Can Do Newman Immortalized in Paris, New York, London and Canberra

This is a follow up story on ‘The Missing Chapter’ the unauthorized companion piece to Can Do Newman by Gavin King being launched this week and for the folks who haven’t read this piece check it out here however below in the first 5 paragraphs is a brief background to this story.

missing chapter copy

Can Do sans Mayoral robe

From 2007 – 2012 I was subjected to what I can only describe as mental hell and in a passage of 3 years in this period I was gripped in a frenzy of inspiration creating digital art paintings totalling close to 1,500 pieces, almost a lifetime work and they are archived on Flickr in their chronological order. Check it out here if one is inclined of course.

The hell I went through started with BCC planning issuing to me a Development Approval that contained 2 conditions that turned out to be extortion of around $150K and after much ado in making complaints to the whole establishment that eventually Can Do Newman ordered a review only to cover up 2 crimes of extortion with further crimes of cover up, fraud and Mal Administration and in writing.

The Council fiasco became an establishment cover up which extended up to the High Court. I launched legal action against BCC for $2.2M + interest and that was the last thing Premier Newman needed, publicity of his misdeeds as Mayor if I was awarded compensation. And so after 18 months and 4 courts later, I emerged battered, mentally bruised and completely broke except for the fortnightly pension.

In December 2012 I found a nice rental place on a ridge on the Sunshine Coast hinterland and it was there I lived the life of an almost recluse and it was a place for mental healing and I was going to write my book about how Council caused such a violent rush of blood to my brain on the realization that BCC planners sabotaged my development and that led to a 3 year frenzy of sustained art creativity.

I arrived back to Brisbane last August after spending 2 years and 8 months in my retreat on the Sunshine Coast and in that time I wrote the story for my art book, conceived a format, designed and printed the pages and ordered 5 gold debossed leather presentation cases and assembled the pages in the case. It’s a big book A3+ size and weighs 4 kilos and counting wastage those 5 books cost almost $1,500 each. At this stage this is what one would call ‘vanity publishing’ to the extreme.

My ex said I’ll be ‘famous when I’m dead’ and probably the only wisest words she has ever uttered and so these books are earmarked for my 3 daughters that hopefully, when I’m dead, buried and cremated the books might hopefully compensate for the Council theft of their inheritance.

leather cov

Divine Inspirations Vol. 1

Since I’ve arrived in Brisbane I have set myself a daunting task of writing my autobiography which I envisage will be split over 4 volumes and ending up as a 5 box set, a 3-5 year project.

When a book is published, the publisher has a legal obligation to deposit a copy to the state library and to the National library and I wasn’t prepared to give them a leather bound book, so I printed 10 x A4 facsimiles and had them hand bound with a photo set in the front cover and sent a copy to the Queensland State and National Libraries being my legal deposits.

fac1 book

The A4 facsimile

I sent the remainder of the facsimiles nicely gift wrapped to MoMA New York, Saatchi Gallery London, the Louvre, the National Gallery of Australia and the Tate Gallery ending up with an A3+ leather edition as gifts for their libraries. The message was that the book gifted should be viewed as a future historical document on the fledging genre of digital painting and they have all been accepted. Each facsimile cost nearly $400 a pop; I made sure that I produced an attractive book that they couldn’t just throw in the bin.

Apart from Can Do and others mentioned in my story, I also have an acknowledgement page in my book which is all about naming and shaming Can Do and a host of other white collared criminal scumbags, my ultimate backhander to the Brisbane establishment and doesn’t it feel good and it would feel a whole lot better if I had my $2.2M compensation instead.

achnowledgementa copyHence my title to the story, Can Do is now immortalized and portrayed as a crim in the art world libraries of Paris (the Louvre), London (Tate and Saatchi), New York (MoMA), Canberra (NGA) as well as the libraries of Queensland and Canberra.

Stay tuned for the next gripping story coming soon.


The Missing Chapter by Bob Raftopoulos

candya copy

Can Do Fraud

The Missing Chapter

The companion piece to: Can Do – The story of Campbell Newman by Gavin King


With the advent of the book titled Can Do – The story of Campbell Newman by Gavin King I am of the view that the period of 2007 – 2011 while Can Do was Lord Mayor, has not been covered in its entirety and it was in this period that progressively led to his ‘forced’ resignation, it should have also resulted in his arrest.

Background leading up to my engagement with Newman

In November 2006, my architect lodged plans for a substantial and completely compliant under-development for 4 townhouses in the inner city suburb of Highgate Hill. The Townhouse development was an identical copy of a development undertaken by my architect for another developer and in another suburb that Council had approved 2 years earlier.

In December 2006, the response from the Brisbane City Council in the form of a ‘Information Request’, trashed every aspect of my development application and in fact the very first item of the information request set the application to fail, with a demand that I had to acquire 3 strips of land from adjoining property owners to extend the width of a Council lane adjoining my development property and of providing a written undertaking to maintain the lane infrastructure.

Legislation in the Integrated Planning Act 1997 states that:

3.5.32 Conditions that cannot be imposed

(1) A condition must not—

(i) a monetary payment for the establishment,

operating and maintenance costs of the


The development application approval process should have been processed in less than 4 months and yet the Council Planner who imposed these illegal conditions in the information request would not rescind them. These conditions breached the Queensland Criminal Code, Chapter 13, S87 (1) (a) which states in part, ‘… a public officer cannot obtain a benefit for himself, herself or any other person’.

After 6 months of what was an ‘abuse of office’ and ‘unconscionable conduct’ of the BCC town planner, I lodged a complaint to the CMC alleging the Council Planner was sabotaging my development, only to be tut tutted away for having the effrontery for lodging a complaint.

Further complaints were made to the Deputy Mayor and finally after 10 months, in August 2007, the development application was approved, joy turned to rage when it was discovered that condition 26 buried in the engineering section of the development approval was the catalyst that sabotaged the development.


Burned by Council








Condition 26 in layman’s terms required me to demolish and reconstruct structurally certified retaining walls on other people’s property that had absolutely no connection to my development. First of all, a public officer cannot obtain a benefit for other people, it’s a criminal offence. If I tried to comply with this condition I would have had to ask permission of these property owners to enter their property to construct the retaining walls and in doing so I would have been complicit in a crime organized by the BCC.

There was also condition 19, headed as Prioritized Pedestrian Pathway. The only problem with this term is that it doesn’t exist in the Brisbane Town Plan nor can it be found in any legislation therefore it has absolutely No Standing especially in a Court of Law!

This Prioritized Pedestrian Pathway can only be described as an easement providing access for the residents in the proposed 3 townhouses to be constructed at the rear of my house and it was to be located alongside the bedrooms of my house creating a safety and security risk. Again, Council did not have the jurisdiction to impose this condition, if they did, they would have called it an ‘Easement’. It also breaches the criminal code as the townhouse residents would have gained a benefit from this Prioritized Pedestrian Pathway.

Complaints were sent by email to Mayor Newman and Councillor Hinchcliffe who was in charge of Planning and was met with a deafening silence and in December 2007 Council went into caretaker mode for the March 2008 Council elections.

December 2007, I telephoned Mr Farrah from the CMC and after a heated conversation I was told to take my complaint to the cops and I went to the West End police station and the Sergeant on duty declared that a criminal offence was indeed committed by the Council town planner and sent my complaint to his supervisor. After 2 weeks of silence I went back to the West End Police station, saw the same Sergeant and asked him of the progress of my complaint and then he went and phoned his supervisor.

The sergeant must have been on the phone to his supervisor for at least 10 minutes and when he emerged he looked ashen and agitated and in an aggressive stance and tone told me to leave the station, I wasn’t going to argue with an oversized burly cop who had been roughed up by his supervisor and left the station.

January 2008, undeterred to what was starting to become a police cover up, I sent written complaints to my local State member Premier Anna Bligh, the police Minister Judy Spence, the Police Commissioner, the Queensland Ombudsman and the CMC.

The Newman Engagement

In March 2008, Newman won the Council election and 2 weeks after the election Newman sends me a letter saying that there will be a review of my Development Approval and a Mr Rory Kelly was going to conduct the review and was provided with Mr Kelly’s phone number.

Telephone contact was made with Mr Kelly and I asked that Council recall the development approval and issue a new one without the illegal offending conditions. There was no other way of dealing with these conditions. A Development Approval once issued is sealed and cannot be re-opened to make changes unless there is written consent from Council and the Developer.

Mr Kelly advised me the ‘intent’ of Condition 26 was to provide a dilapidation survey of the retaining walls and he had spoken to my engineer to produce said certificate to which I replied if you are going to change the meaning you have to record the change in the legal document, the Development Approval and I also advised him that Building Certifiers do not certify or accept dilapidation certificates for any structures, it’s not what they do, they certify structurally sound buildings.

After a few days of toing and froing with Mr Kelly I told him I had spoken to my Building Certifier who advised me that by law he was compelled to follow the conditions set out in the Development Approval and he wasn’t going to approve a Dilapidation certificate.

I also advised Mr Kelly that if a dilapidation certificate was issued for Condition 26 and if no changes were recorded in the Development Approval, the Dilapidation Certificate was a fraudulent certificate and to get legal advice before he put anything in writing.

I emailed Newman and advised him that the only way to resolve this matter was to recall and re-issue a new Development Approval without the offending conditions and that my Building Certifier would not approve a Dilapidation Certificate and what Mr Kelly was doing in approaching my engineer to craft a Dilapidation Certificate appears to have a criminal intent.

I also called my engineer and advised him that I’m not authorizing a Dilapidation Certificate and that he should consider his professional standing in regard to what was being proposed by Mr Kelly, a fraudulent certificate.

At the end of April 2008, I received a 2 page report signed by Newman. Everything I warned them about, Newman put it in writing and criminally incriminated himself.

My request for a new development approval was ignored and in this letter Newman goes on to say that ‘Our engineer approached your engineer and advised him that the ‘intent’ of the condition was for a dilapidation survey of the retaining walls ….’And went on to give instructions on what was to be included in the Dilapidation Certificate.

Soon after I received the Newman’s letter, I received the Dilapidation Certificate from my engineer mirroring Council’s instructions in the certificate.

So the scenario Council set would have been that I would trot off to the building certifier with Newman’s letter and the Dilapidation Certificate and try to ‘pass off’ the Dilapidation Certificate as a Structural Certificate, the requirement for Condition 26, and Newman’s Lord Mayoral letter would carry it through. As a beak would say ‘.., using the full weight of the Lord Mayoral Office’ to deceive.

Newman’s letter was worthless but criminally incriminating in written detail how Council conspired with my engineer to produce a fraudulent document to cover up a breach of the criminal act.

However, I did trot up to the building certifier with Newman’s letter and the Dilapidation Certificate and with a JP in tow. The building certifier was asked to view the documents and on perusal he rejected Newman’s instructed Dilapidation Certificate and Newman’s letter on the basis that it simply did not comply with Condition 26 in the Development Approval and that Newman’s letter and the Council instructed dilapidation certificate had no currency. The building Certifiers written rejection was sworn in the presence of a JP to become an Affidavit.

Time for a recap

  1. There are 2 written conditions in my development approval that is in breach of the Queensland Criminal Code.
  2. The Queensland Police along with the CMC have covered up the criminal breaches.
  3. Newman attempts to cover up the criminal breaches with a fraudulent Dilapidation Certificate.
  4. Building Certifier rejects Council’s instructed Dilapidation Certificate which was signed off by Newman.
  5. My Development Approval that had a project value of $5M was now completely sabotaged by Newman.
  6. My Development Approval/Certificate can now also be classed as a False Certificate, also being a criminal offence.

A fair question is why when considering the cops were protecting council planners that Newman felt it necessary to resort to be criminally involved in a cover up? And he can add another crime of the issuance of a false engineering certificate to the cover up.

In an earlier paragraph, I stated that I sent written complaints to persons mentioned and a week after I received Newman’s letter, I received replies from Police Minister Judy Spence, The Queensland Ombudsman and the CMC, and undoubtedly they were waiting for Newman to conclude his Review before releasing their replies.

Although the letters came a couple days scattered apart, they had the same impact as a coordinated missile attack with the same message that my complaints are now an establishment cover up.

Police Minister Spence mentions in her reply to me that the Cops advised her that my evidence held no substance to lodge a complaint (yet, Newman thought that the evidence should be covered up) and that I should seek a Formal Review with the Lord Mayor and I took that as a wink, wink, Newman will fix it.

The Queensland Ombudsman’s reply mirrored Newman’s cover up letter when they should have kicked Council’s arse for Mal Administration of dealing with erroneous conditions and the CMC produced 2 pages of twaddle. And all of them avoided addressing Condition 19 which had no legal standing and was a criminal offence. And the reason why they couldn’t address it is because they couldn’t produce any spin on something that doesn’t exist.

It is reasonable to assume that the parties above knew of Newman’s review and were expecting him to fix up the matter, but what they didn’t expect and were probably astounded if not aghast was that Newman would attempt to fix up the matter with fraud.

And it all started over again but this time I was making complaints against Newman for covering up planners crimes and signing off on instructions for a false certificate. And these complaints were ignored by the Cops, the CMC and Newman’s political opponents.

The 2004 Council election produced a Liberal Campbell Newman as Lord Mayor and a Labor David Hinchcliffe as Deputy Mayor, the Libs and Labor were conjointly running the ‘joint’, obviously corruptly, with Labor’s Deputy Mayor Hinchcliffe in charge of Council Planning. So there was the problem, a planning scandal would have engulfed Labor and Liberal and the political knives were not only sheathed they were securely locked up.

Newman was untouchable and more so for Brisbane City Council planners where they can brazenly breach the criminal code at will.

I kept my enemies (Newman, the Cops, the CMC, the Bligh Govt, the entire establishment) close, by emailing them on a weekly basis with unflattering stories and Photoshop images and in fact I probably started the first Photoshop war against the establishment and always there was some idiot who responded to my emails of which I dissected the bureaucratic bullshit spin and threw it back at them with interest. I was at this time abreast with planning legislation and the criminal law.

In 2009 I kept up the emails, the house had to be sold to pay down debt and the Missus filed for divorce and kept company with the Black Dog, Unipolar, who is much worse than Bipolar. It was also in this period I engaged the BCC CEO Jude Munro to have the Development Approval withdrawn and that a new one to be issued.

Ms Munro’s reply to my email stated in part ‘… the merits of the impositions can no longer be considered by Council as the legal process has already been completed and Council cannot now legally re-open that process.’


Ms Munro dropped Newman in the proverbial criminal bucket of poo as Newman’s letter to me contained 2 pages of illegally changing 4 conditions.

This said Munro’s letter was doctored in an Affidavit presented to the P&E court in 2011 in an attempt to extricate Newman from illegally changing conditions and it’s in the court transcript, Council’s solicitor was caught red handed but the judge accepted Council’s excuse of being a first draft which defies logic why Munro thought it would be (unintentionally) wise to incriminate Newman. There is a link to the court story at the end of this story.

For the whole of 2010 I took to protesting outside the Council Administration Building in George St, with what were highly defamatory posters of Newman. Initially I was protesting 3 times a week in the lunch hours and then cut it down to once a week.

Can Do Newman wasn’t the only pollie in my posters, and my local rep Premier Bligh also featured with a blind eye.

Candy & USM1234567890123ab copy

One of the lunch time protest posters

As I mentioned earlier about keeping my enemies close, I would disclose by email the posters that I would use and the day and time I would be using them to protest.

All sorts of business people visit the Council Admin building as well as lawyers and Judges walking past as the Admin building is situated on the opposite corner of the law courts and although I attracted laughter from the lunch hour crowd, Newman showed his appreciation by initially having a cop move me on but my return visits necessitated the deployment of Council’s Rapid Response Group.

I was initially issued with a $500 fine under the advertising by laws for the poster above was deemed as an advertisement. Of course I refused to pay and Council refused to collect the fine.

Then came the numerous Council Move On Notices, again issued under the advertising by laws and which carried a $5,000 fine.


When the Move On notices didn’t have any effect, 3 police officers came and stood close to me where I was protesting, legally I might add, and it was intimidating and not a good look for onlookers

I asked one of the cops of their intentions and was told, they were waiting for a Council Officer to come out with a Move On Notice and then they were going to move me out of the city.

Well, the cops waited and waited and waited for over 40 minutes and then decided to call Council, a Council security officer came out clueless about a Move On Notice and so the cops left with the knowledge that they were conned by Council to come and intimidate me but not before I got their names and photo.

That evening my email heading to the whole establishment screamed in Capital letters ‘COPS CONNED’ with the photo and the names of the cops who were conned. There would have been a lot of angst generated against Newman from the Premier down and I don’t think the Senior Cops would have been that happy about it either.

The issuing of the $500 fine, the issuance of the Move On Notices and the Council instructed police intimidation breaches Chapter 10 of the Queensland Criminal Code – Interfering of political liberty.

Newman has now added 2 more crimes to his list. You can’t con the cops for starters and you can’t go around intimidating ‘legal’ political protesters.

cops conned copy

Serg. Van Boxell, Serg. Schodell, Sen Const. Plessey in the background is the bench seat where I quietly and passively sat and my protest posters shouting CAN DO FRAUD next to the seat.


Time for another recap

  1. There are 2 written conditions in my development approval that is in breach of the Queensland Criminal Code.
  2. The Queensland Police along with other government bodies and politicians have covered up the criminal breaches.
  3. Newman attempts to cover up the criminal breaches with a fraudulent Dilapidation Certificate.
  4. Building Certifier rejects Council’s instructed Dilapidation Certificate which was signed off by Newman.
  5. My Development Approval that had a project value of $5M was now completely sabotaged by Newman.
  6. My Development Approval/Certificate can now also be classed as a False Certificate, also being a criminal offence as it has been sabotaged with criminal conditions.
  7. Newman illegally changes conditions another criminal offence.
  8. Newman is in breach of the criminal code of Interfering with my political liberty. Another criminal offence.
  9. Newman lures cops under False Pretences, another criminal offence.

It is worth noting that CEO Jude Munro resigned not long after she received a hefty $70K pay rise. Ouch! She was taken out of my firing range as had the 2 planners involved in my Development Approval except these planners were moved sideways, actually one was promoted sideways. Munro’s role in the cover up and if convicted would serve a min. 7 year jail term.

And so it came to pass a couple of months after the COPS CONNED drama, it was obviously the last straw as someone assessed Newman, a man who could readily accumulate criminal offences with ease just to get rid of lil’ old me was not worth the risk of taking everyone in the establishment down with him. And just like Jude Munro before him he was forced to resign to get him out of my firing range.

And that folks is the real reason Can Do fraud resigned! He was liberated from his job as Mayor, all because of lil’ old me to then be promoted above his station as Premier and who went on create an incredible amount of angst on the Queensland electorate. I had to share the pain around!

In 2011, I stopped my protesting after the cop’s incident and started litigation against Council and I had a deep reservation that the cover up would extend to the courts and my fears were well founded on my second outing in the P&E court. In a “mediation” conference with Council, court registrar John Taylor bullied and threatened me to withdraw my claim of $2.2M + interest against Council. And I did duly make a complaint to the Chief Justice.

Judge Chesterman in his Court of Appeal summary transcript conceded that Mr Taylor might have overstepped the (criminal) mark; however it was of no consequence because he was rejecting my appeal. Judge Chesterman just brushed away a serious criminal offence to protect the judiciary and the establishment.

Judge Chesterman also conceded that to construct retaining walls on other peoples property was illegal, however, he argued against the requirement for construction against expert sworn advice from a Building Certifier and said only a structural certificate was required and he didn’t read all of the condition which stated said retaining walls were to be constructed prior to obtaining building approval. Also a structural certificate is issued after the construction of retaining walls. Doh!

This fool Judge Chesterman tripped over himself trying to cover up Condition 26, construction of the walls cost around $30K, cost of certificate cost around $5-$10K, the quantum is of no consequence, a benefit is still being obtained for people that had absolutely nothing to do with my development.

The questions that need to be answered are, ‘Who instructed court registrar John Taylor to stand over me? and who nobbled the judges Griffin, Chesterman, Lyons, Muir and Gummow?

If one is inclined, the story of the court dramas featuring dodgy judges all the way up to the High Court in full cover up mode, a stand over man court registrar, and a Council perjurer can be found here

It’s where Newman belongs.

It’s where Newman belongs.


Submission> Senate Inquiry > Newman’s Queensland Government

10 November 2014

Select Committee into Certain Aspects of Queensland Government Administration PO Box 6100 Parliament House ACT 2600




    1. In August 2007 while Premier Newman was Lord Mayor of Brisbane I was issued a development approval for a small 4 townhouse development.
    2. The development approval contained 4 errors in the conditions, 2 of them being extortion which prevented me from developing my property.
    3. Complaints were first made to the CMC, then the Police and to the Queensland Ombudsman as well as to the Police Minister and the Premier. Nothing was done except to be referred to the Planning and Environment court which would have cost in excess of $50,000 to have the Council errors removed from the development approval.
    4. The Queensland Ombudsman had a statutory duty to ensure the proper administration of the blatant Council criminal errors instead of condoning Mal Administration and also for trying to further extort me, i.e. if I want to remove the Council errors I have to pay in excess of $50,000 in court costs or I can’t develop my property.
    5. In April 2008 Lord Mayor Newman orders a review of the Development Approval and in the report 6 weeks later on a Lord Mayoral letterhead, Newman details changes to the conditions and signs off on instructions for a fraudulent engineering certificate to cover up the extortion.
    6. The fraudulent Council instructed engineering certificate was rejected by Building Certifiers Consultants in an affidavit form for not complying with the condition.
    7. Lord Mayor Newman committed a criminal offence by re-opening my development approval, being a sealed document to change the conditions.
    8. This is verified by the then BCC CEO Jude Munro in a letter unknowing that Newman had made changes to the conditions, stating that it was illegal to make changes to a sealed document.
    9. This letter was ‘doctored’ and submitted in affidavit form by Council solicitor Katherine Johnson to the P&E court in 2011 in an attempt to extricate Newman for criminally supporting changes to my development approval.
    10. Judge Griffin in the P&E court accepted Council’s excuse that CEO Munro’s ‘doctored’ letter was a first draft. So in effect Council’s CEO Munro first drafted a letter extricating Newman from a crime and thought better of it and then issued a letter implicating Newman in a crime. Council solicitor Johnson should have been cited for perjury.
    11. In 2009/2010 I took to protesting in the lunch hours with a placard outside Council’s administration building.
    12. Council’s Rapid Response Group, whilst protesting issued to me under the Council’s advertising by-laws a $500 fine which they withdrew 12 months later and numerous ‘Move On’ notices carrying $5,000 fines again under the Advertising by-laws for lawfully protesting.            
    13. On 15 December 2010, 3 police officers, arrived where I was protesting outside the Council Admin building and stood close by me which was blatant intimidation. When questioned, the officer said they were waiting for a Council officer to arrive with a ‘Move On’ notice and they were going to move me out of the city.
    14. The police officers Sargent Van Boxel, Sargent Schodell, and Sen. Const. Plevey waited for almost an hour and finally rang Council security and a security officer came out and was clueless about a ‘Move On’ notice. The cops then realized they were conned, lured by False Pretenses by Council to intimidate me and then departed.
    15. I made complaints to the Premier, the Police Minister and the Police Commissioner and the CMC of being intimidated by the cops and of the cops being conned by Council, no action was taken, however, Newman (was forced) resigned 3 months later.
  • Newman’s Council’s intimidation tactics of a $500 fine, ‘Move On’ notices and the luring of the Police to prevent me from conducting a lawful political protest is in breach of Section 10 of the Queensland Criminal Code.Chapter 10 Offences against political liberty

    78 Interfering with political liberty

    (1) Any person who by violence, or by threats or intimidation of

    any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise of any

    political right by another person, is guilty of a misdemeanour,

    and is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.

    (2) If the offender is a public officer, and commits the offence in

    abuse of the offender’s authority as such officer, the offender

    is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.

The Courts

Planning and Environment Court

  1.  In 2011, I lodged a claim in the Planning and Environment for compensation under s5.4.5 of the IPA Act 1997.
  2. On the first court appearance Judge Rackemann ordered a Case Management Conference. At this conference, attended by myself and 2 Council solicitors, Court Registrar John Taylor declared himself chairman then took on the mouthpiece of Council and started to threaten and bully me to withdraw my claim; I was being stood over by a court officer.
  3. This fact of being stood over by court registrar John Taylor is acknowledged by Judge Chesterman in his Court of Appeal judgment summary and no action was taken against Taylor.
  4. In 2012 Buderim resident Mr. Kelly took action against the Maroochydore Council and was also stood over by Taylor. Mr. Kelly made complaints to the CMC and was ignored.
  5. The evidence is indisputable that court registrar John Taylor is employed by the state government to criminally stand over litigants.
  6. Judge Griffin SC in his summary states that the 2 extortion conditions: that Council had ‘no right’ to impose one of them and Council did not have the ‘jurisdiction’ to impose the other and therefore these crimes were sanitized by the court.
  7. Judge Griffin SC prevented me from tendering evidence being a letter from CEO Jude Munro being the basis of the claim where she states that I was issued a Planning and Development certificate also referred to as a Development Approval.
  8. Judge Griffin SC in his summary acknowledged the errors but dismissed my claim for not having a Planning and Development certificate being a copy of my Development Approval.

The Court of Appeal

  1. At the Court of Appeal hearing, I submitted and orally argued that Condition 19 in the development approval did not have ‘Legal Standing’ as no such term as a Prioritized Pedestrian Pathway was prescribed or described in City Plan 2000 or in the statutes of the IPA Act 1997.
  2. In fact Condition 19 was extortion and in Judge Chesterman’s summary this condition that was orally argued was not addressed.
  3.  Condition 30 also being a condition of extortion, Judge Chesterman stated it was not extortion as all was required was to produce a structural engineering certificate for other people’s retaining walls instead of constructing retaining walls at a cost of around $30,000.
  4. A structural engineering certificate cannot be produced unless the structure is constructed and even if one could be produced it would cost around $5,000. The quantum is of no significance as a benefit is still being given to other people, being a criminal offence. A public officer cannot obtain or attempt to obtain a benefit for himself, herself or any other person as the Queensland Criminal Code states.
  5. Condition 30 was the condition that Lord Mayor Newman signed off on instructions for a false engineering certificate to cover up the extortion.
  6. Despite sworn evidence presented to the Court of Appeal, being documentation downloaded from the Council website that confirmed that a Development Approval is also known as a Planning and Development certificate Judge Chesterman upheld Judge Griffin’s ruling that Council did not issue to me a Development and Planning Certificate but I had a Development Approval.
  7. Despite Lord Mayor’s Newman’s letter with full admission of 3 errors and writ in black and white ‘Administrative Error’, Judge Chesterman ruled that there were no errors.

The High Court

  1. Justice Gummow in a one page summary acknowledged I was issued a Planning and Development certificate but ruled, despite of Newman’s letter of admission of errors, that there were no errors to dismiss my claim.

Open Letter to Chief Justice Paul de Jersey

    1. The court items above are canvassed in detail with supporting documentation in the open letter to the Chief Justice, attached in bound form.
    2. This open letter of complaint to the Chief Justice was totally ignored.
    3. I submit to the committee that Judges Griffin, P&E court, Judge Chesterman, Muir and Lyons, Court of Appeal have blatantly misused their positions to issue rulings favourable to the Brisbane City Council to have my case dismissed, to do otherwise would have produced a Brisbane City Council and State Government criminal scandal involving Premier Newman.
    4. I further submit that not only is there no judicial independence and separation of powers; there is also no independence and separation of powers between the Newman Government and the Police, the CCC (CMC) and the Queensland Ombudsman.
    5. A corrupt State of affairs.


Date:               10/01/2014

BCC adv infringement

The fine for advertising Newman is a fraud.

1abcd12 copy

The ad? deemed by Council to be advertising.

cops conned

Police officers Sargent Van Boxel, Sargent Schodell, and Sen. Const. Plevey and my protest placard in the background.

There you have it peeps. Extortion, corrupt judges, a judicial standover man, fraud, false pretences, police intimidation, Mal Administration, Offences against political liberty, and a establishment conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and Abuse of Office.

Truly a corrupt State of Affairs.

And one day I just might get the hang of formatting on this site which is causing considerable angst.

Campbell Newman & the Corruption of Brisbane Judges

18 September 2012

The Honourable Justice P. De Jersey AC

Chief Justice

Judges Chambers

Supreme Court

PO BOX 15019

City East QLD 4002 DX40114



Your Honour

1. I sent a letter1 dated 21 September ’11 of complaint to you prior to a Preliminary Point of Law Hearing arranged by Court Registrar John Taylor and Judge Rackemann in the P&E court on 4 October 2011. I am of the belief that my complaint was covered up to prevent you from reading my complaint and this open letter has been designed in view that this letter reaches you and that you can act on serious differential treatment I have received by Judge Griffin, Court of Appeal Judges Chesterman, Lyons and Muir who have undoubtedly been interfered with political persuasion to dishonestly subvert my Appeal.

2. My Notice of Appeal was lodged with the P&E court on 26/7/2011.

Raftopoulos V Brisbane City Council BD2617/11

Under s5.4.5 and s5.4.7 (2) (c) of IPA Act 1997 I had standing to appeal against 2 decisions by BCC CEO Jude Munro to deny compensation for an erroneous Planning and Development Certificate that was issued for my development on 8 August 2007. My submission and Affidavit was submitted 23 September ’11.

3. Application to the Court of Appeal was lodged 24 October ’11. CA 9639/11

4. The claim was for $2.2 million + interest and CEO Munro’s decisions that I was appealing against were:

(a) I am not in a position to accept your claim for compensation under s5.4.5 of the Integrated Planning Act as it does not relate to an error in the Planning Development Certificate issued by Council.

(b) The Development Approval issued to you after the negotiation phase is not a Planning and Development Certificate.

5. The above decisions by CEO Munro were dishonest and indefensible and the legal charge to the P&E court to hear the Appeal under Part 4 Compensation s5.4.5 and s5.4.7 (2)(c) was subverted in a contrived Preliminary Point of Law Hearing on 4 October 2011 with the deliberate misapplication of s5.7.8 of the IPA Act 1997 being a Public Information document which is not prescribed in Part 4 Compensation of the IPA Act to dismiss my appeal.

6. My concerns of subversion were contained in my letter of complaint to you and also a letter of complaint was given to Judge Rackemann on the day he arranged the Preliminary Point of Law Hearing.

7. My concerns stemmed from a case management conference on the 16 September ’11 arranged by Judge Rackemann. In this case management conference, the court registrar Mr John Taylor took on the role of BCC mouthpiece and bullied and threatened me to withdraw my appeal. After walking out of the conference in disgust I arrived home to find an email from Mr Taylor to attend court on 19 September ‘11 for a date to be set for a Preliminary Point of Law Hearing.

8. You did not reply to my complaint, however, I did receive a reply2 from Julie Steele, Executive Director, Supreme District Court and Land Courts Service, stating that court registrar John Taylor Acted appropriately. Is that your view your Honour, that a court registrar can bully and threaten a litigant? Judge Chesterman in his Court of Appeal decision, thought so, as he said “Even if he (Mr Taylor) overstepped the mark and he too strongly urged the Applicant to withdraw his appeal ….. his importunity was unsuccessful”3

9. “I’m really trying to help you” Judge Griffin said when he stopped me from producing CEO Munro’s letter, Exhibit ‘A’5 in the court record book, which stated in part “I am not in a position to accept your claim for compensation under s5.4.5 of the Integrated Planning Act as it does not relate to an error in the Planning Development Certificate issued by Council.

10. Judge Griffins words were a feigned act of benevolence, it fact it was a ruse to prevent CEO Munro’s letter with the statement saying Council issued a planning and development certificate for my development, from seeing the light of day in court, Judge Griffin then moved on to Council’s argument and then retired and then to re-emerge with his summary to dismiss my Appeal.

11. “I RULE THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE WAS SUCH A (Planning and Development) CERTIFICATE IN EXISTENCE”6 Judge Griffin stated in his summary to dismiss my appeal.

12. Is this your view as well your Honour that Judge Griffin could wilfully prevent sworn evidence being the basis of my appeal to be presented to the court to advantage Council?

13. Judge Griffin’s actions and the Court of Appeal Judges Chesterman, Muir and Lyons who also ignored sworn evidence upheld Judge Griffin’s decision to dismiss my appeal and their actions can only be described as despicable and repugnant to ignore evidence to advantage Council and I wish to remind you of your words your Honour as they appear in the Equal Treatment Bench Book: ‘Equal treatment of participants in court proceedings is fundamental to the judicial role. The prospect of differential treatment – whether of litigants, lawyers or witnesses is repugnant’.

14. There can be no doubt that the Preliminary Point of Law Hearing was contrived to subvert my claim for compensation. For Judge Griffin to award compensation would have publicly exposed 2 acts of extortion written as conditions in the Planning and Development Certificate by Council Planning Officers Rick Ng and Lorraine Gregory. And it is also obvious that Judge Chesterman, Muir and Lyons in their Court of Appeal judgment were also determined not to expose these crimes by ignoring sworn evidence to find in favour of Council and thereby not granting Leave to Appeal, to appeal Judge Griffin’s decision.

15. It would also have exposed Lord Mayor Newman in signing off on instructions for a false engineering certificate to cover up one of the extortion conditions, Condition 30 and this engineering certificate was subsequently rejected by a Building Certifier for it was, false.

16. Further evidence of a political cover up is when Council solicitor Kathryn Johnston tendered an Affidavit to the court, which contained a perjured letter from CEO Jude Munro addressed to me. Council substituted a paragraph that implicated Lord Mayor Newman to illegally re-opening the DA process of my Development Approval.

17. The cover up of the acts of extortion by Council Planning Officers Rick Ng and Lorraine Gregory extend to Lord Mayor Newman BCC CEO Jude Munro, her successor Colin Jensen, BCC Chief Legal Officer David Askern who advised Munro and Jensen, Deputy Mayor David Hinchcliffe, CMC Officer Chris Koch, Assistant Ombudsman Louise Rosemann, Deputy Ombudsman Forbes Smith, Assistant Police Commissioner Barnett, Police Minister Judy Spence and her successor Neil Roberts and now complicit in this orchestrated cover up is court officer John Taylor, Judge Griffin, Judge Chesterman, Judge Muir and Judge Lyons.

The Preliminary Point of Law Hearing

18. On 3 October ‘11 the eve of the Preliminary Point of Law Hearing I was ambushed by Council with a Submission to be tendered to the court.

19. On 4 October ’11 at the start of the Preliminary Point of Law Hearing I was ambushed again with an Affidavit that Council solicitor Kathryn Johnston was submitting to the court. Judge Griffin gave me 25 minutes to peruse Council documents.

20. The ambush was deliberate to prevent me from attaining any documents to respond to the Council Submission and Affidavit. One of the documents in the Affidavit, a letter7 from CEO Jude Munro addressed to me was doctored, and a paragraph that implicated Lord Mayor Newman to criminal wrong doing was altered to extricate him from this crime and without doubt the Ambush would have succeeded if not with a gift of providence that I inexplicably had the original letter8 at the Hearing which exposed the perjury.

21. The paragraph that was substituted in CEO Munro’s letter was “In view of this fact, the merits of the imposition of the conditions can no longer be considered by Council as the Approval Process has been completed and Council cannot legally reopen that process” and it was replaced by “In view of this fact, the merits of the Imposition of the conditions are now functus officio in this regard.”

22. Judge Griffin accepted BCC Counsel’s excuse of CEO Munro’s perjured letter as being an early draft. The cover up trail is a long one and now one is asked to believe that CEO Jude Munro drafted a letter denying any liability and then thought better of it to produce a final letter to me to say that Lord Mayor Newman acted illegally by changing the erroneous conditions in the Planning and Development Certificate. Surely your Honour, the Judiciary is not at the high end of the gullibility stakes, however, this is just another instance of a Council cover up and supported by the presiding judges.

23. If the law is to apply equally to all, Council solicitor Kathryn Johnston should have been and should still be cited for perjury.

24. Council’s perjury relates to an incriminating letter9 by Lord Mayor Newman dated 30 May 2008, Exhibit ‘B’ in the court record book, the letter contains admissions of errors in the conditions and how the errors were being changed. The only legal way to change conditions and that applies to any legal document that has been issued is to show the changes in the legal document, in this instance the Planning and Development Certificate. It’s the law, SPA 413(2) (b) – If a compliance assessor (Council) decides to change the compliance permit- give the person a new permit or certificate showing the change. The requirement to show changes to legal documents after they are issued is standard international business practice.

25. Newman had almost 2 years to issue to me a new Planning and Development Certificate showing the changes as he was required to do by law, one reason he refused to issue a new Planning and Development Certificate is because it would have exposed the extortion conditions and that would have been politically unfavourable for him.

Judge Griffin’s Summary

26. “I rule that there is no evidence to demonstrate that there was such a (planning and development) certificate in existence.”10 Judge Griffin stated in his summary to dismiss my appeal.

27. Of course there was no evidence demonstrated in court because Judge Griffin prevented me by deception from presenting Exhibit ‘A’, CEO Munro’s letter11 in court stating that a Planning and Development Certificate was issued for my development.

28. The whole Preliminary Point of Law Hearing was a Sham from start to finish, a charade was played out by Judge Griffin and Council’s Counsel and one part in the proceedings Judge Griffin says “In every other respect, those facts and details which make up the certificate are within the knowledge and within the documents of Council and that the certificate is there if not physically, at least, in spirit, amongst the other documentation.”.12

29. In spirit, indeed! Judge Griffin was playing out a charade; it was already a done deal between Council, court registrar John Taylor, Judge Rackemann and Judge Griffin to have my appeal subverted.

30. The basis of Judge Griffin’s decision that a planning and development certificate did not exist was based on s5.7.8 of IPA Act 1997, being a copy of my approved development application without plans that can be purchased by members of the public. Surely, Council cannot make copies if a certificate does not exist, and to make the certificate available for public inspection which Council is obliged to do by law on its website.

The Errors

31. In Judge Griffin’s summary, error #1- Condition 26:13

Mr Raftopoulos cited four separate errors which are said to give rise to compensation. Those include the requirement to deal with a non-existent Poinciana tree on the property, although he concedes that the tree apparently was wrongly prescribed, and there was in fact a Poinciana tree on the property which the Council required to be dealt with in a particular way, which was to save the tree.

32. My comment: I never made any such concession; if there was a Poinciana tree there I would not be complaining.

33. Lord Mayor Newman’s letter14 in regard to this tree states: “With regard to your concern about the Poinciana tree that is to be retained, I am advised that a landscape architect has visited the site and confirm the tree is a jacaranda. This administrative ERROR seems to have originated from a notation……”

34. In Judge griffin’s summary, error #2 – Condition 25:15

There was a tree plan to be submitted, which Mr Raftopoulos says is inconsistent, at the very least, or contrary to other requirements of the Brisbane City Council in relation to the planting of trees and other matters associated therewith.

35. My comment: The condition required that a street tree be planted in a one metre wide concrete Council footpath which is contrary to Council regulations.

36. Lord Mayor’s Newman letter16 in regard to this condition states: “I can now advise that the planting of a street tree in Ampthill St, is no longer required”.

37. In Judge Griffin’s summary, error #3 – Condition 19:17

The third error is said to involve a requirement for a pedestrian-prioritized pathway where it is argued by the appellant (applicant) that there was no jurisdiction by Council to impose such a pathway.

38. Lord Mayor Newman in his letter18 states on this condition: “It is acknowledged that there is some minor inconvenience in taking the bins up the grade to Ampthill Street for collection. However, similar constraints are managed on other sites across the city so Council will not change this requirement for your development.

39. My comment: Newman carefully avoids using the term Prioritized pedestrian pathway as there is no such term as a prioritized pedestrian pathway, this term is not prescribed or described in City Plan 2000 or in IPA Act 1997 and as such has no legal standing. This condition is a dressed up term for an easement which Council did not have the jurisdiction to impose, if they did they would have called it an easement. This condition also breaches the Queensland Criminal Code Chapter 13, s78, 1a as it confers an illegal benefit of 24 hour pedestrian access through my property to 3 townhouse residents at the rear of the property to access Ampthill St.

40. Condition19 is just one example of the extreme victimization I endured over a 10 month period, the easement/prioritized pathway has a fence that is butted up against the house and this fence could have been scaled to my young daughters bedrooms, there was no sight line from the road to the easement because of the gradient, which made this easement a security and safety risk and to further put the boot in, Council Planner Rory Kelly called an independent expert to advise of the security risk being Council’s Waste Management who deemed that Council needed the easement for 3 Townhouse residents to place their wheelie bins in Ampthill St, obviously, the independent Council waste management security experts believe that wheelie bins are more paramount than safety issues. And that was regardless of the fact that I was gifting Council $150,000 to upgrade a Council lane which adjoined my property with a footpath and street lighting so the 3 Townhouse residents could place their bins in the lane and also to have vehicular and pedestrian access.

41. Judge Griffin’s summary, error #4 – Condition 3019

“The fourth error is said to relate to retaining walls which were not on the Appellant’s (applicant’s) property, the subject of the development and, likewise, amongst other arguments on this topic, it is argued that the Council had no right to impose such a condition, nor could Mr Raftopoulos, not being the owner of the properties on which those retaining walls existed, have any ability to effect any control or engineering measures as required by Council over those retaining walls”.20

42. Condition 30 states. Obtain Certification in connection with the structural integrity of the existing concrete block and brick walls on the south eastern side of the road reserve….

43. Lord Mayor Newman’s letter21 states:

“Mr Paul Hills, Principal Engineering Officer South has spoken to your engineer Mr Domenico Taraborelli from Roofbrook Engineers regarding this requirement. I understand Mr Hills has confirmed that the intent of this condition was to certify that road and building construction would not have an adverse impact on the current conditions of these walls, that is, that the works can be constructed without damaging the existing retaining walls. Your engineer’s assessment would include a dilapidation survey prior to commencement of works, monitoring during construction and reassessment at the completion of all building works on site.

44. My comment: The requirement of Condition 30 is to ‘Obtain Structural Certification’ for dilapidated retaining walls on private properties22 at 17 and 19 Ampthill St. My property was at 11 Ampthill St. The only way Structural Certification could be obtained was to demolish and to re-construct the retaining walls which were cracked, deformed and leaning over, and before that could be done, I needed to obtain permission from the property owners to enter their property to do the work and this work had to be done before lodging an application for building works.

45. Newman’s Lord Mayoral letter23 saying that Condition 30 had intent for a ‘dilapidation survey’ instead of a structural certificate was not worth the paper it was written on. Newman’s Lord Mayoral letter cannot override a legal document once it is issued and a Building Certifier has a statutory duty to adhere to Conditions24 as written in the Planning and Development Certificate and the Council’s instructed ‘dilapidation certificate’25, Exhibit ‘C’ was rejected by Building Certifiers Consultants Pty Ltd in affidavit form26, Exhibit ‘D’.

46. Even if Newman made the necessary changes in the Planning and Development Certificate, the change to Condition 30 from structural to a dilapidation report, would still have failed, as it’s not in a Building Certifiers jurisdiction to certify dilapidation reports of dodgy retaining walls that are cracked, deformed and leaning over.

47. Lord Mayor Newman signing off on instructions for a false engineering certificate to ‘pass off’ as a structural certificate to a building certifier is in breach of s94 of the Queensland Criminal Code – The issuing of false certificates.

48. Condition 30 confers on the private property owners at 17 and 19 Ampthill St, an illegal benefit of constructing new retaining walls at an estimated cost of $30,000 being in breach of the Queensland Criminal Code Chapter 13,s78,1, a.

49. Council’s failure to delete the errors rendered The Planning and Development Certificate without currency as it cannot proceed to Building Approval, without currency the Planning and Development Certificate is a false document and in breach of s94 of the Queensland Criminal Code- The issuing of false certificate.

The Court of Appeal Summary

50. Judge Chesterman produced a dishonest 11 page summary of spin and waffle to uphold Judge Griffin’s decision and like CEO Jude Munro who inadvertently in her spin implicated Lord Mayor Newman to illegally re-opening the DA process with his incriminating letter, so too has Judge Chesterman inadvertently confirmed that Lord Mayor Newman signed off on instructions for a false engineering certificate to ‘pass off’ to a Building Certifier and also confirmed that Condition 30 is unlawful.

51. Judge Chesterman states in paragraph 31 of his summary:27

Judge Griffin rightly struck out the Applicant’s appeal. His Honour relied upon the absence of a certificate to conclude that the statutory right to compensation had not arisen. His Honour was, with respect, quite right in that regard. More fundamentally the applicant’s claim failed because the alleged loss of profits was not caused by an error in information provided by the respondent. Any loss was caused by the applicant’s incapacity to comply with the conditions for his development which were accurately stated in the decision notice

52. One should read the above paragraph with the utmost contempt and disgust and for the following reasons

53. CEO Jude Munro’s letter Exhibit ‘A’, 28 was used in my Outline of Argument that stated a Planning and Development Certificate was issued by Council for my development.

54. Adduced evidence of Council’s documentation, Exhibits ‘H’29, and ‘I’30 was submitted to the court that VERIFIED that my Approved Development Application that culminated in a Development Approval was indeed the Planning and Development Certificate.

55. Council documentation Exhibits ‘H’ and ‘I’ presented to the court in Adduced Evidence also verified that s5.7.8 that Judge Griffin used to dismiss my appeal was a copy of my Approved Development Application.

56. Chapter 5, Part 7 of IPA Act 1997 s5.7.1 that governs s5.7.8 was cited in the Outline of Argument which states: Public Access to Planning and development information for inspection and purchase and s5.7.8 is a copy of the Planning and Development Certificate for inspection or purchase and it has been available for inspection physically in Council offices and on Council’s website where Exhibits ‘H’ and ‘I’ were downloaded from and these documents were available for viewing since the Approval of the Development Application on 8 August 2007 as required by law.

57. S5.7.8 being a copy of the Planning and Development Certificate is not prescribed as a requirement to claim compensation in Part 4 Compensation of the IPA Act 1997 and being a deliberate misapplication of the law.

58. Your Honour how can 3 Court of Appeal Judges ignore hard sworn evidence that disproves Judge Griffin’s decision that no certificate exists? And to ignore the Error of Law, the misapplication of s5.7.8 to strike out my appeal. This is just hard proof of Judge Chesterman, Muir and Lyons complicity in this criminal cover up.

The Errors whitewashed by Judge Chesterman.

59. In paragraph 30 of Judge Chesterman’s summary31, he states:

The conditions complained of were not errors. They were certainly not omissions. Apart from the misdescription of the tree there was nothing erroneous in the contents of the decision notice or the conditions.

60. Judge Chesterman says above there was no errors apart for one. Lord Mayor Newman in his letter32 of 30 May 2008 called this error ‘an Administrative Error’. I really do not need to go further, an error is an error and it comes from the horse’s mouth; however, the criminal conditions that Judge Chesterman has tried to whitewash need to be addressed.

61. Condition 19 – Pedestrian Prioritized Pathway33. This condition was orally argued in the Court of Appeal Hearing. This term is not prescribed or described in City Plan 2000 or in IPA Act 1997, IT HAS NO LEGAL STANDING, if it has no legal standing it is unlawful and in breach of Chapter 13,s78, 1a, of the Queensland Criminal Code as it confers an illegal benefit to 3 Townhouse residents 24 hour access through my property. Judge Chesterman could not formulate a whitewash to cover up this unlawful error so he chose to ignore it.

62. Judge Griffin in his summary paragraph 37 states Council did not have the jurisdiction to impose condition 19.

63. Condition 3034- The second part to Condition 30 reads: Obtain certification in connection with the structural integrity of the existing concrete and block walls on the south eastern side of the road reserve. Obtain the certification from a RPEQ qualified structural engineer. In particular the certification should refer to the impact of vibration from construction vehicles operating in close proximity to both concrete block and brick retaining walls located immediately adjacent to the existing road reserve.

64. In paragraph 29 of Judge Chesterman’s summary35 he states: “Taking Condition 30 as an example, the Applicant contends it is an error because it required him to build and/or repair a retaining wall on someone else’s land, the condition and the activity being unlawful. In order to advance that contention the applicant had to ignore the plain effect of the condition, which required no such activity. It required only the submission of a plan and the obtaining of a certification”.

65. Judge Chesterman has defeated his own argument, an expense of around $3,000 to prepare engineering plans for retaining walls belonging on someone else’s land, that in itself is an illegal benefit, and as the retaining walls are dilapidated, the plans have to be implemented to make the retaining walls structurally sound so a building certifier can certify them and if Judge Chesterman read Condition 3036 in its entirety, the timing of the construction of the retaining walls had to be completed before the lodgement of building works.

66. Lord Mayor Newman, being an engineer was of the opinion that the requirement of Condition 30 was to demolish and re-construct the walls as he signed off on instructions for a false engineering certificate37 being a ‘dilapidation report certificate’ instead of a structural certificate to ‘pass off’ onto a Building Certifier in order to cover up the illegality of Condition 30 and in breach of s94 of the Queensland Criminal Code, the issuing of a false certificate and was subsequently rejected by Building Certifier Consultants Pty Ltd38. Again this certificate at my cost was for ‘someone else’s land’ being an illegal benefit, and I didn’t try to pass it off as a legitimate certificate, I took a JP to the Building Certifier to have Lord Mayor Newman’s certificate rejected in Affidavit form as proof of its falsehood.

67. According to my architect Mr George Pascucci, RMA engineers, Roofbrook engineers and Building Certifiers Consultants Pty Ltd, to comply with Condition 30, the retaining walls had to be demolished and re-constructed prior to lodgement of building works as prescribed in the condition 30.

68. Expert witnesses named above being engineers including Lord Mayor Newman with his false certificate disproves Judge Chesterman assertion that the said retaining walls do not have to be constructed and as Judge Chesterman concedes in paragraph 63 above the construction of retaining walls on ‘someone else’s land’ is unlawful and in breach of Chapter 13, s78, 1 a as it confers on 2 private property owners an illegal benefit of new retaining walls at an estimated cost of $30,000.

69. Judge Griffin concedes in his summary that Council did not have the right to impose condition 30.

70. Judge Chesterman also states in paragraph 30 of his summary39:

“The imposition of conditions may have made the development uneconomic and may have been unreasonable”.

71. There is a law that prevents Council from imposing unreasonable conditions. IPA Act 1997 s3.5.30 (1) A Condition must- (a) be relevant to, but not an unreasonable imposition on, the development….. (b) be reasonably required in respect of the development. And it can’t be said that planting a street tree contrary to Council regulations is reasonable, obtaining an arborist report for a non-existent Poinciana tree is reasonable, providing an illegal prioritized pathway to confer on other people an illegal benefit is reasonable, to confer on other people an illegal benefit of constructing retaining walls is reasonable.

72. Of significance is the inclusion of CEO Jude Munro’s letter in Judge Chesterman’s summary40, to bolster his decision. Judge Chesterman did omit the paragraph that implicated Lord Mayor Newman in illegally re-opening the DA process and other words that were incriminating and this letter should be read for what it is a dishonest attempt to cover up the illegal conditions 19 and 30.

73. CEO Munro writes: “I have now received the report of the Chief Legal Counsel (David Askern) who has investigated and reported … on your claims of the illegality of Conditions 19 and 30 of your development Approval”.

However it is of significant concern to me that you have not chosen to exercise your legal rights to challenge that decision by way of a negotiated decision notice, planning appeal or application for modification of your approval.

With respect to Condition 30 regarding your neighbours retaining walls, it seems to me a reasonable and relevant and within power of Council to impose conditions…..(Judge Chesterman omitted ‘on you’) requiring an investigation be undertaken of the ability of your neighbours retaining walls to withstand the construction of your project.

If the investigations …. (‘in turn’-omitted by Judge Chesterman) requires works to be carried on or near those walls, that again seems to be a reasonable and relevant condition…(‘to impose’ – omitted by Judge Chesterman) [in] regard to your statutory duty of support and Council’s obligations to ensure that support.

With regard to Condition 19 regarding the pedestrian pathway, it is of significance that the pathway be restricted to residents of your proposed units and gated accordingly, that the requirement for that pathway cannot adversely affect your security and privacy any more so than exists without that development”.

74. In the first paragraph, CEO Munro implicates Council Chief Legal Officer David Askern, Ms Munro was not going down without bringing David Askern down with her as they were both in a position to deal with the erroneous conditions and would be in breach of IPA Act 4.4.3 of IPA Act 1997 that carries a severe penalty of a 7 year mandatory jail term and that also extends to CEO Munro’s successor Colin Jensen.

75. In the second paragraph, CEO Munro states it is of significant concern to her, of course it was and it involved Council’s illegalities and the penalty for the CEO is stated above and CEO Munro tries to place the blame on me for the illegalities when Council had a statutory duty under s5.4.5 and s3.5.30 to ensure that the Planning and Development Certificate was free from errors and indeed, Council had a Duty of Care of the issuing of legal documentation.

76. Deputy Lord Mayor Hinchcliffe was advised of the illegality of Condition 30 in October 2007 and it should have been acted on immediately, instead Hinchcliffe and Newman covered it up as a Council election was being held in March 2008 so their re-election chances were not jeopardized. After the Council election, Lord Mayor Newman calls for a review of the development approval and issues to me his report of the review, his letter41 dated 30 May 2008 to ensure the illegalities were covered up forever. However, his self-incriminating letter of illegally changing conditions and signing off on a false engineering certificate is Prima Facie evidence of the criminal cover up of extortion by Council Planners Ng and Gregory.

77. In the third paragraph CEO Munro states I have a statutory duty of support but fails to mention the statute or the Act that this statute appears in, it is plainly a LIE and the retaining walls45 in question were far removed from my property.

78. If Council had an obligation for private property owner’s retaining walls they did not show it for my adjoining neighbour’s illegal 8 metre high industrial wall of concrete block and brick that stretched for 40 metres and in a severe state of dilapidation42.

79. The townhouses that were going to be built next to this wall had their legal height of 8.5 metres reduced to be the same height of the neighbours retaining wall of 8 metres high for no other reason than extreme victimization to financially deprive me for expensive excavations, that also required underpinning and also for the illegal wall to collapse to cause further financial losses.

80. It should also be said that Newman offered me the opportunity for a modification in his letter43 of 30 May 2008, of the height of townhouses to be restored to their original height of 8.5m at my cost and the reason for this grandiose gesture for modification was, according to an FOI document, that Council feared that the illegal retaining wall would collapse and Council would become embroiled in a civil dispute.

81. So where is my statutory duty that Ms Munro says I have in reconstructing retaining walls at 17 and 19 Ampthill St and far removed from my property and yet I don’t have a statutory duty to my adjoining property neighbours retaining wall that is in a worse state of disrepair? There isn’t any statutory duty and that puts paid to CEO Munro and Chief Legal Officer Askern’s LIES which are promoted by Judge Chesterman. And this is further proof that Condition 30 is unlawful and that Lord Mayor Newman acted illegally by signing off on instructions for a false certificate for the retaining walls at 17 & 19 Ampthill St, to cover up the illegality of Condition 30.

82. In the fourth paragraph consistent with a bureaucratic cover up, it omits the offending word ‘Prioritized’ so instead of Prioritized Pedestrian Pathway as it appears in the condition 1944; CEO Munro calls it a pedestrian pathway. Ms Munro and Chief Legal Officer Askern were aware that Condition 19 had no legal standing just by the fact they omitted the offending word. And Judge Chesterman failed to address this condition altogether and Judge Griffin concedes that Council did not have the jurisdiction to impose this unlawful condition which is in breach of the Queensland Criminal Code.

The High Court Decision – Justice Gummow and Kiefel45

83. Justice Gummow states: The applicant sought leave to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland but on the 5 April 2012, The Court of Appeal (Muir, Chesterman JJA, P Lyons J) refused the application. It concluded that even if the development approval is the equivalent to a development certificate for the purposes of 5.4.5, there were no errors in the approval which would give rise to compensation.

84. Perhaps Justice Gummow came to the conclusion that a development approval is the same as a development certificate under my weight of evidence as Judge Chesterman certainly didn’t say that a development approval is the same as a development certificate, as a matter of fact, Judge Chesterman upheld Judge Griffin’s decision that a Planning and Development Certificate did not exist46.

85. Justice Gummow has conceded I’m entitled to claim compensation and somehow he could not come to grips with Lord Mayor Newman’s admission of an Administrative Error47, and the errors conceded by Judge Griffin in his summary48. So it can be said an error is not an error, even an Administrative Error that comes from Council’s mouth, when it comes to claiming compensation from Council. There is no doubt whatsoever, from the weight of sworn evidence presented to the High Court, that there has been collusion between Judge Chesterman and Justice Gummow to subvert my Appeal.

The Queensland Ombudsman49

86. The Queensland Ombudsman conceded there were errors in the Planning and Development Certificate but failed to address the extortion conditions 19 & 30 in the development approval and failed in their duty to ensure the proper Administration of the errors which was to have Council remove the errors and to issue to me a new document showing the changes. The Ombudsman turned a blind eye to Mal Administration of the errors in their part of the cover up.

87. The reasons the assistant and the deputy Ombudsman did not take any action was because of their preposterous assertion that I did not take Council to the P&E court to have Council’s errors removed and that I did not use the 10 day negotiation phase after the development approval issued to negotiate the conditions. How does one negotiate 2 acts of extortion? With a bribe? And the IPA Act states that only one condition can be negotiated, there were 4 erroneous conditions.

88. The Ombudsman and the others mentioned in paragraph 18 all spoke in the same forked tongue as well as Judge Griffin and Chesterman by insinuation that I should have taken the errors to the P&E court to be further extorted by having to pay a minimum of $50,000 in legal fees to have the Council errors removed and at the same time the errors of crimes of extortion are sanitized in a court that has no jurisdiction in criminal matters. And this is an example of how the establishment uses the P&E Court to sanitize any crimes by Council that a law abiding citizen objects to. The sanitization of the criminal errors condition 19 and 30 by Judge Griffin is demonstrated in paragraphs 37 and 41.


89. Your Honour it appears we are in dangerous territory with Judge Chesterman establishing new precedents.

90. *Council can impose unreasonable conditions.

*Council can impose illegal conditions.

*Council can illegally change conditions in a planning and development certificate without recording the changes in the certificate.

*Council can issue a false Planning and Development Certificate.

*A Lord Mayor can sign off on instructions for a false engineering certificate.

*A developer can be a party to a Council crime of extortion being sanctioned by the Police50 and the CMC51.

*Council solicitors can commit perjury in court.

*Lord Mayors and Council CEO’s and Chief Legal Officers can Abuse their Offices.

The above is exactly what Judge Chesterman upheld.

It can’t be swept under the carpet, Judge Griffin has conceded to the illegal errors in a sanitized fashion and Judge Chesterman attempted to whitewash the errors, and was defeated by his own argument addressing Condition 30 and he omitted addressing Condition 19 as he had no answer to a condition that had no legal standing and both are in breach of the Queensland Criminal Code Chapter 13, s78,1a.

Under your watch Your Honour, Judge Griffin, Chesterman, Muir and Lyons have been politically corrupted to issue SHAM decisions to not only protect Council’s dubious integrity but to protect Premier Newman and others mentioned from being exposed from covering up crimes by Council Planners

Judge Griffin, Chesterman, Muir and Lyons have disgraced their profession and there can no longer be any Public confidence in these judges for anyone appearing before them in receiving a fair trial.

Your Honour, one has to ask:

“What are you going to do about your colleagues who are now complicit in a criminal political cover up?

Do you have a statutory duty to report Premier Newman and others for engaging in a criminal cover up?

Failure to take any action will suggest that the judiciary is the puppet of government.

One thing that you can do since the Planning and Environment Court has not fulfilled and discharged its statutory duty to hear my appeal, appealing CEO Jude Munro’s decisions to deny me compensation under s5.4.5 and s5.4.7 (2)(c) and that is to have my appeal set down for a hearing in the P&E court at the next available date with an honest Judge and that will restore my BASIC HUMAN RIGHT to a fair trial.

Yours sincerely,

Bob Raftopoulos

Please note the numbers next to the words are supposed to be in superscript and is in reference to supporting documentation.

List of recipients to this letter:

The Media

The Law Society

1abcd12 copy !cid_555C2613AB05448CB3C611F340C4338F@bobrafto7mi4tm

%d bloggers like this: