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

PREMIER NEWMAN and the POLITICAL CORRUPTION OF BRISBANE JUDGES

OPEN LETTER

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.

Conclusion

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: