L E T T E R S

October 19, 2007

Information Paper - Matter Pending - To Be Determined by the High Court of Australia - Catherine Elizabeth Burns

KEITH RONALD GLASGOW & GREGORY WILSON - BOTH THESE MATTERS WERE SENT TO THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA ON APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL. BOTH APPLICATIONS WERE DISMISSED.
 
DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA 3RD OCTOBER 2007
 
The High Court of Australia stated in their decisions that they saw no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions upheld by the Court of Appeal. Part of those decisions were to use Bone v Mothershaw [2002] QCA 120.
 
Judge McPherson JJA of the Queensland Court of Appeal 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.
 
Therefore what the High Court of Australia upheld was that the Queensland Government can now make any laws they like over any property, that is private registered land, native title land, and personal property. This means that neither Mr Glasgow, Mr Wilson, nor any other person in Queensland have any protection under the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act. As explained in my letter to the Governor General of Australia, we have no property right in Queensland and we have no rights as individual citizens, regardless of race, colour or creed. Our property is now the property of the Queensland Government corporation and protected by the Queensland Government corporation - you are now, as defined in the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 - a  'person' is an individual and a corporation.
 
This situation will remain unless the majority of people in Australia are willing or interested enough to make it clear to all people and groups including those people that created this situation and allowed it to continue that it was not in consultation with or accordance with the wishes of the sovereign people of Australia. Those who should be made aware of this situation include the financial institutions, community groups and the politicians, both Federal, State and local government and of all political parties.  We at no time voted for this situation in a referendum of the people and we certainly did not vote to lose the estate of inheritance at common law in fee simple on our land.
 
All contracts are common law contracts. The common law contracts of Mr Glasgow and Mr Wilson have been breached by the decision of the courts of Queensland and the High Court of Australia. As stated in the Court of Appeal decision Bone v Mothershaw
 "He has been stripped of virtually all the powers which make ownership of land of any practical utility or value". This has come about by the land being removed into the Brigalow Corporation of the State Government of Queensland and public officials being given 'stewardship' over our land.
 
This therefore, must give people who own their own home to live in, those people in the primary industries who make their living from the land, or even people planning to purchase real property, serious cause for concern if they have, as stated by Judge McPherson in Bone v Mothershaw "been stripped of virtually all the powers which make ownership of land of any practical utility or value".
 
The High Court went on to say that the Applicant's reliance on international 'instruments' is misconceived. Therefore all international agreements signed by Australia, eg. Civil and Political Rights, the Convention on Biological Diversity, etc. etc. appear to have no relevance in Queensland.
 
Keith Glasgow appealed to the Court of Appeal, Queensland to dismiss the decision of the District Court Judge Nace, to uphold the Appeal coming from the Magistrates Court.
 
Judge Nace upheld the penalty coming from the Integrated Planning Act 1997 for the starting of an assessable development without a development permit.
 
Gregory Wilson appealed to the Court of Appeal, Queensland to dismiss the decision of the District Court Judge Brabazon, which upheld the Appeal from the Magistrates Court decision.
 
In both dismissals of the Appeals in the Queensland Court of Appeal - no extension of time  was granted and Bone v Mothershaw was cited in both decisions of the Court of Appeal.
 
The charges - criminal - related to the clearing of native vegetation on Keith Glasgow's land. The Court of Appeal (Queensland) - the highest court in Queensland, rejected the applicant's argument that the Act did not apply to land held in fee simple and that land was not comprehended by the term 'freehold land' in the Act.
 
Mr Keith Glasgow was prosecuted by an officer of the State for cutting native vegetation to feed his starving livestock in this time of severe 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 17 kilometres away known as 'Valentine Plains'. This fact was presented to all the Courts to which this matter was taken and ignored. In the District Court the Judge stated that Mr and Mrs Glasgow had purchased 'Valentine Plains' in the 1980's. The Glasgow's do not own that property.
 
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 Warrant executed over Mr Wilson was also void as it was sworn out under the Land Act 1994.
Tree clearing under that Act pertains to State owned land only.
 
For Mr Glasgow and Mr Wilson to be prosecuted for these actions, which to any farmer is regarded as part of responsible farm management and that prosecution upheld throughout every court in the land, defies logic.
 
The Commonwealth Act, the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 is part of the implementation requirements of the international treaty - the Convention on Biological  Diversity signed in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. Funds of $1.35 billion from the partial sale of Telstra were the main source of funding for the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Account.
 
The main object of this 'Account is to conserve, repair and replenish Australia's natural capital infrastructure'. In the Preamble of this Act it shows that 'government leadership be demonstrated, and that the Australian community be involved'…It goes on to say that 'Australia's rural community should have a key role in the ecologically sustainable management of Australia's natural resources.
 
s8 Purposes of the Account
 
 The purposes of the Account are as follows:
 (a) the National Vegetation Initiative;
 (b) the Murray-Darling 2001 project;
 (c) the National Land and Water Resources Audit;
 (d) the National Reserve System;
 (e) ………..
 (f) ……………..
 (g) supporting sustainable agriculture;(as defined by s16)
 (h) natural resources management (as defined by s 17);
 ………………………………
 
The Act goes on to define the following:-
s10 Primary objective of the National Vegetation Initiative
 
For the purposes of this Act, the primary objective of the National Vegetation Initiative is to reverse the long-term decline in the extent and quality of Australia's native vegetation cover by:
(a) conserving remnant native vegetation; and
(b) conserving Australia's biodiversity; and
(c) restoring, by means of  revegetation,  the environmental values and productive capacity of Australia's degraded land and water.
 
s16 Meaning of sustainable agriculture
(1) For the purposes of this Act, "sustainable agriculture means the use of agricultural practices and systems that maintain or improve the following:-
 (a) the economic viability of agricultural production;
 (b) the social viability and well-being of rural communities;
 (c) ………..
 
 s17 Meaning of natural resources management
  For the purposes of this Act, natural resources management means:
 (a) any activity relating to the management of the use, development or
conservation of one or more of the following natural resources:
(i) soil;
(ii) water;
(iii) vegetation; or
 
 s20 Grant of financial assistance to a person, or a body, other than a State
(1) This section applies if an amount is to be debited from the Account for the purpose of making a grant of financial assistance to a person, or a body, other than a State.
 
 s21 Principles of ecologically sustainable development
(3) For the purposes of this section, the principles of ecologically sustainable development consist of:
 (a) the following core objectives:
(i) to enhance individual and community well-being and welfare by following a path of economic development that safeguards the welfare of future generations;
 (b) the following guiding principles:
(i) decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short- term economic, environmental, social and equity considerations;
(ii) ………………
(iv) the need to develop a strong, growing and diversified economy that can enhance the capacity for environmental protection should be recognized;
(vi) cost-effective and flexible measures should be adopted;
(vii) decisions and actions should provide for broad community involvement on issues which affect the community.
 
If, as stated in the Preamble to this Commonwealth Act, the rural community of Australia should play a key role, and the definitions in the Act appear to support the actions of Mr Glasgow in using vegetation to feed his starving stock, (which incidentally Mr Glasgow replaced immediately), and the actions of Mr Wilson in repairing severe erosion, use of vegetation and soil for the conservation of soil and water it is difficult to understand how they could be prosecuted, fined and had costs imposed on them, all of which was supported  by all Australian Courts.
 
No sensible person would support the destruction of vegetation or any environmental damage. Farmers clear parts of their land to increase the productivity of their land and improve it to feed this nation and support the economy - (refer NHTAA s16 - sustainable agriculture).
 
The Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997(C'wth) and all agreement stemming from that Act were to be administered with consultation and community participation.
 
Any person who wantonly damages our environment for their own personal gain would not be supported by the majority of people in this country.
 
Unfortunately it appears that these matters must now be taken to England or wherever we have to go including the Hague, to have the common law and our property rights returned to us if nothing we do as a people will cause our governments to reconsider their actions in creating this situation for whatever reason.
 
If there is no resolution from any of these quarters, then we have lost all equity or value in our land and our common law rights to the ownership of our land.
 
The majority of persons who take up a parcel of land with a long-term view of making their living off the land and providing food for the people of Australia and overseas and supporting the economy by their toil, do so with the view that they will protect and manage the land productively and viably. Many farmers are on land which has been in their family for generations.
 
It is a given, and I can only speak for Australia, that people on the land suffer severe hardship and work in creating a sustainable property. Originally farmers in this country had to face and contend with, the unrelenting pressures of nature - drought, fire, flood and wildlife damaging their crops and stock.
 
Then came the conservationists - with many extremely valuable plans and ideas for protecting the land, native wildlife and vegetation and some plans and ideas based on very 'creative' scientific fact but they,  having the backing of the governments - nervous of the next election, created  further difficulties for the farmers.
 
Next came the governments and their public officials with ever more regulations, often to promote the plans and ideas of the conservationists but also with the ever-increasing stream of paperwork to be completed by the farmer, usually at the end of a very long and hard day on the land.
 
Now, with the administration of the laws and the regulatory approach favoured by most governments, the idea that the bureaucracy has that 'stewardship' of the land is the best way to go, the rural community primarily, but the urban dweller also, have now to face prosecution by public officials and no support from the Courts when prosecuted but face conviction, fines and costs. The definition of 'stewardship' is 'administering the property, house, finances, owned by another'.
 
People, who have now 'been stripped of virtually all the powers which make ownership of land of any practical utility or value', and the loss of the common law, supported by the recent decision of the High Court of Australia in the applications for special leave to appeal of Mr Glasgow and Mr Wilson, now have another more frightening and very real problem to contend with.
 
No one has voted in a referendum of the sovereign people in Australia to lose our common law rights to the use and ownership of our land. If the ownership of land now has no 'practical utility or value' should the rural community continue try to make a living off the land or to constantly work to increase its productivity and viability?
 
Those urban dwellers who own a home and land and often have a large mortgage on that real property have the same dilemma. What will be the reaction of the financial institutions to this situation?
 
Do the governments of this Commonwealth of Australia still want the farming sector or the ownership of land anywhere in Australia? 
 
Does the Australian economy still rely on primary production as part of its economy?
 
If the answers to the above two questions is 'no'  then surely there should have been at least some consultation with the community and the sovereign people.  Ignorance is definitely not bliss in this instance.
 
ATTENTION - people living in New South Wales.
 
The matter of Bone v Mothershaw and Burns v the State of Queensland and Croton have already been used by a court of New South Wales in a matter between the State of New South Wales and Peter Spencer to prevent him from using his freehold land in fee simple to its full potential and it appears that the Governor of New South Wales was removed in 1987, therefore New South Wales is in the same situation as Queensland and for the same reasons.
 
It is believed these actions were carried out without consultation with the people or a referendum. Surely it would be time to have these matters clarified to the people by our Governments prior to the next Federal Election.
 
In 1999 the majority vote in Australia was not to have a republic but to retain the system of the Crown, the legislature and the Courts.
 
Grounds of Appeal to High Court of Australia.
 
These were part of the grounds of appeal presented to the Court of Appeal Queensland and also forwarded to the High Court of Australia.
 
  I request that the Court of Appeal allow natural justice to prevail for me in this
  matter as there is no offence for the clearing of native vegetation on private "freehold  
  land" in either the Vegetation Management Act 1999 or Integrated Planning Act 1997.
 
            (i) I, Keith Ronald Glasgow, the Applicant committed no offence against any law of the Commonwealth, State, Local Government, or at common law. The vegetation clearing offence for which I have been prosecuted, was commenced by the Respondent, Peter Thomas Hall employed as an authorised officer under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 by the Department of Natural Resources.
 
( ii) The Integrated Planning Act 1997, section 4.3.18(3) shows:- 'However, proceedings may only be brought by the assessing authority for an offence under (a)  section 4.3.1, 4.3.2 or 4.3.3 about the Standard Building Regulation; '
    
(iii) The offence for which I have been charged and convicted and to which I pleaded not guilty could only have been brought before a Magistrates Court by the assessing authority about a Standard Building Regulation.
 
  I have been fined and had costs awarded against me to the total value of$27,559.25 and
  I request of the Court of Appeal that all convictions, fines and costs be quashed.
 
  I have recently received a notice from SPER regarding the outstanding fines and costs
  awarded against me. That Department has advised that I am required to pay the full fines
 and costs to the total of $27,559.25 or carry out community service as ordered until that
  amount has been recovered through my labour to the Crown.
 
i) Community service, is in fact, a deprivation of my liberty by the order of the Court. Therefore the hours that I will be required to serve will be in actual fact, imprisonment for the benefit of the State.
 
ii) My drivers licence will be suspended and a Warrant issued to take possession of our private property to the value of $27,559.25.
 
iii) I have been advised by the Clerk of the Court at Biloela that a Warrant has already been issued to the value of that property to cover the fines and costs imposed by the Court in this criminal proceedings.
 
 I, Keith Ronald Glasgow, the Applicant, apply for leave to appeal from the whole of the
 judgment of the Queensland Court of Appeal on Appeal No. 273 of 2006, date of judgment 2nd
 February 2007. It is submitted that the Court of Appeal erred at law for not granting the
 extension of time for leave to appeal by misapplying the principles of law in the case of  Bone v
 Mothershaw [2002]QCA 120.
 
 The Charge was that I made an assessable development without a permit on Freehold land contrary to Section 4.3.1 (1) of the Integrated Planning Act 1997. No development took place at any time except the standard property management practice of utilising native vegetation in a drought to feed starving stock. Section 16.2 of the National Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 establishes that actions of property management are sustainable property management for the purposes of the Act and do not fall under Queensland vegetation management laws.
 
 The Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Queensland have not passed any laws to prevent us from the use of our freehold land for the purposes of sustainable agriculture or to remove the common law right to allow us to continue in our business of sustainable agriculture.
 
 The evidence collected and presented to the Court below as a result of a Warrant sworn before Magistrate T.G.Bradshaw in Rockhampton on 13th January 2003 executed over our property on 15th January 2003 by the Respondent Peter Thomas Hall in the company of Peter Webley is tainted because the Warrant is void ab initio. Evidence given before the Court by the Respondent was as result of satellite information that a ‘clearing offence’ had occurred. 
 
 This information was taken from SLATS imagery for a property approximately 17 kilometres distant from our property, known as 'Valentine Plains" which showed the possibility of a clearing offence. Misidentification of the property was carried through onto the Warrant which was issued for the property named as ‘Valentine Plains’. Our property is known as 'Bayfield' and is not the property named in the Warrant. The said Warrant taking its information from the satellite imagery identifies 'a rural property with buildings thereon'. We have no buildings on the property over which the warrant was executed. The persons executing the Warrant could not have failed to notice the difference!
 
 The Respondent and Peter Webley both trespassed on our private property by the alleged execution of the Warrant of Entry under section 33 of the Vegetation Management Act 1999.
 
 Addresses on warrants are matters of strict liability and there is no capacity to transfer Warrants from one named property to another. All evidence obtained from the execution of the Warrant of Entry is tainted and cannot be used in any prosecution against us for our use of the land and natural resources found on that land in our occupation as farmers and graziers.  Our lawful use of our land is supported in the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997, sections 16; 17; 21 and 54.
 
 Reference is made  to George v Rockett [1990] HCA 26; (1990) 170 CLR 104 F.C. 90/026 (20 June 1990).
 
 The Summons does not show the address of the property where the offence occurred.  It states that "between 19 September 2000 and 7 August 2001 at Biloela in the Magistrates Court District of Biloela in the said State one KEITH RONALD GLASGOW did start an assessable development namely clearing of remnant vegetation on freehold land without a permit for the development". - Integrated Planning Act 1997 section 4.3.1(1). The land has never been identified as being covered with ‘remnant vegetation’. This is an invention of the Respondent. In fact the alleged offence occurred between September, 2000 and September, 2001 but the Summons was not issued until 26 August, 2003 which was outside the statutory time limit set at 1 year as laid down in section 68 of the Vegetation Management Act
 
 Under Section 3.12.(1) all development is exempt from Development Permits except matters dealt with under Schedules 8 & 9 of the Integrated Planning act. Therefore, I did not require a development application or Permit. The Section under which the charge was laid relates to a clearing provision under operational work which is part of a clearing component of a development.
 
 Reference Queensland Court of Appeal Form 29 - Application for extension of time to appeal page 11 paragraph 41, numbers 10 - 20, included in Outline of Argument dated 24th January 2007 prepared by David J. Walter.
 
 Officers appointed under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and officers appointed under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 are appointed by 2 different Ministers and their appointments are not interchangeable under the law. The Respondent is not an officer appointed under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 and has no delegated power under the said Act. Reference  is made to the cases of : Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Ah Hin Teoh F.C. No. 95/013 [1995] HCA 20; (1995) 128 ALR 353, (1995) 69 ALJR 423, (1995) EOC 92-696 (extract), (1995) 183 CLR 273 International Law - Immigration (7 April 1995) Refer to Outline of Argument prepared by David J. Walter on 24th January 2007 and presented to the Court of Appeal, Queensland.
 
 My wife, Lesley Kay Glasgow and I are tenants in common of the registered land. The land is held in an estate in fee simple under the provisions of section 47 of the Land Title Act 1994(Qld).
 
 Reference:- Particulars of the property:    Current Title Search:
 Estate and Land   Lot 52 Registered Plan 912769
 Estate in Fee Simple  County of Pelham   Parish of Kroombit
    Local Government: Banana Shire
   
 The Deed of Grant was sold under the Land Act 1962(Qld) No. 42 of 62.
Section 5 shows: "Indigenous timber and all other materials, the natural produce of the said land                   
                             shall be and are hereby discharged of such reservations".
 
 Despite the statements of the Respondent in court and at other times the lawful rights to the use of my land for sustainable agricultural purposes are upheld under the Land Act 1994 section 508; the Land Title Act 1994 section 200 and 201 and the Property Law Act 1974 sections 19; 20;  21,29, section 57A and under Schedule 6, Dictionary definition of "State land". The actions of the Respondent were in knowing disregard of the State’s property laws and attempted to extinguish my rights by Executive Direction.
 
 The Parliament of the State of Queensland in passing legislation, has ensured that the rights to the use of my freehold land, held in a Deed of Grant under the provisions of the Land Title Act 1994 section 47, have been upheld under the relevant Acts as described.
 
Refer to Outline of Argument prepared by David J. Walter on 24th January 2007 and presented to the Court of Appeal, Queensland.
 
 The Court of Appeal failed to take consideration of the bilateral agreements, strategies and the multilateral treaty which are the basis of the environmental laws in Australia today and which are set out in chronological order below.
 
 The Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment was a prelude to the Commonwealth of Australia entering into the multilateral treaty known as the Convention on Biological Diversity signed in Rio de Janeiro.
 
 The Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment was signed in May 1992 between the Commonwealth, the States, the Chief Ministers of all Territories and the Local Government Association of Australia.
 
 As required under the provisions of the Agreement, the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland (and other States and Territories) framed legislation to implement this Agreement. For Queensland that Act is the National Environment Protection Council (Queensland) Act 1994 and for the Commonwealth the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (C'wth).
 
Reference: Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment
 SCHEDULE 2 - RESOURCE ASSESSMENT, LAND USE DECISIONS  AND APPROVAL PROCESSES
 
5. Within the policy, legislative and administrative framework applying in each State, the use of natural resources and land, remain a matter for the owners of the land or resources, whether they are Government bodies or private persons.
 
 The Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment is included in the above Acts of the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland. Section 5 of schedule 2 is, under the Acts, a statutory law that ensures that the land and the natural resources are a matter for the owners of the land.
 
 The international Treaty known as the Convention on Biological Diversity which includes Agenda 21, was signed by the Commonwealth Government on behalf of all people of Australia in Rio De Janeiro in June 1992. This is shown in the Australian Treaty Series number 32 of 1993. This Treaty was ratified by Australia on 18th June 1993.
 
  Reference:-
  Article 10 - Sustainable use of components of biological diversity
  (e) Encourage cooperation between its governmental authorities and its private sector in development methods for sustainable use of biological resources.
 
 At the signing of this multilateral treaty, the Commonwealth of Australia along with leaders of many other nations of the world, ensured that the private sector would not lose their land or the natural resources on that land. The Treaty is to be upheld and encouragement and cooperation should exist between Government authorities, industry and the private sector which includes landowners and leaseholders of land with consultation and partnership. This partnership should not be implemented by immediate prosecution and a removal of my rights as has happened in the criminal proceedings against myself by the Respondent, Peter Thomas Hall, a public official, defined under the Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth) Chapter 7 - The proper administration of government section 130.1 refers to the definition of property which includes my property as a person in accordance with paragraph 22(1)(a) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(C'wth). the Respondent Peter Thomas Hall is a Commonwealth 'public official' as described in the Schedule, Criminal Code,  Dictionary.  His actions are in direct contradiction of the spirit of the treaty signed by the Commonwealth of Australia and members of the United Nations.
 
 One of the most important parts of this Treaty is known as 'Agenda 21: a program for future action'. One of the actions to deal with is "efficient resource use (sustainable use of renewable resources, water, energy, biological diversity, minerals forests and agriculture).
 
  AGENDA 21
Objectives
 
  10.5 The broad objective is to facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources. In doing so, environmental, social and economic issues should be taken into consideration. Protected areas, private property rights, the rights of indigenous people and their communities and other local communities and the economic role of women in agriculture and rural development, among other issues, should be taken into account.
 
 The 'Australian Implementation Requirements' of the Convention on Biological Diversity were three Acts. One of these was the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 (No. 76 of 1997); Wildlife Protection (Regulation of Exports and Imports) Amendment Act 1995 (No 121 of 1995) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (No. 91 of 1999).
 
 The Court of Appeal Queensland failed to uphold the multilateral Treaty and the legislation enacting the Treaty into Australian law passed by the Commonwealth of Australia on behalf of the people of Australia.
 
Cited: Outline of Argument presented to Court of Appeal 24th January 2007 by D.J. Walter.
 
 In December 1992 the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development was signed and adopted by the three levels of Government in Australia - Commonwealth, State and Local, at a Heads of Government meeting in December 1992.
 
 At that meeting the Council "noted that the document is intended to play a critical role in setting the scene for the broad changes in direction and approach that governments will take to try to ensure that Australia's future development is ecologically sustainable. The Council agreed that the future development of all relevant policies and programs, particularly those which are national in character, should take place within the framework of the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development and the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment which came into effect in May 1992.
 
 The Integrated Planning Act 1997(Qld) was made subject to the following:-
 
  In the second reading of the Integrated Planning Bill on 30th October
  1997 the Hon D.E.McCauley (Callide -  Minister for Local
  Government and Planning stated:
 
"The coalition Government has developed the policy setting for the Integrated Planning Bill, taking into account the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment and the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development."......
 
 In the Consolidation of explanatory notes for the Integrated Planning Act 1997 taken from the Office of the Parliamentary Council Legislation web site it shows at page 82 -
 
The owner of a resource must give their consent before development can proceed. This will include the consent of the land owner and may include State approval to use resources over which it has rights under legislation.
 
 The Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment had been placed as a Schedule to:-
 i)  National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 (C'wth)
 ii) National Environment Protection Council (Queensland) Act 1994.
 
 The State, as shown on my Deed of Grant, has reservations over my land for minerals and petroleum only. The Land Titles Act has not been amended to repeal or curtail any of the rights assigned to land owners under the legislation. No other Queensland legislation repeals or implies repeal of the above rights.
 
 The Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 (C'wth) binds the State of Queensland and its servants such as the Respondent to the Convention on Biological Diversity (and Agenda 21). Sections 16; 17; 21 and 54 of that Act protect the rights to the use of agricultural land. Section 21 of the Act has a notation that:
 
'The principles of ecologically sustainable development that are set out in this subsection are based on the core objectives and guiding principles that were endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments in December 1992.'
 
 These core objectives and guiding principles are those that were set out in the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment and the National Strategy on Ecologically Sustainable Development. The 'core objectives and guiding principles'  in both the agreement and the strategy are incorporated into law in the State of Queensland, in this matter the Vegetation Management Act 1999 and the Integrated Planning Act 1997.  The Respondent has no legal rights to unilaterally dispose of the Commonwealth legislation and the intergovernmental agreement.
 
 The Australian Government and Queensland signed in November 1997 the Natural Heritage Trust Partnership Agreement. This was the implementation of the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997(C'th) and the setting up of the Natural Heritage Trust Account. The Commonwealth placed the sum of $1.35 billion dollars in that Account from the partial sale of Telstra to assist in the protection of the environment for the future. The Respondent has no authority to override Section 16 (2) of the above Act.
 
 The Queensland parliament officially accepted the limitations on interference with sustainable farming practice inherent in the Rio Treaty and its associated legislation. In the Second Reading Speech by the Minister the Hon Rod Welford for the Vegetation Management Bill the Minister mentioned the Natural Heritage Trust Partnership Agreement signed in 1997. This Partnership Agreement is binding on the State and the Commonwealth and is subject to the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997(C'wth) which in turn is subject to the International Treaty. The Strategy as described in section 4.3. of the Partnership Agreement is for the 'broadscale tree clearing policy and local tree clearing guidelines for leasehold and Crown land'.
 
 The Vegetation Management Act 1999 was framed taking into account
 the Natural Heritage Trust Partnership Agreement and as a consequence the
 Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997(C'th) which is bound to the
 International treaty and therefore our rights under law are protected.
 
 I have applied to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal, Brisbane Queensland
 for a written judgment from their Honours and they have advised that there
 is no written judgment in this proceedings.
 
  Orders sought:-
 
 1:    I, the Appellant, Keith Ronald Glasgow, seek the following order from
  This Honourable  Court.
 
2: That my conviction under Integrated Planning Act 1997 section 4.3.1(1)
for starting an assessable development without a permit be set aside and
quashed.
 
3: The fine imposed against me of $10,000.00 be quashed.
 
4: The all Costs of Court, Miscellaneous Costs, Professional Costs and further costs imposed at Appeal being in total against me be quashed. That all costs be paid by the Respondent
 
5: This Honourable Court Set Aside the Warrant of Distress held by the Clerk of the Magistrates Court, at Biloela for the sum of $27,559.25 to seize property to that value from myself, the Applicant, Keith Ronald Glasgow for the fines and costs as set out above.
 
6: The cost incurred by me in this Appeal be paid to be on an indemnity basis.
 
7: Any other Order that this Honourable Court may deem fit.
 

 Matter pending in the High Court of Australia - for Catherine Elizabeth Burns.
 
 The facts of the matter of Catherine Elizabeth Burns placed before the High Court of Australia in an application for special leave to appeal for resolution. The law has not been included in this document, nor have the questions asked of the High Court.
 
 a) I, Catherine Elizabeth Burns made the application under duress with a threat of being prosecuted and fined if I did not apply to clear native vegetation from my private registered land under IDAS Chapter 3 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997(Qld). I completed, as required, Part A and J of Form 1 Development Application under the IDAS for assessment under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 on 4th July 2002.
 
b) I paid the sum of $266 for the application fee to the Department of Natural Resources, Atherton Branch. Receipt Number 2693768 refers.
 
 c) As a result of that application, on 27th August 2002 Mr Luke Croton, A/Manager, Vegetation Management and Use, North Region, Department of Natural Resources issued a Decision Notice refusing my application.
 
d) The Decision Notice was issued under section 3.5.15 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997.
   Decision Notice:-
 
   2. Reasons for Refusal
The clearing proposal described by the application does not comply with the State Policy for Vegetation Management on Freehold Land 2000 for the following reasons:-
 
The application does not meet performance requirement 2 of the code -
Viable networks for wildlife habitat are maintained
 
1. The Lot is known habitat for the endangered mahogany gliders as well as known general habitat for the endangered cassowary. The Mahogany Glider Recovery Plan 2000 - 2004 has indicated that the greatest threat to this species is lost of habitat."
 
2. Consideration has also been given to the State Policy for Vegetation Management on Freehold Land (page 9) Performance requirements and acceptable solutions, states "In determining whether a performance requirement will be met, the precautionary principle will be applied".
 
e) The decision notice issued by Luke Croton under section 3.5.15 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997(Qld) was not in relation to clearing native vegetation on private land, but was under the Decision Stage, section 3.5.1 which is a referral to a building agency (of the State) for an application if required and the decision stage for the application starts on the day after all other stages applying to the application have ended. The decision notice itself is in fact and law, void. I only require an application under the Integrated Planning Act 1997(Qld) for the reconfiguration of a lot or a material change of use. The clearing of the native vegetation is a component part of a development. I clearly did not require any permit.
f) The Decision Notice placed over my private registered land, refusing me the right to clear my land for resale has been upheld by the following Courts of Queensland.
i) Planning and Environment Court Cairns P & E Court No 62 of 2004
ii) Supreme Court Cairns - Burns v State of Queensland & Croton QSC 434
iii) Appeal Court Brisbane - Burns v State of Queensland & Croton QCA 235
 
3. The common law has been repealed from the Supreme Court Act 1995 (Qld), Reprint No 2, reprinted as in force 2nd March 2001, © State of Queensland 2001, by the omission of:-Part 9 - Div Hdg 4—Common law and jurisdiction; Div Hdg 5—Equitable jurisdiction; Div Hdg 6—Criminal jurisdiction; s199—Laws of England to be applied in the administration of justice; s200—Common law and general jurisdiction of the court-jurisdiction at common law; s201—Equitable jurisdiction; s202—Criminal jurisdiction.  
 
4. The Constitution of Queensland 2001(Qld) Chapter 4 - Courts - section 58 - Supreme Court's superior jurisdiction.  The Supreme Courts superior jurisdiction is now of the State.
5. It is quite clear that before it was demanded that I make application for a development approval under the IDAS and pay the fee of $266.00, that the constitutional changes had been made in Queensland, without referendum and that people would only have those changes broadly explained to them. I now no longer have the protection of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the Sovereign of Australia and Her common law contract in land and equity is now worthless, and the only equity in the land is held by the State corporation.
 
6. Reference Queensland Government (Land Holding) Act 1992 © The State of
Queensland 1992; Lands Legislation Amendment Act 1992 -Act 64 of 1992 © The State
of Queensland 1992 - reference Schedule 1 - Aboriginal Land Act 1991; Land Act 1962;
Real Property Act 1861; Real Property Act 1877; Real Property Act Amendment Act
1952; Real Property Acts Amendment Act 1956, Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991
 
7. My private land, Torres Strait Islander land and native title land is held in the Brigalow Corporation and  held under the Land Title Act 1994 © State of Queensland 1994 with a statutory title. To allow the State owned corporation to form, my Deed of Grant was interfered with under the Reprints Act 1992 on the 28th January 1998 with the deletion of the 2nd paragraph of section 40 (1) from the Constitution Act 1867 in reprint No 2.
 
8. I refer to the Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Qld) © State of Queensland 2006 Reprint No. 14, Reprinted as in force 28th August 2006.
 
s 36 - Meaning of commonly used words and expressions -                                                                    In an Act -
 
'property' means any legal or equitable estate or interest (whether present or future, vested or contingent, or tangible or intangible) in real or personal property of any description (including money), and includes things in action.
 
'land' includes messuages, tenements and hereditaments, corporeal or incorporeal, of any tenure or description, and whatever may be the interest in the land
'Aborigine' means a person of the Aboriginal race of Australia
 
'individual' means a natural person
 
'person' includes an individual and a corporation
 
'GOC (or government owned corporation)' has the same meaning as in the Government Owned Corporations Act 1993.
 
'Commonwealth Constitution' means the Constitution of the Commonwealth
 
9. I refer to the definition of the word 'Aborigine' in section 36 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Qld). Aboriginal people hold their land under the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 and the Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991 as a traditional group of Aboriginal people holding the native title and Torres Strait Islander land. By the changing of the definition from Aboriginal people to 'a person of the Aboriginal race' that means that a group of traditional owners or a group of aboriginal people no longer hold the title under the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 or the Torres Strait Islander Land Act 1991 as they are now defined, as I am, as a 'person' and in the abovementioned definition a person includes an individual and a corporation.
10. The Commonwealth Constitution is the Constitution commencing at section 9 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act - it shows that it is the Constitution only, not the Act.
 
11. Under the Lands Legislation Amendment Act No. 64 of 1992 © The State of Queensland and further now in the corporation of the State known as the Brigalow Corporation and further by amendment of the Constitution Act 1867 Reprint 2A which clearly defines that any estate or interest in the land to be acquired from any other person, the definition of land clearly does not include any estate, therefore the only land held has been transferred from the Real Property Acts of 1861; 1877; 1952 and 1956 into the Land Title Act 1994(Qld) Reprint 7 ©State of Queensland 2003 and we hold our land in a statutory title only, without any further element of tenure of the Crown and the Courts are inside the Government and subject to the rules of the Court as found in the Statutory Instruments Act 1992© The State of Queensland.
 
12. I refer to the decision of Chief Justice de Jersey on 19th November 2004 - page 2 paragraph 5 "these contentions are plainly untenable, Mrs Burns certainly has an indefeasible interest as a registered proprietor of an estate in fee simple".  His judgment erred in fact and law by clearly separating the ownership of private land from the Deed of Grant or title through the unrepresentative use of the word “Proprietor” and the lack of legal comprehension of the difference between an Unregistered Executory Interest as defined at s6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1989 (C’wth) in the manner and form of Statutory Instruments and a Registered Interest as defined in the Real Property Act 1900 (NSW) or as the case may be, the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld).
 
13. My private land that I hold, by definition under the Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Qld) is an undefined interest in the land only as the common law estate in fee simple which I purchased from the Crown, which is an estate of inheritance at common law and which is now the property of the State and if I may say, I myself am a mere chattel of the State because we, as persons, are included in the State's corporations.
 
 
 
14. Further, Chief Justice de Jersey stated that, “the burden is on me, not on my land”.
 
15. The Supreme Court of Appeal declined to forward this matter to the High Court of Australia as I requested.  The Government of Queensland has created, without a referendum an independent sovereign State under the Constitution of Queensland 2001 and the Supreme and District Courts are inside and indefeasible of the Government. There is now no Crown or common law in this State and we, as citizens, no longer have the protection of the Crown or the common law under s80 and s77M of the Judiciary Act 1903(C’wth).  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 s52 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 the land held of common law, poverty will soon follow.
 
16. I personally have not voted in any referendum 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).
 
17. The State of Queensland has acquired my land without just compensation. I still
pay rates on my entire acreage. I have taken this proceeding before the abovementioned three Courts of "the State" of Queensland and had my appeals dismissed on all three occasions by virtue of Bone v Mothershaw[2002] QCA 120 - a decision of the Court of Appeal of Queensland. In this decision, the Bench stated that Queensland had 'a plenary power as an independent sovereign State' to make laws regulating my use of my land which effectively has cost me a viable resale value of the land and the loss of approximately twenty four and a half acres of land which is to be left for mahogany glider habitat for, one assumes, the public benefit. The Minister of the Department of Natural Resources and Mines the Honourable Stephen Robertson did advise Mr. Walter in writing, that the State is not required to pay compensation or, for the payment of compulsory acquisition of my private land.
 
18. The Courts of the State of Queensland upheld the decision of Bone v Mothershaw [2002] QCA120 which states that Queensland is an independent sovereign State and that State is subject to the Constitution of Queensland 2001 assented to on 3rd December 2001. The assent by the Governor was defective as the Governor is inside of Government as a parliamentary secretary and now forms part of the corporate Government of Queensland along with the Supreme and District Courts of the State, and the Planning & Environment Court and the District court are subject to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. As the courts are inside the Government it follows that they must protect the assets of the corporation of the State. As my land is now an asset of the State of Queensland and by the definition of 'person' s36 - Meaning of commonly used words and expressions in the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 I am an 'individual and a corporation'.
 
19. My Deed of Grant in fee simple is now a statutory title only, and that title is upheld by the civil laws of the Supreme and District Courts of the corporate Government of Queensland and the Judges of the Supreme and District Courts who are inside the Government. My common law estate in fee simple is now held by the corporate Government of the Sovereign State of Queensland.
20. Under the definitions in the Acts Interpretation 1954(Qld), section 36, the definition of 'property' and 'land', the State of Queensland now owns all my property, which includes money,  real and personal property from the past and any future property which includes my will. I refer to the definition of 'land' under section 22 - Meaning of certain words (aa) 'individual' and (c) 'land' of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(C'wth) and the definition of 'property' in section 130.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth) The Acts Interpretation Act 1954(Qld) is ultra vires to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, Criminal Code Act 1995(C'wth), Chapter 7 - The proper administration of Government; the Acts Interpretation Act 1901(C'wth).
 
21. My land is now held by the Government of Queensland in the Brigalow Corporation with no compensation paid to me for that acquisition.  For “Even though the King may not enter” (Plenty v. Dillon [1991] HCA 5; 171 CLR 635 F.C. 91/004 (7 March 1991) the Queensland Government and the delegated authorities thereof can, without fine. 
 
22. I, the Applicant, Catherine Elizabeth Burns, hold registered land in an estate in fee simple, situated at Lot 6 CP10416, Stony Creek Road, Cardwell Shire.
 
i) The title reference is 20818084, date created 7th December 1970.
 
ii) The land, in an estate of fee simple, was purchased at public auction on 22nd August 1968 for the sum of $525.00. The property, held at Lot 6 CP10416, Stony Creek Road, Cardwell Shire was alienated from the Crown lands in the State of Queensland by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Sovereign of Australia and the Chief Executive of the Commonwealth of Australia as cited under section 61 of the Constitution of Australia - Executive Power.
 
    iii) The land was alienated from the Crown land in the State of Queensland in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Land Act 1962 - 1968.
 
    iv) My Deed of Grant has been signed by the representative of the Sovereign
 of Australia in the State of Queensland, Sir Alan James Mansfield, the Governor 'in and over Our State of Queensland and its Dependencies in the Commonwealth of Australia, at Government House, Brisbane in Queensland'. My Deed of Grant has been sealed with the Seal of the Sovereign of Australia.
 
   v) Her majesty, in accordance with the laws and regulations in the Land Act 1962, section 6(3), reserved the right in the gold, minerals, helium and petroleum, to the Crown.
 
   vi) As required under the Constitution Act 1867(Qld) section 34 the sum of $525.00 was paid into the Treasury of the Crown, thus completing the contract with the Crown.
  
 23. I have in my possession and I will, if required, have Mr David Walter produce my original signed and sealed Deed of Grant to the Court. I hold the Deed of Grant in an estate of inheritance which is a common law contract with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the Sovereign of Australia.
 
24. The Deed of Grant in fee simple is a contract at common law, under the hand of the Sovereign, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, passing to me a common law estate of inheritance in fee simple. The common law contract has now been broken as a result of  my being required to make an application to clear the native vegetation on my land by members of the Department of Natural Resources Mines and Water who advised that the laws pertaining to land ownership had changed in Queensland. All land and equity, my inheritable estate,  now have been repossessed by the State of Queensland and I am not entitled to compensation under section 51(xxxi) of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act or pursuant to the Lands Acquisition Act 1989 (C’wth).
 
25. On 6th September 2003 Mr David John Walter, who is my intervener in this matter and who also holds my full power of attorney in these proceedings wrote on my behalf to the Honourable Peter Beattie, Premier and Minister for Trade at PO Box 185, Brisbane Albert Street, Queensland 4002. I now refer to paragraph 3 of that correspondence.
 
"Mrs Burns’ property rights on her freehold land have now been removed by the State refusing to allow her to clear the regrowth on her property under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 without offering her compensation. Section 109 of the Australian Constitution shows that if there is inconsistency of laws between the States and the Commonwealth, the laws of the Commonwealth shall prevail and the inconsistency by the State will be invalid. The Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act 1901 refers. Section 51 (xxxi) of the Constitution shows that with the acquisition of property on just terms from a person, compensation must be paid and this is also shown in the Queensland Legislative Standards Act 1992."
 
26. The Premier never replied to Mr Walter but on 15th October 2003 the Minister for Natural Resources and Minister for Mines the Honourable Stephen Robertson MP wrote to Mr Walter in reply to his correspondence of 6th September 2003 to the Honourable Peter Beattie.
 
27. I refer to paragraph 5 and 6 of that correspondence.
 
"Under the current law, no compensation is payable where an application to clear native vegetation is refused. Applicants may appeal the Decision Notice to refuse an application under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 within the prescribed time.
 
Information about appeal rights was supplied to the Applicant at the time the decision notice was issued.
 
Under the State/Commonwealth proposal to phase out broadscale landclearing, a package of financial measures is being negotiated to assist farm businesses affected by the new vegetation management arrangements. Criteria for assistance under the new package are yet to be determined and will focus on assisting landholders disadvantaged by any new measures."
 
28. (a) I am not a landholder as described under the State Policy for Vegetation Management on Freehold Land or as defined in the Natural Heritage Trust Partnership Agreement which refers to tree clearing on leasehold and Crown land. I am the holder of a common law estate in fee simple and my land is registered under the Real Property Act 1861. In November 1997 the Natural Heritage Trust Partnership Agreement was signed between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland. This allowed the State of Queensland and all other signatories ie. other States and Territories of the Commonwealth, to have access to funds from the Natural Heritage Trust Account and those funds were the funds of the sovereign people of Australia from the partial sale of Telstra, the sum of $1.35 billion dollars.
  
Natural Heritage Trust Partnership Agreement
(ii) Roles of Queensland
 
6.3 Queensland will:
 (f) activity on private land will be funded taking into account the amount of public benefit received relative to the private benefit derived from the activity
 
  (iv)  BUSHCARE: The National Vegetation Initiative
1. National Goal
To reverse the long-term decline in the quality and extent of Australia's native vegetation cover.
 
4.3 Strategies:
(a) Finalise and implement the Broadscale Tree Clearing Policy and Local Tree Clearing Guidelines for Leasehold and Crown land ...................
 
(b) The Mahogany Glider Recovery Plan 2000 - 2004 between the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia - helping communities - helping Australia. Approximately $11 million had been paid from the Natural Heritage Trust Funds to landowners in the Hinchinbrook and Cardwell Shires to purchase their properties to secure their land under the Natural Heritage Trust for the protection of the mahogany glider under the Mahogany Glider Recovery Plan. I received no such request to purchase my land under that plan and that plan has been upheld by the Courts of Queensland under the Decision Notice issued by Luke Croton.
 
The animals (Mahogany Glider) are not found on a protected area – refer Nature Conservation Act 1992(Qld) Reprint 3B © State of Queensland 2003 – to be read in conjunction with Part 4 – protected areas, Part 10 Evidentiary provisions– section 160 – definitions section 7 – animals. The Mahogany Glider Recovery Plan 2000 - 2004, upheld in the Decision Notice, for private land, is subject to the Natural Heritage Trust for compensation for the loss of the use of the land for the environmental public benefit
 
29. On the 3rd December 2001 the Governor of Queensland with the authority of the entrenched provisions contained in the Constitution Act 1867 (Reprint No.1) and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act which in their manner and form hold the entrenched provision of , "The Governor of Queensland", and exercising the delegated authority of 'The Crown' did unilaterally 'Assent' to the 'Constitution of Queensland Parliament of Queensland Bill' without the consent of the Peoples' of Queensland through the ultimate and absolute authority gained through a vote of 'Referenda'.  In so doing the Constitution of Queensland 2001, as assented, including the manner and form interpreted therein is now and for the time being, as the case may be, the 'Fundamental Law of Queensland'.
 
30. With respect to the people of Australia and Queensland, the advice received by the Queensland Governor, in council with the Executive Government of Queensland between the dates of 9th November 2001 and 3rd December 2001 was constitutionally ‘defective’.  It therefore follows that the ‘assent’ by the Governor of Queensland was also ‘defective’ and is therefore invalid.
 
31. Reference to the Application to the Court of Appeal, Supreme Court Queensland C of A 526 of 2006 refers dated 19th January 2006 and the Supreme Court of Appeal Queensland 515 of 2004 and further as placed on the High Court File B44 of 2007.
I refer to page 2, line 55 and page 3 line 3.
 
32. I refer to the following. I purchased my land in good faith from the Sovereign at public auction and that good faith has not been upheld by the public officers of "the State" corporate Government of Queensland. It therefore must bring every common law contract, signed in good faith in the Commonwealth of Australia since Federation, under legal scrutiny as it appears those common law contracts are able to be breached and broken at will, with no lawful authority or compensation and upheld by all Courts of law in the Commonwealth of Australia.
 
33. I refer to the definition of the word "Parliament" as cited in the Second Reading Speech given by the Premier the Honourable Peter Beattie on 9th November 2001 for the Constitution of Queensland 2001 Bill.
"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. "
"Our identity as a Sovereign State, the democratic ideals on which our State is built, rest on our Constitution.
 
34. The Second Reading Speech was read into Hansard on 9th November 2001 for the Constitution of Queensland 2001 Bill and the Constitution of Queensland 2001was assented to by the Governor on 3rd December 2001. That assent is defective as the Governor is quite clearly an entity of the Government along with the Supreme and District Courts. The Governor, the Supreme and District Courts and the local Government are part of the corporate government of Queensland and all people and any property is the property of the corporation of the State of Queensland.
 
35. The common law has been abolished in the State of Queensland and by the upholding of the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal Bone v Mothershaw[2002] QCA120 by  the High Court of Australia when dismissing the applications for special leave to appeal of Wilson v Raddatz B14/2007 and Glasgow v Hall B13/2007 on 3rd October 2007 that dismissal effectively fractured the Common Law in Australia and rendered void any and all contracts at Common Law in the Commonwealth of Australia.  The Court of Appeal Queensland decisions Gregory Wilson v Warren Neil Raddatz CA 276 of 2006 and Keith Ronald Glasgow v Peter Thomas Hall CA 273 of 2006 were also subject to Bone v Mothershaw.  By the upholding of these decisions by the Courts within the Commonwealth, that Queensland is an independent Sovereign State, it is quite clear that Queensland is not a part of the Federation of the Commonwealth as clearly described in the Second Reading Speech of the Premier of Queensland for the Constitution of Queensland 2001 Bill. This leads to a number of problems within the Commonwealth:-
 
i) The people within Queensland have lost their sovereignty as a person as described in the Preamble of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and all rights at common law.
 
ii) A Federal election is about to be called. When the Governor General issues the writs for the sovereign people to vote, as I am no longer recognized as a person with a common law right to the use of my property, that can be taken by the independent sovereign State without compensation against all principles of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act s 128 and common law. How therefore can Queensland be included on that writ for people with no sovereignty to elect members of the Parliament of the Commonwealth when the loss of the common law rights of the people of Queensland and the removal of the Crown in Queensland has been upheld by the highest Court of common law in Australia.
 
iii)  Therefore, any writ issued under the hand of the Governor for people to be elected either into the House of Representatives or the Senate of Australia, cannot involve Queensland as the Government of Queensland has not recognized the Crown in Queensland since 29th January 1999 and under the Constitution of Queensland 2001 the Governor seals all documents under the name of the Sovereign with the Public Seal of the State.
 
I refer to the comments of Judge White of the Planning and Environment Court in Cairns on 18/3/2004 - Appeal No. 3 of 2003 when I represented Mrs Burns for the first time.
 
"(State Government Counsel)  Mmm. I suppose they could. Well, the Parliament can really, with respect, do anything. It's a----- 
 
HIS HONOUR:  I just find this astounding. Soviet Russia would be proud of these laws."
 
I have correlated these matters in this documents as I believe that the majority of people in this country would be unaware of the actual serious ramifications of these matters. Hopefully the information in this document, based on facts which have been presented to all courts - from the Magistrates and Planning & Environment Courts to the Court of Appeal Queensland of Queensland and on to the High Court of Australia, will make people who read this, more aware and be prepared to act.
 
This work cannot be done by only a few. It is imperative that the people of Australia who own private land and rural property, in fact any property in this great nation of ours will, quite simply, have to take a stand. If this situation continues there will be little of value left for us to pass to our children and grandchildren. We are becoming completely over regulated by the public officials of this Commonwealth of Australia - please read again Judge White's comment above. That is becoming more applicable every day in this country. Surely it must cease.
If I and others who are assisting me get no support we shall all pay a very great price in the near future. 
 
 (David J. Walter)                      EnviroWild Pty Ltd                            13th October 2007