The first action Peter Spencer took was about his farm rates. He went before a Magistrate at Cooma, and argued that rates should not be paid on land that cannot be used. After a number of hearing Peter’s prayer was dismissed with costs by Magistrate Prowse. Yes a request to a court is still called a prayer.

He then went to the ACT Supreme Court believing in a Commonwealth statute that gives every court exercising federal jurisdiction, unlimited jurisdiction. They refused to do their Statutory duty, and a Master dismissed his prayer with costs. He Appealed to the Full Court, but they again dismissed his plea with costs. So corrupt have the courts of the Commonwealth, States and Territories become, that they laugh at the laws of the Parliament of the Commonwealth.

This is probably because they are all invalid, and have been since 1901, and are not registered in the Supreme Court. The Federal Supreme Court to be called the High Court has never, so far as I know ever registered an Act. The requirement for every Act to be enrolled in an Australian Court is contained in the Australian Courts Act 1828. A transcript of its provisions is posted here:
http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=520

Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd should both read it, because both claim to be Christians. The making of law, since the first encounter on a mountain in the desert of Israel, has needed God’s blessing. The place to get it was in the court of the Supreme Being, the Supreme Court.

Peter Spencer has been before Justice Emmett, a man who claims to be a Christian, Justice Rothchild, a Jewish gentleman, Justice Brereton who is probably an atheist, and many others, but none have done any credit to their Sovereign, Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second whose duty is to uphold the Gospels. We should be entitled to expect honesty and integrity in our Judges and Magistrates.

Judicial Review is the ultimate power. Proof of that is here.
http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=238

If that proposition is accepted, and a bipartisan commitment to abide the will of Almighty God prevails, Spencer wins

My understanding of this problem is that the government can claim CO2
reduction on the land because it cannot be cleared under the Kyoto
protocol. A condition of this claim is that the landowner must not
be compensated.
So the farmers like Peter have been hung out to dry so the government
could parade before the AGW community what good fellows they are.

I have been unable to make up my mind about AGW but I am fast becoming
dissolutioned with it especially now that there are accusations that
the sea level rise has been challenged because of IPCC "adjustments"
and further info that the Barrier Reef has shown great resilience.

Anyway, if farmers have to suffer loss because of government action
then they should be compensated by the whole community despite the
Kyoto protocol.
If necessary we should sign off from Kyoto.
Isn't it now defunct anyway ?

Dear Bazz,

My understanding is that the PM has
written a letter to Spencer asking
him to discuss compensation and
land management techniques - but
that Spencer has refused and has given
instructions to return the letter to the
PM unopened.

I'm not sure what Spencer hopes to achieve
with that action.

Now without any doubt I may appear to some as a self serving smarty.
Others may be offended by my lack of manners.
But only foxy made any sense in this thread so far.
Arjay, it is time you and I locked horns, do you truly think?, for a second my political ties point to me being biased?
That because I find the ALP better than the rest makes me always wrong?
Then how am I to see your lost attachment to conspiracy's theory's?
Mate end that idiotic assertion my thoughts come from my party, it is crimson stupid to think that.
Other who posted here should be aware, Abbott waded in to this debate, he had egg on his face in seconds.
Barnaby Joice did too, first actually and highlighted his failure to understand it.
This protester, is a political based activist.
No martyr, no Christ like victim , a man who many would gladly watch die if he was from the left or some reildgions.
He is attempting not to get justice but to blackmail us all.
Farmers should/will in time be compensated for actions controlling GW.
But so very many know the real truth behind this protest is nothing to do with that.
Land use and clearing has been controlled, rightly so, for a long time.
Radicalism, when its right or left should not be rewarded, blackmail is wrong giving in to it too.
PTB I fail to value your opinions , you seem to have enough confidence in them for both of us however.

Belly wrote:
"No sarcasm, but is raw mustard Mr Minchin?"

Always good to see a poly-tick resort to his bag of scum to derail a topic!

Belly wrote:
"And if our farmer was a coal protesting conservationist would RW be as concerned?"

If this treacherous/lecherous government had stolen his land without compensation to dig for coal, yes! But lets not (twice now) side track the issue shall we?

Foxy wrote:
"My understanding is that the PM has
written a letter to Spencer asking
him to discuss compensation and
land management techniques - but
that Spencer has refused and has given
instructions to return the letter to the
PM unopened."

Could you be a dear and provide a source for this understanding Foxy? Genuinely interested, thanks.

According to this link a letter was sent via the PM's Parliamentary Secretary:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/19/2776585.htm

I don't know the particulars of this case, but it does on the face of it seem unfair for farmers to carry the burden for all of us in terms of obligations under the Kyoto Protocol without compensation; yet compensation is being mooted for coal producers. Bizarre!

Why not pay farmers for growing or maintaining established forests on their land and provide incentives for householders/businesses to reduce energy consumption rather than paying out money to the polluters.

We are going about this in all the wrong ways.