Bookmark and Share
Previous article

News Articles

  • Injunction prevents non lawyer from providing legal advice
  • By Damien Carrick
  • 28/06/2011 Make a Comment
  • Contributed by: Johnno ( 2 articles in 2011 )
Be Grateful Today!
Click to receive your Free Guide
Queenslander David John Walter has just been ordered to stop helping people with their court cases. After running the same unsuccessful argument in 10 matters, the courts have said enough, no more!


Johnno :
28 Jun 2011 10:04:02am

Why didn't you get David John Walter in as a guest? Or someone involved in one of his cases? We the listeners are interested in crazy maverick Queenslanders. We are not interested in a bunch of lawyers whingeing about non-lawyers attacking their hallowed domain. This program came across as a closed shop industrial issue - not an item of national interest.

This only serves to highlight how much the legal profession has rorted australian society. Why do lawyers get their own hobby-horse radio program on the national broadcaster when bigger and more socially significant industries miss out? Where is the ABC program for social and community care? The importance of the Law is a self-perpetuating myth. Dickens was right - and the best place for a herd of legal practioners is back in your little chambers, os some donkey paddock somewhere far away.

Johnno :
28 Jun 2011 10:54:13am

This is just a bunch of four lawyers pillorying a non-lawyer who is denied even the natural justice of a right of reply. Did anyone even contact David John Walter? Not only is it unfair - there is no journalistic dramatic tension - it's just one lawyer after another queueing up to say - "yes David John Walter is silly and bonkers" - and the obvious inference is all we need is more laws and lawyers to fix things.

Bev L. Pattenden :
29 Jun 2011 8:43:32am

I was very interested in your report on David John Walter who has been fighting in the courts to expose the tyranny that has been going on in Australia since Gough Whitlam and his Fabian cohorts changed Australia into a republic in 1973 without a referendum. The Coalition continued on with unauthorised treaties with U.N.and the New World Order Agenda, bringing us down to the level of third world countries, as planned.
What are these people thinking? That they will be among the elite?
As recently stated by a Constitutional Lawyer in Queensland "When a government disregards their Constitution and the people lose respect for their government you are on dangerous ground" And so we are.
Any one who helps expose this tyranny should be supported by the few honest individuals left.

Ray Escobar :
29 Jun 2011 12:20:07pm

David John Walter's research is precisely accurate when determining the illegal status of our current treasonous Federal, State and Local Governments as well as the Police and Judiciary. Please support this Patriot as he stands up for the Common Law and our inherited laws from England and the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1901.
The Commonwealth Constitution of 1901 does not morph to suit the political whims and ideologies of parliamentarians or the Judiciary. The only lawful change to our Constitution is by referendum only and only by referendum. Because a Government makes a law it does not mean that that law is lawful.

The New King
But the first wrong was not his. Nor was the first wrong the government's. The first wrong was ours.
In Australia we embrace the myth that we are still a democracy when we know that we are not a democracy that we are not free, that the government does not serve us but subjugates us. Although we give lip service to the notion of freedom, we know the government is no longer the servant of the people but at last has become the people's master. We have stood by like timid sheep while the wolf killed, first the weak, then the strays, then those on the outer edges of the flock, until at last the entire flock belonged to the wolf. We did not care about the weak or about the strays. They were not a part of the flock. We did not care about those on the outer edges. They had chosen to be there. But as the wolf worked its way towards the centre of the flock we discovered that we were now on the outer edges. Now we must look the wolf squarely in the eye. That we did not do so when the first of us was ripped and torn and eaten was the first wrong. It was our wrong. That none of us felt responsible for having lost our freedom has been a part of an insidious progression. In the beginning the attention of the flock was directed not to the marauding wolf but to our own deviant members within the flock. We rejoiced as the wolf destroyed them for they were our enemies. We were told that the weak lay under the rocks while we faced the storms to scramble for our food, and we did not care when the wolf took them. We argued that they deserved it. When one of our flock faced the wolf alone it was always eaten. Each of us was afraid of the wolf, but as a flock we were not afraid. Indeed the wolf cleansed the herd by destroying the weak and dismembering the aberrant element within.
As time went by, strangely, the herd felt more secure under the rule of the wolf. It believed that by belonging to this wolf it would remain safe from all the other wolves. But we were eaten just the same. No one knows better than the victims of Stalin, Mao’s and Pol Pots murderous rampage, how the lessons of history must never be forgotten. Yet Australian’s, whose battle cry was once, “For King and Country” have sat placidly by as a new king was crowned. In Australia a new king was

J, Jones :
29 Jun 2011 12:51:30pm

Well folks what has happened to our property rights, do we truel have any? When a landowners purchases property they should be able to manage it and not have Government interference we have thrived the last 100 years prior to State Governments introducing Native Vegetation Legislation which is crippling Farmers. If I grew Lychee's and thousand of flying foxes attached the crop I would exterminate them also.

Leonard Clampett :
29 Jun 2011 1:47:39pm

David Walter is quite correct about land ownership as shown by the following. Let us not be fooled by the quasi-professional legal judiciary/industry.

Commonwealth v New South Wales [1923] HCA 34; (1923) 33 CLR 1 (9 August 1923)

"In the language of the English law, the word fee signifies an estate of inheritance as distinguished from a less estate; not, as in the language of the feudists, a subject of tenure as distinguished from an allodium. Allodium being wholly unknown to English law, the latter distinction would in fact have no meaning. A fee simple is the most extensive in quantum, and the most absolute in respect to the rights which it confers, of all estates known to the law. It confers, and since the beginning of legal history it always has conferred, the lawful right to exercise over, upon, and in respect to, the land, every act of ownership which can enter into the imagination, including the right to commit unlimited waste; and, for all practical purposes of ownership, it differs from the absolute dominion of a chattel, in nothing except the physical indestructibility of its subject. Besides these rights of ownership, a fee simple at the present day confers an absolute right, both of alienation inter vivos and of devise by will."

Allodial Title gives total ownership of land that even a government cannot take.

David :
14 Jan 2015 5:26:12pm

That quotation says that alloidal title is "wholly unknown to English law", so making claims about what alloidal title gives you doesn't really help establish anything about what you get in Australia.

R W F van HAEFF :
29 Jun 2011 3:43:46pm

There are three sides to every story. Where are the other two ??

Mark :
29 Jun 2011 4:09:17pm

Before one goes into battle it might be pertinent to find out what the battlefield looks like
Ask some specific questions the results of which will identify the jurisdiction (battlefield0 your in
example which Queensland is this court operating within today - (governs which Constitution you will be using) Is it the one established under the Crown through the British Monarchy or is it the corporate Queensland that is registered on the US securities & exchange commission as a US corporation? The imposter, the corporate Qld may be able to recognise councils. Another key question would be 'am I not entitled to see proof that the plaintiff has standing to make a claim?' The answer is always yes. Therefore subpoena the original bona fide wet ink signature doc that evidences the Local Gov Act attained Royal Assent - via Letters Patent If it did not then the Act is a fraud

Tony Ryan :
29 Jun 2011 5:31:16pm

I would like to call for perspective and clarity of vision here, because this dialogue does not relate to any reality I am aware of. I have to say that expressed terminology exposes some rarefied ideological positions.
The phrase 'develop Common Law' has been used; in the eyes of many Australians, a euphemism for 'eliminating Common Law' as a means of eroding civil, social and human rights. Yet in the same breath we hear sympathy for foreign invaders to this country, and for purported conservation issues, contributed by speakers who clearly comprehend little of either.
And once again we hear the phrase 'providing legal advice' used as a punitive tool or even predatory weapon in disallowing citizens from concomitantly commenting on unjust laws and challenging these forthwith. Is there now a law that says fellow sufferers can be involved in recurrent actions only once? I don’t think so. Walters has never claimed to be an expert.
Doctors preserve their privileged incomes similarly, by accusing conjoint users of health remedies of 'practicing medicine without a licence'. eg The nurse who discovered massage therapy to cure polio victims, was thus imprisoned by the AMA for five years, yet was all but beatified as a saint by the American public when they embraced her knowledge. Australia is increasingly a repressive country, with all power expropriated by a self-appointed elite, and the national electorate denied any say in its future. We are only permitted to elect a corrupt politician to do our thinking for us… in other words, elect our own tyranny. That pompous academics call this democracy only twists the knife further.
More pertinently, a growing percentage of Australians today are extremely angry about the alienation of land, land use, and land rights of our citizens, and Dave Walter is only one of these.
It seems to me that a socially isolated demographic, Australia’s newly emergent ruling class, is oblivious to the fury smouldering within the lower and alienated 85% of the Australian nation. This non-awareness was sharply illuminated in a conversation I had a week ago with an eminent Professor, who happens to have a phenomenal, grasp of eclectic issues and an even broader knowledge base. He angrily denounced the death threats to scientists promoting modifications to Murray-Darling water use and to carbon taxes. I proffered that it was probably farmers or small businessmen, which further aroused his fury.
I think he has been rethinking his attitude somewhat since I told him that I too would kill anyone who threatened the survival of my family, the difference being that I would not be silly enough to make threats first. Moreover, I added, all men with balls would do the same; egged on no doubt by their evermore ruthless wives.
What I am saying here is that professionals, academics, scientists, executives, public servants, and politicians have become so insular and unmindful of human history and human nature; and

Neil :
29 Jun 2011 6:12:09pm

1. Qld courts are nolonger Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 Inter alia Constitution 1901 ChIII courts & have no jurisdiction over subjects of her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

2. Commissioner could not charge Mr Walter obviously because the court woulds have to prove it has jurisdiction and that the legislation is lawful

3. 1973 Royal Style and Titles Act and the 1986 Australia Act -
1998 1998 High Court rules that Our State and Federal Constitutions stand secure legally & the attorney general declared the (PM Bob Hawke) Australia Act
1986, as being invalid and unauthorized

Dr. Wom Bhatt :
25 Oct 2012 2:16:59pm

Further to Neil's comments and the stand taken by Mr.Walter comes the release of West Australian, Scott Bartle's "What The FUQ? - Frequently Unanswered Questions of the "Australian Government" at Whilst the Queensland Judiciary seems to be able to waive Mr. Walter's argument the "Australian Government's Customs Service and the ungazetted ATO are shown to be accepting them. Has the "Queensland Government" become independent of the "Commonwealth of Australia" without our knowing ? The "Queensland Government" seems to be suffering from what I call "Parallel Universe Syndrome" (PUS). Jean Paul Sartre called it "Bad Faith".

Sue Maynes :
29 Jun 2011 11:53:47pm

Perhaps Law Report might like to read some of the decisions in those cases, wherein the judges made statements such as "Soviet Russia would be proud of these laws" or "You are right Mr Walter, but you lose." Perhaps Law Report might to know that the documentation progressed in its depth after each case and in fact they were not exactly the same. Perhaps IF Law Report read the documentation that the defence lodged they might ask the same questions David Walter was asking. And perhaps Law Report might like to know that most of the cases involved people that were already going to be punished and had nothing to lose to stand their ground. Law Report would have found that all the people involved in those cases are still involved with Mr Walter and pray he will succeed.

Sue Maynes :
30 Jun 2011 12:21:32am

Law Report should also be aware that the Lychee farmer had the most up-to-date approved environmental netting protection from bats and DID NOT have any electricity in use against the bats - so that was not true.
And Law Report should also be aware that Carol Booth was running a bat hospital/protection type body and in receipt of government funding at the time of this matter. Law Report should ask some of the people Mr Walter helped for more data on this matter. He helped most of them because lawyers would not.

Grant :
04 Jul 2011 9:29:07pm

Ideally, the law would not be as complicated as it is. However, the brutal fact is that it is not a safe playground for amateur enthusiasts. Some of the comments above display this convincingly enough.

Frank Leister :
04 Jul 2011 10:43:28pm

As a lay person, I can't help but be concerned that the development of our common law is determined in courts, and in a good number of cases where the resources to present the cases are totally mismatched. This gives rise to money and power winning over justice and fairness. These might be virtues the courts promote, but less and less Australian's believe they receive. The only solution that would give me any peace of mind I can think of would be a bill of rights which ensures basic right for the individual which can't be undermined. Family law a casing point!

what_free_society :
05 Jul 2011 10:42:31am

It is said that we live in a "free" society - then there is no greater test of this than being able to leave it!

Fee Simple Title which is based in Common Law says that no 3rd party debt can be incurred on a property and yet we have statute law saying that we have an implied debt by way of rates. If you don't pay we can take YOUR property to pay - this is just totally wrong!

This implies we are all slaves and cannot refuse to pay therefore it is not a free society and more of a dictatorship. Good on David J Walter!

Why was David invited to put his point of view on your program???

We the people are not interested in what lawyers or for that matter the courts want - we want our rights upheld and they are not!

Mr Bumble :
08 Jul 2011 5:07:27pm

Through tattered clothes small vices do appear;
Robes and furred gowns hide all.
Plate sin with gold, and the strong lance of justice hurtless breaks;
Arm it in rags, a pygmy's straw doth pierce it.

.....from King Lear, 1606, and still applicable today.

Lorne :
17 Jul 2011 9:19:29am

Calm down you lot, this program was about whether DJW should have been stopped from advising people to take legal action, not the quality of his arguments. Whatever you think of his arguments, it is clear that the Queensland judiciary doesn't think they have any basis in law. As such, court action isn't going to help you in this issue.

References to 'the common law' and 'the Constitution' aren't going to help you much either. Statute always trumps the common law. This is because statute is supposed to be more democratic than judge-made law. As for the Constitution, I urge you all to read Chapter 5 of the Australian Constitution and then Chapter 7 of the Queensland Constitution. If you disagree with the courts' interpretation of the Constitution, you're going to need to take a case to the High Court, because no lower court will embark on a radical reinterpretation. The end.

Dr.Wom Bhatt :
21 Oct 2012 10:15:44pm

With respect, Lorne, as this program is publicly funded its role is to inform the public, in this case, about the goings on within the (In)Justice System. Accordingly it should have been focused on all the issues associated with an event in which a citizen has been prevented from helping out his peers. Instead we received a one sided report upholding the views of the exclusive club which is the Legal "guild". It's time to consult Oz's foremost Law commentator, Evan Whitton ( ) if you've lost sight of the way in which the execution of Law has become a racket.
The courts, both here and abroad, have erred significantly over time. Heard of the "Birminghan Six" ?
What about the dictum of "Terra Nullius" ? What about the acceptance of the integrity of Police testimony during the infamous "verballing era". But let's get back to brass tacks instead of "shutdown strategies". Let's get Mr.Water in to explain his views. The strength of opinions expressed in related comments suggests there is more than "chaff" in his viewpoint. Mr.Walter's position does highlight a paradox though, doesn't it ? He says the "authorities" have no authority. They say they do. If he is right then what they say is irrelevant, in fact, it's fraud and perhaps even worse. I understand he has requested "Her Majesty the Queen" to intercede ( ), not the "Queen of Australia", a non-flesh and blood statutory entity. This story has very hairy legs it seems.

Sal :
23 Jul 2011 6:41:51pm

Heaven Forfend! THe Qld judiciary has demonstrated the patience of an oyster -- listening to the same misguided twaddle ten times instead of saying 'off with his head1' for breaching the Legal Practice Act.

There is nothing like a bush lawyer to waste the Court's time. See the entry 'querulant' in the Oxford Australian Law Dictionary -- "An unusually persistent complainer ... who plagues courts" and uses "a disproportionate amnount of resources and are difficult to handle ... [they tend to] rely on legally naive claims based on Magna Carta or similar".


    (Note: If wrong - comments will not be posted)

    1Will not be visible to public.
    2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
    3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.

    To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here

    To contribute a news article Click Here

    To view or contribute a Quote Click Here

    Hosting & Support by WebPal© 2020 All rights reserved.