Steve Madden

Fee Simple Title states we can do exactly whatever we want with our land, including sell, give away, donate, pass to heirs, etc.

Habeus Corpus Act 1640 states Queen and Privies (meaning all who work and govern under her name) shall have no jurisdiction over any mans Estate, outside of war and without recourse to a jury of your peers.

This became Aust law in 1900 by Sect 118 Aust Constitution, is current and protected by Aust Constitution Sect 128, 106-109.

Referendum in 1988 REFUSED to recognize Local Council as a gov’t entity. All Ref results are automatically law. Therefore they rule only through State Gov’t support.

Prior to GST, Fed Gov’t deemed rates a tax. Also High Court stated “State Gov’t cannot raise ANY TAX”

Taxation is the exclusive power of the Fed Gov’t.

Research Davis v Port Stephens Council. This man has refused to pay rates, and the court case has been held over (as of Nov 2004) for a fourth mention date. The court MUST find in favour of council because of the potential resulting mess, however CANNOT decide against Davis because of his fee simple property title, the Uniform Commercial Code ruling HCA/88 and the Fed Referendum 1988. Therefore this will probably never come to court.

No third party can levy an account (which this illegal tax of rates becomes) without you having entered into an agreement with that third party. You cannot involuntarily incur a debt against your property without your agreement. Did you agree with your rates, or did you just pay them?

As to the comment re toxic waste, tyre dumps, etc. Yes, by the right you hold under your Fee Simple title, you can do all of the above. However, I would hold that a humanitarian attitude to preserve the rights of your neighbours comes into play here. Not sure about the legalities though.

A thought to ponder – “The power to tax is the power to destroy. The one who has the power to tax will eventually own all property”. Not sure where that came from, but very relevant.

Thankyou Craig. A very good response.

We do indeed share predominantly common ground. But I disagree with the notion that farmers are generally very poorly thought of and that there is a “farmer crucifixion bandwagon”.

As for bureaucrats thinking their “coffee is more important than their (farmers’) problems”: I can assure you that from the ‘bureaucrats’ perspective, there is a very high regard for farmers, graziers and indeed all rural people who are affected by the legislation. I have been involved with this business in Queensland since the Vegetation Management Act was introduced in 2000. As one who has a great deal to do directly with landholders and vegetation management officers throughout north and central Qld, I can assure you that there is a very high regard for farmers, graziers and indeed all rural people who are affected by the legislation. This is reflected in feedback from landholders, regardless of whether they get what they want or not.

We need to be very careful about this schism between landholders and bureaucrats, as with many other simmering divisions in our society. Let’s recognise its presence, but not overstate it and hence risk promulgating it. That is dangerous to all involved.

While I sympathise with Peter Spencer’s plight to a fair extent, I think the title of his article; ‘War on farmers’ is really unfortunate. Regulations are not put there because bureaucrats, urban dwellers or non-farmers in general think farmers are a bunch of abject ratbags.

Peter admits up front that his “farm is probably one of the worst affected in Australia”. So he knows that what is happening to him is nowhere near the norm. We need to be very much aware of this. The majority of farmers are not significantly affected by vegetation management regulations, and a high portion of those that are understand the need for the restrictions and readily accept it. I fully support the whole deal, except for the compensation factor. This is my really big gripe – that compensation has been nowhere near sufficient, especially in cases like Peter’s

Steve, Please, may I suggest you read my paper – ex blog, on Eco System Services Protocol.

Your final comments regarding feral dogs attacking sheep is very complex once again I suggest your look at the paper on Pests on the blog. Also your comment about the sheep dying of fly strike. This is also complex, our management strategy includes clix but this year we have not money for such luxury and observation and rejetting is the best we can offer. Physically with my legs, also it is hard because I cannot afford help.

Regarding the comment about your stepfather killing the shepherd.

He probably would have then found out once taking the time and the interest and getting under his chip - that there was a lot more to the issue and that the Shepherd, would have been unfairly slaughtered..

Steve, you could learn from this – this blog, for if it to continue in it’s fine public service, requires responsibility and commonsense. I am afraid little of your prolific verbiage reflects either of these.

About the Cormorant and your suggestion for the need to change the blog entry regarding the matter. Steve I am a field practitioner I manage the environment. I am not subservient to it.

I feel Steve you misunderstand the purpose of the blog. That is how it is. The blog is to get some reality back into what is going on. Is that not important?

Steve, You remind me of the ABC and John Williams - your presentation is wrong.

Recently on Geraldine Doogue Sat program The Chief Scientist John Williams an A WWF rep made the statement that the NSW Native Veg act was an Ecosystems Service’s program and eluded to the fact that the $435Million was to go to farmers. The facts actually are none of the money is for farmer its for the Dept and Catchment manage O/H and the legislation is a purely regulatory document.

I drew this to Johns and the program’s attention but no response or retraction.

Con’t

Steve Madden, simply put, the bush and urban societies are symbiont – to survive, we must communicate. I, the farmer, can provide you with clean air, water, and biodiversity - your food and fibre needs - help me do that.

Steve, Just as you attacked me from your very first entry. You follow it up with a grand statement implying my case regarding damming Rock Hut creek was to be raised on the floor of Parliament due its questionable legality Steve, do you need to be so destructive? Do you have nothing better to do but sit there, feeling sorry for your self, destroying peoples lives.

Steve, I have better things to do then defend my self against the ravings of an ill-informed blabber mouth. BUT I will answer you here for the last time.

The Dams on Rock Hut Creek were planned and construct with the assistance of the then Soil Con Department who maintained an engineering earthmoving division just for this purpose - as it was then a Government priority, that farms build water storage facilities where ever possible.

The dams were actually constructed as pondages. This means we designed, on my insistence, the construction to include large under wall twin pipes with controlling gate valves concrete spillways and weir pipes so the actual creek could flow on down the catchment. So what you have is a unique pondage that holds back a large amount of water in flood but does not interrupt the regular flow. In addition this creates a wonderful marine ecosystem.

It is said this pondage and its connecting rocky stream flowing form the similar structure directly up stream may be the only place in Australia where trout may actual breed naturally.

In addition the fowl life and amphibian activity is such that scientist come here for recordings and sightings saying we have some very rare animals to be proud of.

Steve, Sorry to hear of your leukaemia - I thought I had problems. A bit like, I met a man with no feet!

Peter,

If you choose to submit an article to OLO please do not expect everyone to say poor old Pete hasn’t he has a tough time. I am not as ill informed as you imply. If you wish to engage in vigorous debate, welcome and if you do not go back to press releases.

I spent many happy years living near Adaminaby and remember the biggest problem, at that time, was rabbits.

If you had titled your article “war on family business” I may well have agreed, if you had not fudged some of the issues I may have had some sympathy. I only asked questions none of which you have chosen to answer. If you choose to air your views in a forum such as this do not expect me to agree without proof.

I tried for approval for a bed and breakfast on my property only to be told I was 120 meters too far away from the main road. This would have allowed me to be independent and employ 1 full time staff. But 120 meters is 120 meters. My next door neighbor wanted to build a shed to park his Mack prime mover and two refrigerated trailers in. $40,000 extra and disabled toilet and access later, Doug built his shed two years late. Stupid inflexible rules are not only the domain of farmers.

I wish you well in all your endeavors, running any kind of small business is a difficult task, but there is no “War on Farmers”

SuziQ

Fee simple ownership represents absolute ownership of real property but it is limited by the four basic government powers of taxation, eminent domain, police power, and escheat

Fee Simple also implies the paying of a fee that is where the term comes from. I think Mr. Davis will eventually loose his land, and his followers will do the same.

If you would like to believe the Australian Patriot Movement that is your prerogative. I tend to be skeptical of any organisation with Patriot in its name.

in oz there is indeed an undeclared war on farmers waged by greenies and labour.....although you wont hear about it from main stream journos who are mainly left wingers.

the plan is simple, introduce draconian and unworkable laws to prevent farmers properly running their properties. these laws include land clearing, water harvesting and weed control.

all designed to bankrupt the farmer and drive him off the land, which could then be bought up by the gov to form national parks or given back to the natives.

the process taking place aroung oz at the moment overseen by extreemist leftist gov and communist greenies is no different than mugabe's land grab in zimbabwe where white farmers are simple forced off their land without compo........at least mugabe is honest and upfront about it and not sneaky like your typical labour/greenie pollie.