an officer of the State who may subdelegate delegated powers to another officer of the State. An 'officer of the State means a chief executive, or employee of the public sector or an officer of the public service'.
 
I refer to the following Acts - the Reprints Act 1992, the Statutory Instruments Act 1992, the Legislative Standards Act 1992.  These Acts were used in conjunction with the Constitution of Queensland 2001, section 92 to create the corporation Government of the State and then further to repeal those Acts under section 95 of that Constitution. Those Acts moved back in time, one may say like the Tardis, reprinting, removing the Crown out of all Acts as far back as the Magna Carta then reprinting back to the Australia Acts (Requests) Act 1985 and removing all the positions as cited in that Act. The only part of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act which is recognized by Queensland is the Commonwealth Constitution commencing at section 9. The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act is not recognized which includes the High Court and the Federal Court.
 
By using the Australia Acts (Request) Act 1985 section 12 in conjunction with the other three State Acts, the Acts reprinted Queensland into a corporate State. In conjunction with the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 section 15DA(2) which allowed for the automatic commencement and assent of any Act that had been laying dormant for a period of twelve months, Acts which were framed to create the corporate State of Queensland in 1992, 1993 and 1994 were reprinted by the Reprints Act 1992 which is under the Department of the Premier.
 
Queensland then became, at the completion of these matters, without assent of any of the laws by the Crown or Her Representative, an independent sovereign State and fractured the common law and the separation of powers.
 
When people of the State of Queensland vote in a State election, the writs are not under the Hand of the Sovereign of Australia Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II but under the Public Seal of the State and issued by the Governor who is an entity within the Parliament of Queensland (or the Speaker for one vacant seat).
 
The elected Members of the sovereign people of the State of Queensland have, since 29th January 1999 taken it upon themselves, (contrary to the Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth) to which they are all subject under Chapter 7 - The proper administration of Government), to create for themselves, under the Constitution of Queensland 2001, a corporation Government in which the sovereign people of Queensland and their property are mere chattels of the State.  This surely is a breach of the trust and faith which the electors of Queensland placed in their elected members to uphold and respect the laws of the Commonwealth.
 
Queensland is now outside the Commonwealth of Australia as an independent sovereign State
without common law, and the people are subject to civil and statute law only. The 'common law
and general jurisdiction'; the 'Laws of England to be applied in the administration of justice' and
'equitable jurisdiction' have been removed under the Supreme Court Act 1995(Qld) Reprint
number 2A dated 2nd March, 2001 under Schedule 2 of the Constitution of Queensland 2001.
 
What now happens to people who have been prosecuted, fined, imprisoned etc. under the civil
law of Queensland, which does not exist elsewhere in the Commonwealth of Australia. The
sovereign people of Queensland have not voted in any referendum to allow civil statute law to
remove their common law rights.
 
The people of Queensland are still, under section 117 of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act, subjects of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and protected by Her
laws as there has been no referendum under section 128 of the Commonwealth of Australia
Constitution Act to allow the separation of Queensland from the Commonwealth of Australia.
 
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Queensland is found in the Constitution of
Queensland 2001, Part 5 - Powers of the State. Therefore it is assumed that the Judges
of the Supreme and District Courts of Queensland must protect the 'assets' of the State of
Queensland and find only in favour of the State, not in favour of the registered owners
of private land who have lost, under the statute laws of Queensland, the rights to use their
fee simple land as they see fit.
 
As stated by Chief Justice de Jersey in the Supreme Court of Queensland Appeal for Mrs
Catherine Elizabeth Burns
"[5] These contentions are plainly untenable. Mrs Burns certainly has an indefeasible interest as registered proprietor of an estate in fee simple in the land. But the sovereign law making power of the Queensland Parliament, considered recently in a somewhat similar factual context in Bone v Mothershaw……….. In a different, though analogous way, the Parliament is clearly empowered to authorize planning schemes which restrict what the owners of estates in fee simple may lawfully do with their land."
 
Further, Judge McPherson JJA in Bone v Mothershaw [2002] QCA120 stated:-
 
"For this severe limitation on his rights as owner, he has received and will receive no compensation, although he continues to enjoy the privilege of paying the rates that the Council levies on his land. The action taken by the Council was no doubt undertaken in the public interest, as it claims, of the citizens of Brisbane; but it is not they who will bear the financial disadvantages of the action taken in their interest.
 
[24] The question is whether our legal system permits such prohibitory action to be
taken.
The Council has not taken any interest of Mr Bone’s, so as to attract the operation of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 or otherwise. He retains unimpaired, for what it is worth, his estate in fee simple absolute in the land. He has been stripped of virtually all the powers which make ownership of land of any practical utility or value. There is, as is attested by an affidavit from the valuer provided at the hearing, no doubt that the value of the land has been greatly reduced. But the law provides no remedy for this action or its consequences when it is the result of legislation validly passed under law-making authority that by its terms or nature authorises or permits such an outcome.
 
 [26] The same opinion is explicit in the reasoning of the High Court in Durham
Holdings Pty Ltd v State of New South Wales (2001) 75 ALJR 501, holding that a
State Parliament has the legislative power to deprive a person of property without
compensation."
 
What can now be done for all the sovereign people of the State of Queensland who have no common law property rights and this also includes the aboriginal people of this State who have had their land under the Native Title Act 1991 and the Torres Strait Islander Act 1991 placed into the Brigalow Corporation of the State of Queensland? All people in Queensland, regardless of race, colour or creed have had their land, held in a Deed of Grant in fee simple, removed from their possession and into that of the Brigalow Corporation of the State. They now only hold a statutory title in their land.
 
The New South Wales Court has cited Bone v Mothershaw and Burns v State of Queensland and Croton in a matter involving Mr Peter Spencer of Queanbeyan in New South Wales.
 
New South Wales removed the Governor in 1987 under the Consolidated Amendment Act 1987.
 
I now draw Your Excellency's attention to the matter of Mrs Catherine Elizabeth Burns, which is before the High Court of Australia. The 78B notice pertaining to this matter is attached to this correspondence. This notice has been filed in the High Court of Australia and forwarded to all Attorney Generals of the Commonwealth of Australia. This Notice is now a public document.
 
In early 2003 I was approached by the Member for Hinchinbrook, Mr Marc Rowell of the State Parliament of Queensland requesting my assistance with a problem one of his constituents was involved in. The lady in question, Mrs Catherine Elizabeth Burns, a widow of some seventy three years of age, had purchased at public auction in Cardwell, Queensland in 1968, approximately 25 acres of land. Her land is  situated opposite the Hinchinbrook Resort and faces the main north south highway. This land was purchased in a common law estate of fee simple, the original Deed of Grant for which Mrs Burns still has in her possession. The land was purchased under the provisions of the Land Act 1962 and a requirement upon purchase of the Deed of Grant in fee simple was that the land was to be cleared for a productive use. The land was cleared by Mr Buddy Dingwall, inspected by the then Department of Lands and a Certificate of Title was issued under the provisions of the Real Property Act 1861 in November 1970.
 
Mrs Catherine Burns, at the time of the purchase, was married to Sergeant Duncan Charles Burns, OIC of the Cardwell Police Station. Their plan for purchasing the land was, when Mr Burns retired from the Queensland Police Service, they would build some small tourist cabins on the property as it is in a prime location, facing onto the north south highway and opposite Hinchinbrook Island and they would then be self provided for in their retirement years. Unfortunately Mr Burns passed away prior to his reaching retirement age and Mrs Burns has never remarried.
 
As Your Excellency will be aware, a Deed of Grant in fee simple is a common law contract, the validity of which is known, upheld and recognized world wide and is held as security for all banks and lending institutions not only in the Commonwealth of Australia but world wide, when those institutions are providing money for private lending. Financial institutions and lenders do not now hold a common law estate in fee simple but a Certificate of Title to the land, subject to a statutory instrument.  Technically they, as with Mrs Burns and myself, hold nothing.
 
In the State of Queensland, by definition under the Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Qld), section 36 - Meaning of Commonly used words and expressions - definition of 'person' includes an individual and a corporation. Therefore Mrs Burns (and all other people of Queensland) as a 'person' is thus tied inextricably to the State corporation.
 
This is also applicable, by definition, to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land as an 'Aborigine' is now defined as a person of the Aboriginal race of Australia.
 
It must be noted that the definition of 'person' in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(C'wth) section
22(1)(a) expressions used to denote persons generally (such as "person", "party", "someone", "anyone", "no-one", "one", "another" and "whoever"), include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual;
 
The Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Qld) defines property both present and future, owned by
you as an 'individual and a corporation' as subject to a statutory instrument only and that statutory instrument is not only applicable to your land, but all property as you, as a person now own, as opposed to the previous common law indefeasible deed of grant in fee simple, only an interest in your land under a statutory title. All land, including private land held previously in the common law estate of inheritance in fee simple by private individuals, is now held by the corporation of the State of Queensland known as the Brigalow Corporation.
 
I refer Your Excellency to the Second Reading Speech of the Premier the Honourable Peter Beattie, for the Constitution of Queensland 2001 Bill and the Parliament of Queensland Bill 2001, presented to Parliament on 9th November 2001.
 
In this Speech, the Premier therein described the entities which were to make up the Parliament under the new Constitution.
 
"But this Act is much more it is the fundamental law of Queensland that underpins our system of government.
 
The entities it provides for include this Parliament, the Supreme and District Courts of this State and the system of local government that we know in Queensland. The office holders under this Act include the Governor of Queensland, the Ministers of the Crown and the judges of the Supreme and District Courts. This law is of supreme importance."
 
It is now not a Parliament elected by the sovereign people, but a State owned corporation and inside that Parliament/Corporation are the entities of the Supreme and District Courts, which handle matters under the Property Law Act 1974(Qld) and further Courts such as the Land Court, the Planning & Environment Court; the Governor of Queensland, the Ministers of the Crown, the Judges of the Supreme and District Courts and the Local Government.
 
Further in the speech, the Premier stated "Our entity as a Sovereign State, the democratic ideals on which our State is built, rest on our Constitution".
 
The new Constitution of Queensland 2001 was assented to by the Governor on 3rd December 2001. Here two questions that I propose:- The Governor of the State is now inside the Parliament as a parliamentary secretary and holds the Public Seal of the State and seals all documents signed under the Hand of the Sovereign with the Public Seal of the State, therefore rendering void, any contracts, Acts, laws etc. under the Hand of the Sovereign. The Governor is quite clearly now inside the Parliament, conducting the daily business of the Government and allocating the laws applicable to each Government Department of the State. The public servants of the State are not public servants of the Crown, they are public servants of the State and as the State owns all property within the State of Queensland, they have dominion over all property and aspects of your daily life.
 
The Constitution of Queensland 2001 was assented to by the Governor which leads to two major problems:-
 
i) The assent of the Governor must be defective as the Governor is now inside the Parliament as a 'parliamentary secretary'
 
ii) To have Queensland become an independent Sovereign State and to remove the common law, set up statutory civil law and have Queensland not recognize the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act but only that Act from section 9 onwards, a full referendum would have been required of the people of the Commonwealth of Australia to enact, validly, that Queensland, from 29th January 1999 was now independent of the Commonwealth of Australia and a State in its own right.
 
In the Second Reading Speech for the Constitution the Premier stated that the Constitution would be 'broadly accessible' to the people of Queensland. Considering that this Act has effectively removed all common law property rights from the people of Queensland it should, one would reasonably assume, have been put to a referendum of the people.
 
However in the Second Reading Speech the Premier stated -
 
"… The Constitution of Queensland 2001 does not include a statement of executive power vesting in the Sovereign as recommended by LCARC. The Government is of the view that LCARC's recommended expression of executive power is too narrow and does not adequately reflect the democratic convention that requires the Governor to act in accordance with advice from his or her Ministers"…and further…………"Those provisions that are said to be referendum entrenched remain untouched in the shells of their current Acts."
 
In the matter of Mrs Catherine Elizabeth Burns, she applied for and was refused the right to clear her private land because it 'may' be used by the Southern Cassowary and was 'known habitat for the mahogany glider" even though correspondence from the Director General of the Environmental Protection Agency stated that Mrs Burns land was not part of the Mahogany Glider Recovery Plan 2000 - 2004. The State Government of Queensland with the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia has spent $11 million dollars purchasing land in the Cardwell region under the Mahogany Glider Recovery Plan 2000 - 2004 to protect the habitat for this species. Mrs Burns was not contacted with regard to her land nor did she receive correspondence to indicate that her land was 'known habitat'. This was a decision made by a public official of the Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Mr Luke Croton.
 
I have assisted Mrs Burns in this matter by writing to the Premier of Queensland, to no avail and preparing and presenting this matter before three Courts in this State. All appeals have been dismissed under the Court of Appeal Queensland decision Bone v Mothershaw [2002] QCA 120 The Supreme and District Courts of Queensland as enties of the Parliament must, therefore, protect the assets of the State, the real property owned by the Brigalow Corporation of the State of Queensland.
 
This matter is now before the High Court of Australia in an attempt to obtain a resolution for Mrs Burns. She is in dire financial straits, she has had to sell her family home which has been in her family for four generations as she could not, on an aged pension, afford to maintain the family home and pay rates of more that $2000.00 per annum on the Cardwell property. She has lost all her private possessions which she had kept on her son's property in Innisfail when Cyclone Larry devastated the area. She has been forced to rely on her family for a roof over her head as she is not eligible for State housing as they advised her she owns a property in Cardwell. This is despite advising them that she, under orders from the Courts of Queensland, can do nothing with the land because it is mahogany glider habitat.
 
This widowed grandmother has to pay rates of approximately $2,500 per annum on the property for the public benefit of the people and the State of Queensland. There is absolutely no equity or benefit in the land for her as the registered owner of the land, she cannot build on the land or sell the land, the equity the fee simple is now owned by the State and taken with no compensation as required under section 53(xxxi) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. 
 
Under the Constitution of Queensland 2001, by the removal of common law in the State of Queensland, the public officials of this State can acquire an interest in private registered land without compensation, for the benefit of the State Government corporation. This also includes the property owned now and in the future as the sovereign people are in fact " an individual and a corporation" and therefore subject to the corporation Government of the State of Queensland.
 
The sovereign people of the Commonwealth of Australia have never been required at a referendum by virtue of section 128 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia to vote to allow "the State" of Queensland to fracture the Commonwealth and become an independent sovereign state.
 
It is quite clear when the lending institutions become aware that any persons who own any property in Queensland - especially real property which has always the main security for lending to home owners, farmers etc, the basis of their lending against real property will be compromised. There may well be a cessation of lending in this State for the purchase of private homes or land for farming and agriculture as "the State" corporate Government can render void any contract with an individual or company and acquire an interest over land without consultation or compensation and the Courts inside the Government will protect the assets of the corporation as they have done in matters by virtue of Bone v Mothershaw [2002] QCA120.
 
The common law and references to the Crown have been removed out of the Supreme Court Act 1995(Qld).
 
Civil law and statute law have a very different requirement for the committing of any offence, whether an indictable offence, a summary offence, a simple offence or an absolute offence such as a traffic offence where a guilty mind is not required to commit that offence.Under the civil law system, which is now subject to the Uniform Civil Procedures Rules of the Supreme Court Act 1991(Qld), every person is guilty until they prove their innocence.
 
The Supreme and District Court, other courts and the Judges and Justices of those Courts are now inside the corporation of the Government, and not sworn representatives of the Crown. Under the Constitution of Queensland 2001, all documents are issued or signed under the Public Seal of the State. This would be any document appointing a politician, a Judge or any person who should swear an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign. The Governor now seals that document in accordance with the Constitution of Queensland 2001 section 37 with the Public Seal of the State therefore voiding the appointment of any of those people by the Sovereign but making those people in effect 'officers of the State' and subject to the 'Powers of the State' as cited in Part 5 of the Constitution of Queensland 2001.
 
It is quite clear that those who have been put in power by the sovereign people of the State have, since 1992 when the original Acts were being framed, had a full intention in time, to bring about their own personal agendas, regardless of the wishes of the sovereign people who have, in good and open faith and intention, by secret ballot at elections, voted these people into positions of power and of trust and who must swear or affirm an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty that they will uphold Her laws for the benefit of the people of the State of Queensland. That power has turned from the power granted by the people to the Legislative Assembly to make laws for 'peace welfare and good government' on behalf of the sovereign people of Queensland using funds from taxes paid by the citizens of Queensland and all of Australia, into a totalitarian system of Government, whereby we the people are subject to the corporation Government of the State.
 
The ramifications caused by these actions carried out over a long period of time by the Members of the body politic dating back as far as 1992 are so vast and wide spread it will take a long time to remedy and repair the whole system of government in Queensland. The Parliament can make any laws they wish but I do not believe that under a democratic system of Government they are elected to Parliament to make draconian laws which remove the rights of the sovereign people to their use of their land without fair and just compensation.
 
I respectfully suggest an immediate return to a common law government of people elected by the sovereign people under a writ of the Sovereign, not under a writ of the Election Act of the State.
 
In the Second Reading Speech the Premier stated "Those provisions that are said to be referendum entrenched remain untouched in the shells of their current Acts."
 
I do not believe that the provisions are 'said' to be referendum entrenched but in actual fact are, under a Westminster system of Government.
 
The former Premier said in the Second Reading Speech for the constitution, 'we all look forward to the day when we are a republic'.  The people of the Commonwealth of Australia at referendum in 1999 voted against a republic but wished to retain the present system of Government with a clear separation of powers under common law and for the Commonwealth of Australia to remain exactly the same with a combined Federation of States as was created in 1901.
 
Queensland is not a republic and if the system we have at present is the type of republic as envisaged by our leaders then, as shown in the 78B notice page 5 paragraph 15 which is attached -"An estate of inheritance in land or equity can not and must not be subject to statute law. That in effect extinguishes or regulates that same inheritance, completely, ignoring section 52 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, for to do so anarchy and ruin will prevail.
For as soon as the financial institutions withdraw because of lack of tenure in land held of common law, poverty will soon follow."
 
The only tenure that any financial institutions hold in land in Queensland today, even though they may believe they hold an estate in fee simple, is in fact held by the corporation of the State, the Brigalow Corporation and is now the full property of the State. The lending institutions now only hold a statutory title and an interest only in the land by virtue of the Statutory Instruments Act 1992 under which the rules of the Supreme and District Courts are found under section 12 of that Act.
Reference - Glasgow v Hall, 2007 HCA Trans 557 (3 October 2007) and Wilson v Raddatz,
2007 HCA Trans 558 (3 October 2007). Both Mr Glasgow and Mr Wilson were charged,
convicted and fined in Queensland and that decision upheld by all Courts in Queensland
including the Court of Appeal Queensland. Subsequently those matters were placed before the
High Court of Australia hopefully for resolution. The international instrument, cited in those
decisions, was the Treaty No. (1193)ATS32 signed at Rio de Janeiro 5 June 1992, Section 10 of
Agenda 21 under which the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997(C'wth) was framed.
This Act allows farmers to use their land in an ecologically sustainable way for the benefit of
the people and the economy of Australia and the international economy. Under this Act $1.35
billion dollars from the partial sale of Telstra were placed in the Natural Heritage Trust of
Australia Account. The farmers using their land under the provisions of this Act could receive
funding for the loss of the use of their land if the cessation of their activities was of the public
benefit.
 
Mr Gregory Wilson a builder and a grazier and his company Wilsons' Development Pty Ltd
and Mr and Mrs Keith Glasgow, long term farmers and graziers both hold their land in Deeds
of Grant in fee simple and their land was registered under the Real Property Act 1861. The
land is commonly known as freehold title under the Torrens System.
 
The High Court of Australia have now clearly rejected, by their decision,  those common
law contracts and every other common contract in the Commonwealth of Australia. Those
contracts are now void and are totally subject to the 'stewardship' of the Commonwealth, the
State, the local government councils and the public officials employed by those entities.
 
No person or corporation who is an owner of any property, real or personal, in the
Commonwealth of Australia has any right to the use of that property as all contracts at
common law have been rendered void. Their rights to their property are all subject to
the regulations imposed by the Federal, State and local Governments in the Commonwealth
of Australia.
 
It is therefore clear that the following Act, based on an international treaty, has
no relevance or validity in this Commonwealth of Australia today.
 
 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986
 Act No. 125 of 1986 as amended
 
 Schedule 2 - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
 Section 3
 The States Parties to the present Covenant
 Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
 
Article 17
1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
    
 2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
 
As these matters have been upheld by the High Court of Australia, it is clear that the value of land held in a Deed of Grant in fee simple, which was an estate of inheritance at common law and recognized world wide as security for lending institutions and contracts for individuals and corporations, as the asset base and security for loans etc. has been greatly reduced for the registered owners of that real property.
 
To quote the words of Judge McPherson JJA in Bone v Mothershaw [2002] QCA120:-  "He (Mr Bone) retains unimpaired, for what it is worth, his estate in fee simple absolute in the land. He has been stripped of virtually all the powers which make ownership of land of any practical utility or value".
 
The statement abovementioned is of particular relevance to Mr and Mrs Glasgow and Mr Wilson. Mr Keith Glasgow was prosecuted by an officer of the State for cutting native vegetation to feed his starving livestock in this time of sever drought. It is of interest to note that the Warrant to Enter executed by the public officials of this State was not for Mr Glasgow's property 'Bayfield' but was for a property approximately 27 kilometres away known as 'Valentine Plains'. This fact was presented to all the Courts to which this matter was taken and ignored.
 
Mr Gregory Wilson was prosecuted by an officer of the State for repairing severe erosion on a watercourse on his property by filling the degraded areas in with dead and dying black wattle and other vegetation and weeds which were of no value to the livestock as a food source. Mr Wilson then covered the vegetation with soil and replanted the areas with pasture grass.
 
The reason that I have forwarded this document to Your Excellency is that the Federal Government is to call a Federal Election. Queensland cannot be included in those writs. As a result of Bone v Mothershaw being upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Queensland where it upheld that Queensland is an independent sovereign State and the Queensland Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Qld) defines the Constitution as the Commonwealth Constitution, not the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act in its entirety, the people of Queensland are 'an individual and a corporation' and have no sovereignty in any Federal Election.
 
As stated, I have attached  the 78B Notice for Mrs Catherine Burns for your information. I have, by attaching that document placed it there for your perusal to assist you in clarifying the problems we have in Queensland at this time and which I believe must be rectified immediately. It has not been forwarded to you to in any way pre-empt the High Court of Australia or to show them any disrespect at all.
 
The following information comes from a comparison document - 'A Difference Report by www.SoftInterface.com' for the Constitution Act 1867. This shows the amendments, deletions and alterations to the Constitution that have been carried out to support the changes to the Constitution without referendum. This shows that under the original  Constitution Act 1867 and the modified Constitution Act 1867, Reprint No. 2A there have been 114 changes,131 additions and 116 deletions found. The removal of the Governor under section 14 of that Act is only one of the amendments to that Constitution without any referendum of the people by virtue of section 53 of the Constitution Act 1867.
 
It shows in this comparison document that subject to section 6 and 7 of the Constitution Act 1867 the corporation clearly has the right to hold any estate, which in this case is an estate of common law fee simple, to be acquired from any other person or in or on any Crown land in Queensland to be contracted or agreed with a Suncorp Insurance Commissioner and finance. It is therefore clear that the Government corporation of the State, to which a person as an individual and a corporation is tied, holds our property, in this case our common law estate in fee simple. All that any person holding an estate in fee simple at common law in Queensland can only hold the certificate of title which is subject to a statutory instrument.
 
As the corporation of Queensland, when it was formed, had no assets, it had to acquire assets if they wished to borrow. Under the Queensland Government (Land Holding) Amendment Act 1992, they immediately took all the Crown land and estates in fee simple registered under the Property Law Act 1974 as equity for the corporation without compensation to the registered owners of the property whether they live in Queensland or anywhere else and converted that property for their own use, contrary to Chapter 7 of the Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth) - The proper administration of Government.
 
The owners of that property taken by the corporation can only hope that the corporation has not used our real property as an asset to borrow funds for the corporation for whatever purpose. If the independent State corporation fails or borrowing is too extensive, it will again be the sovereign people who will bear the financial consequences.
 
Your Excellency, I am not a legally qualified person, nor do I have a degree of any sort. I am merely a subject of her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and a citizen of our great nation.
 
I therefore request of Your Excellency to do whatever is in your executive power to return Queensland to a democratically elected common law system of Government and with all due respect, this will have to be done prior to any writs issued for a Federal Election which is now pending. No one can vote in a Federal Election as all we are voting for is a person whose authority and standing as a Federal Member has no relevance in the independent sovereign State of Queensland.
 
I forward this correspondence for your attention and action. If you have any queries in regard to this document I can be contacted at the above address.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
 
 
(David J. Walter)
11th October 2007
 
Att: 78B Notice filed in High Court of Australia
 
cc: The Hon John Howard MP
 Prime Minister of Australia
  
The Hon. Phillip Ruddock MP,
 Attorney General of Australia
 
Mr Kevin Rudd MP - Leader of the Opposition