I think the issue here is that a guy has been up a pole trying to get the attention of the prime minister to address an injustice that he feels. Why can't he just go and see him? this guy is an Australian tax payer who doesn't want to go through the proper legal channels cos that route is predestined to the failure of his cause. he just wants to see the manager

Sorry punkrose, I have to make a correction:
"We get the government for whom the majority vote"
Actually we don't- you'll find in the 2007 Federal elections Labor only got 43% of the vote- it's merely the fact that Liberals only got 36% and each other party got less that 'qualified' Labor's largest minority to rule the remaining 57% of us who voted against them.

You'll only find governments actually getting in by majority from countries in Europe whose law states that the top parties MUST form coalitions after the election and serve together until a certain % level of representation has been reached.

The Gumment: “King Hazza, notwithstanding thy royal styles and titles, we are going to take off you the right to use your house, and leave you with the liability to pay taxes on it. If you don’t agree, that’s fine, you can just die, or we could lock you up in a cage, how does that sound? We have to take it, you understand, for a very important social purpose – but not so important that we will actually pay for it.”

King Hazza “Oh that’s fine, go right ahead. I’ll just bend right over and take it up the backside like a slave. After all, it’s the LAW.”

Fool.

King Hazza, I stand by my comment that we get the government for whom the majority vote. I agree that our voting system is cumbersome and flawed, but if the voting citizens of Australia took the time to vote from one to sixty something, their preferences may well have altered the outcome. However, as most people vote for the absolute minimum, the final outcome is the result of to whom the preferences the other parties elect for their preferences to be distributed. The labour party was the winner by the ommission of the general public taking the time to select their own preferences.

Peter Spencer's plight, however, should not be minimised or digressed from over the political issue of who is currently in power. I believe the laws of this land are, in fact, in desperate need of overhauling, if it is possible for a private land owner with freehold title to be dictated to as to what they can and can't do on their property, IF that property was previously, legally, being used at any stage for a particular purpose. I believe the land in question had previously been cleared for agricultural purposes. It should therefore still be allowed to be cleared for the same purpose. That goes for other properties too. We have ample old growth forests, national parks, state forests and other forms of protected pockets of land, lots of which abound with noxious weeds such as the "protected pocket" on my property, which is rife with lantana, crofton weed, broad leafed pepper trees and kidzu weed. We are not supposed to do any form of clearing within this pocket, at risk of fines of many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Fortunately our cows love to wander through this and trash the undergrowth, as do the feral deer. This keeps the fire hazard from this precious, protected pocket to a minimum.

Perhaps Peter Spencer could run some cows on his land and just let them eat and trash away. Eventually he might end up with some cleared land by default!

Indeed punkrose you make a compelling case.

To be honest I actually am surprised you would not be allowed to clear weeds from a reserve- considering the goverment put a lot of effort into trying to get volunteers to do exactly that.

As for land previously cleared for farming still retaining such clearance rights- I'd generally see this as perfectly fine, unless some dire need (no idea what) demands that this be overwritten.

But as I said, I'm actually against governments taking control of private property- and not so sure they should even be allowed to initiate it themselves, as I'm also well aware of their capacity to excersise this power for outright corrupt purposes (like personal profits- let alone dubious causes such as carbon markets).

Peter Spencer was forced to use lawyers, because the monopoly protects itself. He has been sold out by all except one of his lawyers, and his land is locked up because the monopoly controls the game, so that they have favors to sell. This is an under the table black market commodity, and will remain so and valuable until S 22 Australian Courts Act 1828 is enforced.

Why is S 22 important. It is important because it requires a Royal Identifier, to be obtained from a Supreme Court before any law can be enforced. I have a letter dated 2003, on which the Supreme Court in New South Wales affixed a Royal Identifier. It has none on its Letterhead today. There is no Royal Identifier on the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 or the High Court of Australia Act 1979 and none of these Courts now issue process in the name of the Queen.

This is an old law, say the lawyers. Its not relevant say the lawyers. It will cost too much, say the lawyers, but lawyers are liars. Truth and Justice are one and the same, and when lawyers in Parliament gave a lawyer in Court the power to declare what is truth, and what is not, corruption became entrenched.

In 1372 the English banned practicing lawyers and Sheriffs from Parliament. The decline of the English democracy started in 1870 when they repealed that law for England only. It disqualified lawyers who were practicing at the time of their election from Parliament. Julia Gillard would go, Malcolm Turnbull would go, Philip Ruddock would go, I think Joe Hockey would go, but Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd would stay. Lindsay Tanner would go, but Brendan O’Connor would stay, because some have a law degree but never took the fatal step of becoming a practicing lawyer.

I don’t totally agree with Peter Spencer, but I do agree that truth and justice is what he really wants. I do know he has been treated unjustly. A commitment to the rule of law by KR should be enough. Enough of racketeers.