Peter Spencer

Peter Spencer

Today in the Federal court the Honourable Justice Emmett brought down his decision in the matter of Spencer v The Commonwealth of Australia. The decision contains a finding important to all farmers concerned with obtaining the benefit of carbon sequestration rights in respect of their land.

In paragraph 149 of the decision there is a strong endorsement of the Property Rights of Mr Spencer as quoted below

149 “I consider that Mr Spencer has established that there is a serious question to be tried as to whether he has suffered such sufficient detriment as a consequence of the 1997 Vegetation Act and the 2003 Vegetation Act as might constitute a taking or acquisition in respect of Saarahnlee.

Further, to the extent that there was a benefit to be derived from the grant of carbon sequestration rights by undertaking voluntary restraint, it is certainly arguable that Mr Spencer has been deprived of that benefit. Whether the restriction is such as to constitute a taking or acquisition or expropriation may depend upon detailed evidence of value. Nevertheless, there is at least a seriously arguable case for concluding that there has been an acquisition of property of Mr Spencer’s.”

None the less the Judge then held he had no right to claim compensation for the loss of those property rights from the Commonwealth because the intergovernmental agreement between NSW and the Commonwealth which led to the acquisition of property was not authorised by any Commonwealth statute.

The case has been stood over by the Judge for further argument. The question of compensation is under appeal because it is a fundamental principal of our democratic society, embedded in the Constitution section 51(xxxi), that if the Commonwealth takes property including any property right whether by a law or otherwise it should pay Just Terms Compensation.

ACT Supreme Court Wed March 19th 2008

Following this filing below Affidavit and Attached arguments ,the two postings below this, I, enduring, for one and half hours abuse by the plaintiffs barrister, having not spoken one word, rose and suggested to her Honour an ajournment.

I recommended the Judge while on that ajournment, may consider to read my submission in particular, one identified paragraph. I suggested if it was read I would not have to say any thing, what so ever.

The Court reconvened at 2.30 and the barrister with drew his application with Her Honour agreeing - the matter was closed……..

They are desperate to stop this action but over 25 appearances - on Rates, they have not stopped it yet…..

To the 1000’s of farmers paying land rates on

“locked up land”

Peter Spencer

Argument In Application for Security For Costs

In the Court of Appeal
Australian Capital Territory No ACD 27 of 2007
Canberra

Peter James Spencer Appellant

And

Cooma-Monaro Shire Council First Respondent

And

Shane Angove Second Respondent

Wednesday 19th March 2008 10.00

ARGUMENT AGAINST SECURITY FOR COSTS

1. I would first like to address the Respondents Application in proceedings dated November 19 2007. In that application the Respondents are seeking Orders relating to security for costs being the subject of this Appeal in the decision of Master Harper No. SC129 of 2007.

2. The attached 24 page affidavit Statement by me [Peter Spencer] dated 14th March 2008 is the history of the matter and is in support of this Application in that it provides the background into my struggle of 13 years against a tyrannical State Government which has “taken” my 20,000 acre farm “Saarahnlee” by way of enacting Legislation - the Native Vegetation Acts - effecting a land use lock up to develop a Carbon Sink in collusion with the Commonwealth so that the Commonwealth could achieve its emissions reduction targets.

Read the rest of this entry »

Statement on Rates and the Morality of Councils - By Peter Spencer

A call for a respect for the Rule of Law and commonsense.

Speaking against liar’s thieves and despots - 19th of March 2008

I Peter James Spencer - Public Advocate, of Saarahnlee Shannons Flat New South Wales 2630 make the following statement to whomever it may concern.

1 I am the Appellant in these proceedings.

2 I, am the owner of the rural property, known as, “Saarahnlee” Shannon’s Flat, New South Wales of which incorporates all the land titled as the whole of the he land in Lots 8 and 9 in Deposited Plan No254356, and - Lots 1, 8, 25, 28, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 47,49, 55, DP 750539 (ACP 80/49) (ACP 80/51) in the Parish of Flinders, County Of Beresford, Land District of Cooma Monaro Shire, Eastern Division, New South Wales. Also, Lot 50 DP 750529 CNL 29/12 RP 36/6 in the Parish of Bullanamang, County Of Beresford, Land District of Cooma Monaro Shire, Eastern Division, New South Wales. Also, Lots 8, 9, DP 251737. & Lot 48DP 750539RP 29/22CL 19/55 in the Parish of Flinders, County of Beresford, Land District of Cooma Monaro Shire, Eastern Division, New South Wales.

Read the rest of this entry »

Farmer 1 - Government NIL!

In the Federal Court of Australia in Sydney on Thursday 20th Dec 2007, the Court rejected the Commonwealth’s application to strike out a Statement of Claim entered into the Court by Monaro District farmer Mr Peter Spencer.

Mr Spencer has claimed that Intergovernmental Agreements between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories, along with the International Treaty the Kyoto Protocol that was signed in April 1998 that set Greenhouse Emissions Targets that Australia have to meet by 2012, bind both the Commonwealth and State together.

The Carbon Sink developed on his property by the State banning Land Clearing has expropriated Mr Spencers property and prohibited the lawful use of his land for Agricultural purpose and no payments for sequestration and storing Carbon has been negotiated, this acquisition was not on “Just Terms” as the Commonwealth Constitution provides for just compensation for the acquisition of property.

Counsel representing Mr Spencer in proceedings, Mr Peter E King said after the hearing, “This is the first occasion in Australia’s legal history that it has been found there was an “arguable case” against the Commonwealth on behalf of farming interests that the Kyoto Protocol may give rise to Property Rights”.

Mr Spencer said, “I am delighted that my case will be heard and it vindicates my beliefs, farmers have as much right as coal - miners to recognition under the Climate Change Convention”.

Letter to the Attorney General

“Saarahnlee”
Shannons Flat 2630
New South Wales

Monday 3rd December 2007.

The Honorable Robert McClelland
Attorney General of Australia
Parliament House
Canberra. 2600

Dear Attorney General,

Re a S 78B Notice under the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) . S 25C Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( CTH)
Peter James Spencer ats Cooma-Monaro Shire Council 5th December 2007
No AC 27 of 2007 COURT OF APPEAL Hearing on security for costs on the 5th December 2007.

I am one of the many Australians who voted to restore the Labor Government to power in Australia after too long in the opposition. I have read your first speech in parliament, and from it I realize that your credentials as a servant of the Australian people runs over three generations. I would like to raise with you the complete lack of respect for the Parliament of the Commonwealth exhibited by a number of people, all of them lawyers, and many of whom must take an Oath of Allegiance in the same form as you will have taken on taking your high office. This lack of respect was fostered by the now opposition while in power, and its appointed agents ( Judges and Magistrates) in the Courts and the lawyers who mislead and deceive these individuals are running rampant.

By reference to section 18X Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and Section 45 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 it is clear that the intention of the Parliament of the Commonwealth that the Federal Court and the High Court are administrative agents of the Parliament of the Commonwealth and responsible to the “courts”, in matters of an administrative nature. The Commonwealth and not the “Court” is to be the defendant. I say that the imposition of “costs orders”, and the imposition of “security for costs” before a trial, are absolutely prohibited by reference to validly enacted Federal Statutes, and such actions are administrative, and not judicial. Andrew Fisher, a great Labor Party Prime Minister, introduced the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) in October 1914, after winning an election in September 1914, but no lawyer wants to accept that it is law. It is the same with the great Law and Order Statutes, introduced by Labor, between 1983 and 1996, when Australia was not led by a lawyer, but by pragmatic Labor leaders. We degenerated into anarchy again in 1996, and for 11 years and 7 months, Australia has been without an effective Federal Government, because the Commonwealth ( under Liberal administration) was unwilling to abide the will of Parliament and enforce laws passed by the Labor Party.
Read the rest of this entry »

Letter To The Registrar

“Saarahnlee”
Shannons Flat 2630
New South Wales
Tuesday December 04 2007. 15.01

The Registrar. Fax 62573668
Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.
Court of Appeal

Canberra. ACT.

Dear Sir/Madam, Re AC 24 2007.

I have been served with documents regarding an application for Security of Costs pursuant to rules 5055 and 1901 of the Court Procedure Rules 2006.

The matter has been put down for hearing on the 5th of December 2007 at 09.30.

I have been subsequently informed by the Respondents Solicitors that the matter is not for substantive hearing on that date but that the matter is being heard merely to be given a date for hearing that date to be determined as being sometime in January or February. I was asked to bring my diary and have dates available to the Court so the date for hearing could be agreed.

However when I checked with – Kobi, of the Court of Appeal staff she informed me that the matter is set down for hearing tomorrow and if the Judge feels the matter can be dealt with in the time allocated tomorrow then the matter will be heard there and then, as per the Notice served on me by the respondents, if the Judge so wishes.

This letter is to inform you and for the Case File Records, that I will attend the Court tomorrow at 09.30, God willing, and submit to the Judges deliberations in regard to the matter, so much as it possible for me to agree, in regards to those proceedings.

Lease also find attached a letter to the Attorney General regarding the matter.

Thank you

Peter Spencer.

Cc

Bradley Allen Lawyers - Attention Kellie Johnston

Angove – Walker Gibbs and King

Cooma Monaro Shire - Shire Councillors.

Letter to the Federal Court

“Saarahnlee”
Shannons Flat 2630
New South Wales
Thursday November 29th 2007.

The Registrar
Federal Court Of Australia
Canberra.
Australian Capital Territory.

Dear Registrar

Re Case Number ACD 14 / 2007 - Request for Transcript Nov 01 2007

I am finding the cost of obtaining transcripts for this cases on going proceedings a real drain. The last transcript Nov 1 - I have not obtained, as the quote was so high I did not have the money. This is creating difficulties for my ongoing defence, as I try to prepare submissions. Application attached.

Mind you, I cannot but feel the Judges especially Emmett J has lost the plot hence it is drawn out for reason only known to him. I go on in this matter/proceedings in deep frustration and regret at the appalling state of our justice system, deliberately being used to – oppress the people, not free them

Where is the peoples, “Australian Constitution” do they, the Judgers own it… and are they more interested in semantic nonsense and over lording us wee peasants, with some type of egotistic aristocratic power to the point that I wonder if I had came before him as an aboriginal or back block farmer - how would I present my case at all.

It is such an appalling state of affairs the difficulty and obstacles thrown at those trying to access the court in Australia. Are they so stupid they cannot see what is going on………They need to come down to our level the level of need - NOT us to their High Baronial Balcony of Cultural Severance.

“Thou Shalt Not Steal” We teach it to our children even our dogs…yet our judges have to make the subject so complex they lose track of its very social essence and imperative.

It must be understood, if the people cannot access justice through the courts which is the place civilised people attended for such purpose then I can assure you the only place left is the streets…

I do this all – attend Court on this matter, because the State has entirely expropriated my farm to the point even the Government admits it in writing and yet the Court plays around with my life and the lives of thousands of other effected farmers with no concern other then as to if the dotes and tees are on the submissions.

What ever happened to the peoples right to access the Court? If ones case is so bad then let it be heard. What do they not want to hear? One well may ask just who pays his salary? - Yes the very person/Government, I am seeking damages from.

We had more rights 800 hundred years ago with the Magna Carta - God help us…
This is not justice it is a cruel ignorant arrogant abuse of power. The Judge is not my master but my servant… their conduct, it is appalling.

Good God this matter could have been dealt with in 2 hours on the first day in Court…it is procedural, painful, nonsense that has lost all contact with its objective - to deliver justice to the people.

In the mean time, in regards to the transcript, if you could help me I would appreciate it. Drought relief does not make it easy and I have no money for such expenses.

I have to have my amended Statement of claim finalized. It is due in by Monday so consideration as to this matter as a soon as possible would be appreciated.

I did not know I could apply to you until yesterday or I would have written this letter sooner.

One more point which is most important, and that is this, your staff are always so helpful. They are a real model for the other courts across Australia. They, your staff constantly go out of their way to help and make one feel comfortable about dealing with the Federal Court, this activity in it’s self, is often culturally speaking, a very closed and daunting world especially for the uninitiated.

In haste

Thank you

Peter Spencer.

Affidavid of Peter Spencer

Form 20 Affidavit
(Order 14, rule 2)
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DISTRICT REGISTRY No. of 2007 .
Applicant:

Respondent:

Affidavit of Peter James Spencer

Contents*
Document number Details Paragraph 24 Page 03
1 Affidavit of Peter James Spencer in support of application sworn on October 18 2007
2 Annexure “A”, being copy of : Nil
3 Annexure “B”, being copy of : Nil
…
On October, I Peter James Spencer say on oath —

1. In Kogarah Magistrates Court, on the 14 September 2006, I was attempting to question the imposition of Rates, on land now prohibited to me, for farming purposes. I have appeared and continue to appear in Court, as a self represented litigant in defence of my substantial Freehold land – Grazing property in the Australian Alps - being taken by the State other than on “Just Terms”.
Read the rest of this entry »

Cooma Monaro Shire Council seeking a Judgment

Cooma Monaro Shire Council seeking a Judgment against Peter Spencer for unpaid RATES.

We believe Council may have innocently allowed itself to become complicit in repeated Court proceedings which have perverted the course of justice. This can have serious consequences.

URGENT ATTENTION: The Mayor and each Councillor.

Please accept this in the manner of its intent. Peter’s resistance to paying RATES is not the Court “ISSUE”. After appearing in Kogarah Court 26th July 2006 it could never have been.

There is no terse way to dot-point this. Too much information is to confuse: To précis the bare FACTS is to [similarly] bury the grave Constitutional seriousness of a STATE having imperiously overridden a LOCAL prerogative. But for what it’s worth … you need to know.
Read the rest of this entry »