Mr Stubberfield explains:
The Australian Government and its agencies are now stripping my family of our assets and savings accrued over a successful 47-year marriage partnership.
Orders were made by the courts even though:-
The present Howard Government seeks to wear the mantle of respectability by signing
international treaties that give Australians fundamental human and legal rights
I maintain that if Australia wishes to call itself a democracy then no doctrine should be used to subvert the power of Parliament to protect the basic human rights of its citizens, to enforce an equitable rule of law, and to take action to ensure that all obey this law, including the judiciary.
A Summary of his Case by John Stubberfield
1) Arriving from the UK we bought land in Brisbane in 1963. Here planning consent for business use of land is discretionary. We found that as migrants, and unlike long established Australians developing businesses in similar circumstances, we had to fight for such consent in court, but did obtain approval and a permit in 1964.
2) Four years later on applying for a small extension to our workshop the Court refused and also deprived us of the 1964 permit they had issues. Thus our livelihood from our joinery workshop business was taken away from us, while other business's were started up and operated with impunity around us on adjoining plots. We continued to use the plot as a place of residence which was allowed.
3) When in 1980 an adjoining sawmill business became un-viable the land was sold and developed by a purchaser for a different industrial purpose, two new buildings erected without consent, illegally. Amenity of our residence greatly being effected by this development we complained to the Local Authority, from 1981 to 1991 they refused to enforce planning law on the Australian developer next door.
4) In 1984-5 my wife becoming ill from stress, we moved to another property, obtaining building approval for a new residence. When this was almost completed in 1987, Redland Shire Council contradicted this approval by designating about 35% of our 7.5 ha plot of residential zoned land as required for Public Open Space (P.O.S.) purposes, including the part that had on it our almost complete new residence. Our neighbours, also migrants, had the total of their 5.5 ha land and their residence designated as required for Public Open Space. To overcome objections by the owner occupiers and to obtain gazettal of P.O.S. the designation, Council was required by the Minister to purchase land so designated during the life of the Planning Scheme.
5) But in 1991 our neighbour's land having then been sold to a developer illegal consent was
then given by the Local Council to develop the land. The P.O.S. designation being simply
ignored, even though the Planning Act requires a Local Authority to enforce it's Planning
Scheme, and binds it by it's provisions by which development for other than P.O.S. was
barred. Council advised the developer that they had no intention of purchasing the P.O.S.
6) After having complained over eight years to all relevant Government agencies of illegality by two local authorities against our homes, and denied professional assistance to obtain relief I undertook my own research and education as to the law applicable. Thus after a series of court actions relating to both residences, both matters fell for determination by the Queensland Court of Appeal in June1993.
7) THE TWO JUDGMENTS OF THE QUEENSLAND COURT OF APPEAL No's 218/92 & 38/93 demonstrate and prove:-
8) The High Court, whose duty it was to enforce the constitution and ensure the rule of law throughout the Commonwealth, manipulated it's own rules to preserve discriminatory, perverse judgments of the Queensland Court of Appeal which subverted statute and it's own binding judgments, to preserve and protect injustice discrimination, prejudice, and persecution.
9) In each case I was denied the benefit and protection of a judgment enforcing the law, to which I was entitled, and ordered to pay the offenders costs which had been incurred to pervert justice arguably via criminal conduct and obstruct my enforcement of the statute.
View a tabulated listing of the violations of local statute law and international covenants this case has involved.
ONE VOICE - ONE PEOPLE is an independent, non-party-political, non-profit organisation committed to defend human rights and fundamental freedoms and to contribute to the promotion and advancement of democratic societies, institutions and processes
To OVOP cases
(C) One Voice One People. Last updated: April 2000