Orientation, please refer to the map of the homestead. The house proper features roofed but open verandahs, and a stand-alone bedroom accessible across a short bridge. The officer in charge in his secreted file noted, “…shotgun stored loaded with two 12 gauge shells in main bedroom of house outside of wardrobe in clear view of room.” In court and in his report he clearly implied that he stood in the main bedroom and spotted a gun.

Keep in mind, Queensland Police recordings have a certified start and end time and transmission is said to be live and direct to regional headquarters. What happens to the presumed copy of the recording between its receipt at headquarters and tendering as evidence is unknown to the author – other than that he possesses one copy.

The inspection began near the police van at the out of house gun cupboard. The officer in charge (O.I.C.) a sergeant, then abandoned his junior at the cupboard and went to the house. This is non-controversial. From the O.I.C.’s last spoken word at the cupboard to his first spoken word at the house is near 18 seconds. Feel free to refer to the anoted map and give an estimate of how long it would take to thoroughly inspect the house so as to be able to certify the location as the main bedroom. Keep in mind, the O.I.C. by his own recording was doing his supposed bedroom searches in the half dark, approximately 7 pm, Eastern Standard Time.

In court, the author had assumed the sergeant honest like 99% of Queensland police – even though obviously a dithering incompetent. It was not until after he was found guilty that the secreted file arrived – and the secreted file does not dither. Hence the motivation to detect the Detective’s methods.

Expert enhancement (as provided herewith) of the police recording improves the clarity of all words barring two. The two become increasingly dismembered under the enhancement process. The two are meant to be answers by the author to questions asked him by the O.I.C.. Of those two proposed answers, one is unintelligible from the outset, a blurred vocal sound to indicate someone is present. The other is somewhat indistinct from the outset but three out of four unbiased listeners thought it was, “bedroom”. It becomes increasingly garbled with enhancement.

Had the magistrate pursued the matter of the supposedly incorrectly stored shot gun, the O.I.C. had as evidence in court a recording in which the defendant could well be estimated by three out of four people to have spoken the word, “bedroom.” A room not entered by the O.I.C. on the night and a word not spoken by the author on police recordings anywhere. Because the O.I.C. did not possess it on audio, it could not be copied and pasted; it must be created. Created words under some circumstances can be detected. There is a near 30 second ‘radio play’, O.I.C.’s voice the only true spoken component — a splice. At the end of the splice the original smoothly continues – handing the shot gun to the sergeant on the verandah. He entered no farther on the night.

Yet he knew the intimate layout of the house.

He mentioned in court visiting the homestead previously. Uninvited, unannounced. (Do real crooks self-incriminate? He can not be responsible for his words and actions, surely?)

The padlocks on these gun cupboards are merely standard padlocks. It would be as easy to splice ammunition into a firearm as it would be to splice a homemade segment into a recording on c.d.. The ammunition is in compartment two of the cupboard. We don’t have a concealed security camera.

According to the O.I.C., there was no round in the chamber of the rifle. Yet he arranged to fly the constable – an honest man — back from holidays at everyone’s expense to swear the opposite. The magistrate brought down a guilty verdict because I know Snr. Constable Green is honest.  And I said so. Meanwhile, the audio records the sergeant confiding to constable Green, “shot gun in main bedroom” – which the sergeant never saw on the night. That’s forgery, crime against another officer, trespass, defamation, before, during, and after.

A seeming contradiction here begs an answer. The O.I.C., Sergeant J. R. Weimar, stated in writing, regarding the rifle, “no round in chamber”. This was the written evidence presented to the court. Without warning, the junior officer, Snr Constable Green, in court, stated the precise opposite. Neither the Prosecution, nor Weimar, in court, showed any inclination to take the written evidence as authoritative. I was self represented, without a lawyer to stand up and demand the magistrate adjourn/terminate proceedings as he should. This was disconcerting. What was going on? Some 8 months later the secret red flag ‘Occurrence’ file surfaced. The O.I.C. was thereby revealed as criminally fraudulent. Plant a segment in a police recording? Plant words in a defendant’s official Statement (documented in due course, below)? A handy man? Handy with evidence? Yet having enough quasi-honesty to own that he had been stalking/visiting the property not long before his raid? Yes. And this remnant honesty moved him to record the truth in his written evidence. The rifle was not left loaded — by its owners. Having dictated his red flag report to the relevant office soon after his raid, he then spent 6 months musing on reversing his too hasty documentation of the facts regarding the rifle. So he put Snr Constable Green, a gentleman and a policeman, in an invidious predicament, in public, in court.

Please note, the Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission, created to eliminate crooked police, found nothing amiss, whilst the Police Ethics Department never – ahem – looked. (Their written response is reproduced in due course)

Here we may at least progress to bare faced verbal evidence planting, not requiring a concealed security camera:

Brief of Evidence, testimony of the Sergeant:

“The defendant stated upon arrival that he was cooking dinner, however later claimed in a letter delivered to the station that he had been cleaning the weapon. This claim was not made at the time of the inspection.”

Here is the faux letter delivered to the station  – and, simultaneously, to the office of Sanderson & Parks Solicitors, Biloela, Queensland.. It was also subsequently submitted, along with the faux addition, to appeal Judge Burnett, Rockhampton, as evidence of the sergeant’s malice and unreliability. The judge payed it no attention. You will not find any hint of cleaning a gun.

qld police letterOfficial response from police ethics 10 June 2019

“…. did not identify a breach of discipline or misconduct ….”

Another Document of Interest – the red flag — withheld by Queensland Police until after the Defendant was found guilty. The Occurrence File pictured on this page, but with numbered indicators inserted, is worded as follows:

documentOccurrence Q17800372376 Author 4021703 Hilton.S. Task Code 1800891973 Date 2/03/2018 Entry time 16.00   Reporting officer[1] has had numerous interactions[2] with the subject P.B. Heywood and believes that he is not currently a fit and proper person to hold a weapons license and is suffering from mental health issues.[3] On 19/01/2018, officers[4] from Theodore Police attended[5] 98 Theodore-Moura Road, Lonesome Creek to conduct a weapons audit. Weapons audit completed and storage was not compliant with legislation namely Savage Cat A 22 calibre rifle stored [6] with loaded 5 shot magazine in weapon,[7] no round in chamber.[8] Weapons stored in compliant weapons safe in shed attached to detached garage next to house. Escort Cat B 12 gauge shotgun stored loaded with two 12 gauge shells in main bedroom of house outside of wardrobe in clear view of room.[9] Weapons seized and FPR issued.See reports tab of nominated address, 98 Theodore-Baralaba Rd for intel doc completed at station level in case of police attendance.See attached letters from Heywood to police. Letters are erratic and disjointed and appear to show Heywood is experiencing decline (or ongoing) mental health issues.[10]Heywood’s demeanour, behaviour and comments are such that cause concern that he is suffering from a mental health condition.His sons have been diagnosed with mental health issues [words deleted herewith for confidential-ethical reasons[11]] See linked occurrences.Affidavit completed by reporting officer at request of WLB to have Heywood’s weapons licence reviewed as result of this incident and mental health grounds Full account of involvement and reporting into the current incident included in this report.  Evaluation: This information was originally rated in A1. The informant remains rated an “A” Philip Bruce Heywood 12-June-1953 of Theodore Moura Road. Lonesome Creek is the holder of a current Weapons licence that is due to expire on 12/06/2018 (QPrime). Heywood is not the subject of other intelligence relation to his reported declining mental health condition. This intelligence is evaluated to be rated an A1 as it is based on the observations of the Police who have had recent interactions with Heywood. The reporting officer as assigned a task to WLB to evaluate Heywood is a suitable licence holder.

The facts, 1-11: [1] Sergeant James Russell Weimar. [2] Weimar, audio recording: “I don’t think I have met you before.” [3] Heywood, provider of this site, has zero mental health history. [4] Weimar on this occasion was accompanied by a (very decent) constable. [5] Totally unannounced, 6.35pm Eastern Standard Time — approaching twilight. [6] The safe/cupboard is out of house, in a shed, valuable collie nearby, and it was the time of day when wild dogs or other unwanteds may appear. The key was on hand. The rifle was in the handy gun cupboard but not in storage. Thousand dollar+ pedigreed animals are worth protecting and in light of the then brown snake surge — a large snakeskin was in the field of view of the police — the shot gun was in the house with the licensee when the police interrupted at a very busy moment. [7] We never leave the magazine packed tight as insinuated here — it tires the spring and ruins the magazine. [8] A single shot bolt action can not under any circumstance fire without a round in the chamber. It is not loaded. No legislation may overturn the English language so as to blur its otherwise common, straightforward intent. No event barring intentional human action relating to the bolt and trigger can result in discharge.  [9] The shot gun was handed to the sergeant whilst he was standing on the verandah at the back or kitchen door. He did not enter any bedroom at all on the night in question. His script, along with his home-made ‘radio play’ spliced into his copy of the raid audio, proves 1) He had been wandering about inside our house that day or on days previous, locating faux locations for the shot gun, 2) He had pre-planned the crime and, worst of all, 3) He was training the constable in his methods, expecting his junior to unwillingly/unknowingly give false testimony regarding the shot gun location and other matters besides. The constable having for some minutes remained at the out of house gun cupboard. [10] The ‘letters’ are presumably the defendant’s official Statement handed over the Station counter. This legally essential component of the Brief of Evidence disappeared, not before Weimar insinuated the presence therein of words which do not exist, going as far as writing a phrase himself for insertion. A playwright and budding author! [11] We have three living sons and one daughter, all adult, one son having deceased a full decade before Weimar arrived. Two and a half years prior to Weimar’s raid, one of the three living sons had required medication and has been successfully living a normal life ever since. He is non violent, highly functional, and avoids alcohol and drugs. No other family members, parent or child, are known to require medical attention. The doctor who is conversant with the family and has been so for 40 years, lives a 20 minute stroll from Weimar’s door: the Justice of the Peace who signs off on police requirements and employs at times the Heywood men, is also 20 minutes slow walk; and the (retired) police officer who attended in large part to our family challenges and incidentally passed the sons as suitable to own firearms is 5 minutes from Weimar’s door — all available, 2022. Weimar, recently transferred, is no longer on site.

Extracts from an e-mail sent to Australian parliamentarians and others:

Good day, M.P., or Whom it may concern, etc. from Philip Heywood, grazier, one-time member Queensland Geologic Survey, science publisher, (see www QuantumPhysics-Evolution dot com) now unwilling law publisher. I say unwilling law publisher, because I once thought it impossible for law to miscarry here in Queensland. In 2007, being approached by an immigrant S. African with definite communication difficulties, I reluctantly began to look into whatever it was he was saying. I thought he had to be lying or deluded.

Today, the proof that he could not be guilty beyond reasonable doubt is educational Queensland Case Law. R v Pretorius. Supreme Court, 2007. (Also on this site, as King Neptune and the Mermaids.)  Problem? He was granted re-trial, then found guilty again on the exact same questionable evidence. How? If you persist in telling a group of people that someone is guilty, and you are a government officer and a candidate for Actors Anonymous, you might be believed. The prosecutor acts as the Devil’s advocate – and in this case borrowed some of the Devil’s methods. I will give but one, mild, repeat, mild, example, taken from one of several trials. (Pretorius by pre-arrangement possibly could give the full account, myself not being eyewitness. His overall narrative as reported to me leads towards conspiracy, between the prosecutor, a judge, and a lawyer. Add a prosecutor seemingly personally chummy with jury members – outside the courtroom.)
Herewith the meagre Actors Anonymous sideline: Pretorius is an electrical engineer. He has the ability to repair if not design a courtroom sound system. For one of the trials there were two available courtrooms. Everyone seats themselves, proceedings open, the prosecutor advises the judge of a fault in the sound system. Pretorius perceives no fault, electrical fault finding being part of his living. Proceedings are moved to the other courtroom. The first courtroom has no raised ‘dock’ to house the defendant. Level floor. The second boasts a raised ‘dock’. A person standing therein appears much taller than they would appear in the first courtroom. On that day the prosecutor assures the jury that no-one of Pretorius’s size could possibly fit in the back seat of a Toyota Camry. He makes it an incontestable, a scientific, fact. With, given his status, the full backing of the Queensland – more, the Australian, Government.
Pretorius, today, [2022] in front of our eyes, can insert himself into the back seat of the smallest Camry. He has not shrunk since 2008.
Everyone in a law court is to act as the truth’s advocate. When the truth only principle fails, Justice fails.
The Supreme Court, if possible, should have declared the case null and void instead of allowing re-trial. The original judge should not have set this expensive farce in motion. But people on the spot under pressure are susceptible to mistakes. The appeal process is intended to compensate. Allow the appeal process to become criminal malfunction, see totally innocent people’s lives ruined.

You can not rely on Queensland Justice. You can not rely on Australian justice.

Pretorius finally went to the highest court in Australia to be advised that not only is a man with 5 children and an attractive, loving wife likely to grope women in surf, it is normal for women claiming clear vision of their attacker to give a unanimous, painfully exact description of his swimwear in flat contradiction of his swimwear. With, thanks to the Queensland government’s Victims of Crime provisions, a motive. Payouts.

Quoting Dr. Robert Moles, Pursue Democracy, “Australia and Miscarriages of Justice.” On-line 5/05/2021:

“It is clear from the cases which we have referred to in this article that all states and territories have demonstrated egregious error in dealing with criminal prosecutions and appeals. If such an error had occurred in the construction of a bridge or the assembly of an aeroplane or car, there would be an immediate recall or cessation of activities until the problem had been identified and resolved. In the case of criminal convictions and appeals, there appears to have been no advance in error identification and error correction systems over the last 30 years.”

End Dr. R. Moles quote.

Governments appoint prosecutors in matters such as workplace safety from a profession which over the past three decades has possibly become more criminally negligent than any other.

November 2020 I myself applied for leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.  I fully understand the high purpose and probably high work load of this eminent body. I was not asking their time over guns, loaded, unloaded, here, there, anywhere, away on the planet of the fiddles, nor anywhere else. As I interpret their charter, they are NOT to deal in trivia. They are required to safeguard principles of law in Australia. The one item which they ignored.

That which is ignored, in time tends to be abandoned.

My appeal application should be public property, High Court, digital portal entry code Daylightplains10 asterisk.

Here are my sole reasons for appeal, quoting direct from their Form 23. Note the absence of trivia:

1). To uphold Common Law – as is our Constitution, foundational. Were these principles applied?

The Crown is to be a model litigant. Magistrates within reason are to ensure fair trial and to this end assist
self-represented litigants. It follows that a magistrate faced with instantaneous evidence reversal by the prosecution, is obliged to call an adjournment. Furthermore, a magistrate faced with verbal testimony in court which diametrically counters official written statements declaring near innocence, emanating from the same official source, must show compelling reason a to why he should not abandon the case. (‘Double jeopardy’ scenario.)

Information with a serious bearing on a trial must be disclosed. If concealed information clearly proves delusional or malicious intent by the prosecution, failure to table the relevant documentation may become grounds for declaring the proceedings null and void.

No decision of the Crown may deny common law rights to any law-abiding, repeat, law abiding person or group in society.

The right to be free from unwarranted, vexatious harassment by government officials including police is basic. Police may not knowingly enter private lands except by invitation or in the line of duty; they may not enter private dwellings except in emergency or by invitation or by warrant . Their reason for entering private lands and dwellings must be legitimate. Except in emergencies they must make prior effort to contact the landowner or homeowner. The High Court’s own Plenty v Dillon case reinforces these principles and in the case in hand police action went far beyond anything raised in that landmark case.

2). To uphold the right of the States to make legislation which shall be enforced by the judiciary as written, in the spirit in which it is written – i.e., intelligently. In this case in particular, The Police Rights and Responsibilities Act 2000, and 2016 Qld Weapons Regulation 93(1).

END form 23 extract.


Justices Gordon and Steward,  HCASL34, Disposition, issued 2021: “The applicant was convicted …… for failing to ensure that his firearm was unloaded other than when being used to shoot. The firearm was kept in a gun safe. The uncontradicted evidence of a police officer inspecting the safe was that the firearm was found to have a magazine in the firearm as though the weapon was ready to fire ………… As the decision of the court of appeal is not attended with any doubt, the application should be refused. Gordon  and Steward.” END.

Author’s Notes on this High Court Ruling:
According to experts, mishandling of appeals is one major cause of miscarriages of Australian justice. One obvious ground of appeal is the discovery of new evidence after trials. Another is failure of the original courts to follow due process, or to accurately read legislation. The High Court’s failure to take cognisance of new evidence in this case means that If a policeman (or anyone else!) is subsequently proved to have misled a court – so what? May the best liars win. In this case, the best liars – after the police sergeant – were at least one lawyer from the Queensland Department of Prosecutions hand in hand with a Justice J.A. Fraser (accompanied by sidekicks) of the Queensland Supreme/Appeals Court. Does the High Court of Australia approve blatant attacks on everything Australian Justice stands for? Including attacks on the High Court, which went to great lengths not long past to rule that a man’s home is his castle and his lands are likewise to be within reason inviolate from government/police (see Plenty v Dillon, on-line.)? Is it indeed of no concern to Australia’s highest institution of Justice that they themselves could be the target of secret red flagging for anything we may wish to imagine, their private properties invaded on a pretence, and they find themselves being pursued on the basis of character/mental soundness descriptions of themselves which are kept in secret?

This Disposition pays as much attention to factual detail as it does to the future of Australian Justice. The authors have but one excuse. The behaviour tipped on them from Queensland’s Supreme Court was good for — the tip.   Registered police documents no longer hold legal relevance in Queensland?   Perhaps Gordon and Steward unconsciously were part of a dream from the outset?  Below the Queensland Supreme we have the slumbering Queensland District Court. No involved legal practitioner or lawyer become familiar with the Queensland Government’s intentions in its legislation nor with the scenario involving farm guns. The item under which the magistrate brought down a guilty verdict , numbered 93.1, keeping a firearm unloaded “except when being used to shoot”, by definition of its own wording does not clearly mean what it says. It means, “when not in use”. Depending on property location and other factors, a farm gun is routinely in use, 24-7. This is self evident. It is in use because it can be picked up and used, rapidly, randomly, at the perhaps rare moment required. That is its purpose for existence. It can be in a handy, perhaps locked cupboard whilst being in use – an obvious place! That is why the government specifically disallows evidence from firearms audits which are not pre-arranged, nor carried out with due recognition of privacy. 93.1 embodies an example – a legislated example – in which someone goes shooting for the afternoon, yet, quote, ‘no shots are fired’. So, were the guns being used to shoot, when the owner was shooting, and no shots were fired? Sergeant Weimar admitted in court he had been all but stalking the place, had even, he said, telephoned without leaving a message on the fully functional answering machine, then yet again charged onto the property coming on dark, having proved no-one was likely present. The magistrate, accustomed to urgency and domestic brawls and probably little else all his difficult career, saw nothing amiss in this methodology of obtaining permission to enter private properties. He declared full permission for a storage audit – then declared half the goods not to have been in storage. So because the shot gun was effectively in the hands of the owner, it was being used to shoot, but the rifle, being possibly needed at any time but in a cupboard, key on site, ready to use to shoot, was not being used to shoot.

The Prosecutor in my case – a dear middle-aged lady who wouldn’t harm a flea – had on her desk a Brief of Evidence stating no round in the chamber, meaning the rifle could not fire unless loaded deliberately by a human. The uncontradicted evidence of the senior officer both in his Brief and the secret file dictated to headquarters at about that time? No round in chamber. The weapon was not ready to fire. Magazines mean nothing. They merely store ammunition. As does a shooter’s pocket. Gordon and Steward, perhaps dazed by the trashing of evidence by Justice J.A. Fraser for the Queensland D.P.P. and Queensland Justice, were — dazed.  Let us be clear. Taking everything in chronologic order, it is unavoidable – the O.I.C.determined to secretly paint the author of this document as a near illiterate, fanatic, mentally degenerate danger to society, steadily deteriorating, before he met me. He knew the interior of our house without ever having visited – that is, visited in company with the owners. He forged, planted words, and involved the decent constable in public false testimony. He has spread this message and this method in the police force – with the now total approval of the highest courts in the land.

It is a shame that two longstanding servants of Queensland Justice, the Rockhampton magistrate and female prosecutor, sincere and down to earth realists, should have been deceived and conned by a renegade police sergeant, then abandoned by everyone higher in a system supposed to protect Justice. There are no two words strung together in the above Disposition which make sense. Negligence compounded by ignorance. END AUTHOR’S NOTES ON HIGH COURT.

Please factor into this e-mail my need for being as concise as possible. You receive here only that which over time became known to and relevant to the judiciary involved.

Every Australian government negates the entire proceedings under the guidelines of the 2017 National Firearms Agreement, backed one hundred percent by the express stipulations of the Queensland Weapons Licensing Section, legislated without controversy in the Queensland Police Powers and Responsibilities Act, viz. “At any reasonable time”. A reasonable time to conduct a storage audit is when the goods are in storage. The magistrate ruled that half were not. Of the other half he did not enquire. Reasonable time? 6.35pm E.S.T.? Twilight? More illiterate than appeal Judge Burnett of the Rockhampton District Court. He couldn’t discern between a licensed item and a licensed premises – refer his revised Judgement. (See ‘The Rockhampton 4th Reich’, on this site.) Adjectives fail. This is an embarrassment. Expect publication as is, these people being named. How are they to defend themselves? They are all (excluding Clarke and Burnett) mental cases – by approving the naming of you and me as mental cases. Help! –
Australian JUSTICE. Do we have to look this stupid? END selected extracts mails sent to parliamentarians etc..

The Rockhampton Fourth Reich

Rockhampton District Court Appeal Judge Burnett, Jan. 2019, revised judgement, quotes the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act, S.22: “For ensuring compliance with a relevant law, a police officer may do any of the following – (a) at any reasonable time, enter and stay on a place used for a purpose under a license under the relevant law … .”

This is not his entire quote. We arrive at his entire quote in due course.

Meanwhile, here is a fuller rendition from the Act: For ensuring compliance with a relevant law, a police officer may do any of the following:

(a) at any reasonable time, enter and stay on a place used for a purpose under a licence under the relevant law;

(b) inspect, photograph or copy a prescribed item there or at a place with appropriate facilities for photographing or copying the item;

(c) seize a thing to which the relevant law applies, if the thing is evidence of the commission of an offence against the relevant law or another Act;

(d) require a licence holder or someone else apparently in possession of prescribed items to produce stated prescribed items for inspection;

We might observe: item a obviously has relevance to licensed premises such as hotels, gaming clubs etc.. It has no relevance whatsoever to inspection of licensed items such as firearms. An item obviously referring to licensed items as distinct from premises has to be, d.

What is the overriding responsibility of officers in gaining entry to inspect storage compliance? Obviously, the opening stipulation of a carries down through all subsequent items. “At any reasonable time.” What is a reasonable time for evaluation of storage compliance? When the items are in storage. The only way to ensure for legal purposes that an item of any sort is in storage? The owner and the inspector must concur to the status of the item – storage status. This can only happen by mutual agreement – pre-arrangement. The government does not insult police by stating the obvious.

All Australian governments implicitly stipulate, No prearrangement, No audit. As does reason itself. The National Firearms Agreements specify that audit/inspection is only to be by mutual agreement, “with due recognition of privacy”. The only possible “reasonable time” is through pre-arrangement. In fact, the governments by sending police to do the inspecting – civilian security experts could suffice? – governments have criminalised all licensees, discriminating and downgrading, putting police in lounge rooms. This itself is an embarrassment to decent police.

Queensland Government sponsored Legal Aid, 2021: Police can enter and search your home without a warrant to:

Prevent domestic violence.

Investigate traffic offences (eg to take a breath test for alcohol).

Catch someone who has escaped from prison or from being arrested.

Search for evidence if they reasonably suspect there is evidence that may otherwise be hidden or destroyed.

Arrest someone.

Reach a crime scene.

A police officer can enter your home without a warrant to shut down or prevent an out-of-control event. END.

Sergeant Weimar insulted everyone, police and government included, by stating in his Brief of Evidence, emphasis his own, “NIL legislated requirement for pre-arrangement.”

We may comprehend how Germany managed to trigger two world wars – and almost won – whilst concurrently believing it was saving the world. Fifty millions dead, plus. Comparatively few of them Germans. Weimar is a totally germanic name, and the only hope of deciphering his thinking is to decipher the thinking behind the two world wars. Delusional on one hand, fanatically stable on the other. Straight beyond straight on one hand, crooked beyond crooked on the other. A paradox. ….. . In the matter of the triggering of the first world war, there are compelling reasons to believe that the Kaiser – an honourable man – did not know that the military was going to march through Belgium. Unfortunately, government deception of everyday Germans continued throughout that conflict. Deception became standard practice.

When the second war ended, keep in mind, many gestapo officers simply went back to being …. civilian police. Some may have emigrated.

Magistrate Clarke, in August of the year previous to Judge Burnett’s appeal hearing, despite being warned by the defendant, had given credence to Weimar’s Queensland 4th Reich.

….. “There was some controversy .. by Heywood as to whether the police have an obligation … to contact him. … There is no requirement on police to do that.” (Record of court proceedings.)

So ridiculous and blatantly illegal had been the entire process from the outset, I had gone to court with a book in hand and asked if I could read it during his supposed trial. He all but literally laughed at the idea of quoting the Queensland Government or anyone else via the Internet – as, in turn, did Judge Burnett. “Google? Ha Ha. We go by law here, Mr Heywood.” Burnett: “Despite what you might have discovered on the Internet …. .” What I had discovered on the Internet was the 2017 National Firearms Agreement signed by all States, combined with the Queensland Government’s rules and restrictions on police entry, listed above. These authorities give all Australians, licensees or not, equal and full human rights in regard to police invasion and personal privacy.

Appeal judge Burnett did not merely concur with the 4th Reich principles – he joined the Nazi Party. He left Clarke stranded.

Could Judge Burnett’s short version of Mein Kampf top the charts in Queensland? The illiteracy chart is its best hope. Precisely quoting his Revised Judgement:

“Powers and Responsibilities Act, S.22, provides that:

For ensuring compliance with a relevant law, of which the weapons Act is one – A police officer may do any of the following– (a) at any reasonable time, enter and stay on a place used for a purpose under a license under the relevant law. Section 23 proceeds to provide what a relevant time for entry is for a relevant law. It provides: (1) A reasonable time for a police officer to enter a place for exercising a power in relation to a relevant law includes – (c) when someone is present at the place.” End quote.

He cites the item referring to licensed premises – a – Thus giving police blanket powers to enter, unannounced, make themselves at home, remain as long as they wish – anywhere. Oh, but it may help if they make up some reason or other for invading. Plenty of scope. Suspected something, Got the wrong address, perhaps. This judge was or was not thinking of inspection of licensed items? Be that as it may, here is the big news. An almost unrelated Section, 23, suggests it could be an idea to discover whether anyone was at home, is at home, or is likely to be at home. To discover whether someone is at home, emulate Weimar – try telephoning. His telephoning was probably tele-phony but let it stand. If there is no answer, drive onto the property. Having invaded the property (New Belgium, is it?) try to discern whether someone is present. Enter the house, inspect the rooms, investigate everything …. Someone may be present. Having discerned by telephone that no-one is likely to be present, fulfil the requirements of Queensland policing and determine whether, Section 23, “… someone is present at the place”. What if someone is discovered to be present at the place? Spring a raid and walk off with the “prescribed items” of 22.d. What of police rights and responsibilities? Claim that full permission for everything was asked for and given by the owners. Whom he stated on audio that he had never met before – an admission recorded whilst standing close to their home, half a kilometre from any government road, having invaded without warning and without permission. He then forged and lied, deliberately attempting to implicate the honest constable in giving false testimony. Burnett had proof on his own desk of Weimar planting words in the defendant’s official statement. That is but the beginning.

The judge gives the programme, the sergeant follows the script. They both attend the same Nationalist Socialist Worker’s Party meetings?

Weimar, written statement: “I had been unable to contact Heywood prior to conducting the [19th Jan.] audit.” Heywood being on the property, often at the house, with witnesses, continually, before the raid. With telephone message machine checked every day.

“On Tuesday 20th Feb. I contacted Heywood by ‘phone.”

This same adviser to (Rockhampton) judges and magistrates, in court, owned to not leaving a message, proceeding onto the property on more than one occasion because he could contact no-one.

On the afternoon of his raid, two sons were working on the farm, presumably within view from access roads. He drove past them!  In court he claimed he followed the home owner (myself) into the main bedroom of the house. In fact, he only partly invaded the house, refer available audios. No-where did he seek to discover whether the wife or any other people might be present.

We have the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, and the Police Commissioner for the breakaway Rockhampton 4th Reich.

Qcats and other rare species

The author found himself in a minor predicament after being secretly categorized as dangerous and mentally unfit in a police report – which was utilized to ban him from owning a gun. Farmers/graziers necessarily utilize guns as everyday tools of trade. The most humane method of dispatching any animal is a blow to the head. A high velocity piece of lead suits admirably. The laws are so stringent and the populace so cowed, it is no small matter to find a gun owner ready at a moment’s notice to carry a gun on a public road and come to assist. By definition, most things that happen – in rural Australia, at least – are technically crimes. People are waiting for the government to pounce – whilst hoping otherwise. We are all criminals. Since being technically criminal in Australia probably has nothing to do with whether or not one has a clear conscience, and since many people with anything but a clear conscience are running loose, the conscience test is doubtful.

A rural property may legally host a gun if a licensed person and a gun safe are installed. Since the author has adult sons, the obvious course was for a son to purchase a license. The weapons Licensing Department, acting on the advice of the local Sergeant, James Russell Weimar, backed by my criminal conviction as detailed on this site, refused his license. He had paid for and passed the safety course and was backed with impeccable references, including the local J.P. who attends to Weimar’s signature requirements. The man who passed him for safety was no less than an ex policeman who has known the family for decades and who lives five minute’s literal stroll from Weimar’s front door.

I here omit for necessary reasons names and details not relating to myself, but the reader may be assured that no mental health operatives have ever concurred with Weimar’s assessment of myself nor to my knowledge expressed alarm regarding possible homicidal traits in the family. As the reader may know, mental illness does not necessarily equate to murderous attitudes towards others. Medicine has few if any predictive powers in answer to murder, or any other crime. Australian medical practitioners, heroes in their own way, would certainly forestall bad behaviour if their diagnoses could predict the bad behaviour. Australia’s worst cold blooded executioner, Bryant, had no serious police record and no diagnosed mental illness as such. The same is largely true of America’s worst. Of these four, Churchill, Stalin, Mao and Hitler, which one had a professionally diagnosed mental illness? (Churchill. Bipolar.) Apart from Weimar and the Licensing Section, the local police have always to the best of their ability been on-side with humanity. 29th June, 2020, being in Brisbane and desirous of co-operating with all concerned, I visited the mental health unit, Royal Brisbane Hospital. Upon learning of Weimar’s diagnoses, they recommended consultation with the Police Mental Health Liaison Unit. I immediately went in person to Roma Street Headquarters. The clear and unambiguous response? No such unit exists.

What other avenues of conciliation and common sense are open in Queensland? Theoretically, a species called an ombudsman does exist. Research this elusive and lonely species if we will. He could live on the far side of planet X? Time spent communicating with him would be as well spent researching that same planet? Then we could go to the Crime and Misconduct Commission, a creature definitely extant on the Queensland landscape but in this case extantly extinct. “A policing problem?” “We hand such matters to the Police.” “Here, see? The police find nothing amiss.” The C.M.C incidentally is one and the same as the C.C.C.

This brings us to an animal which on the unambiguous evidence of the case in hand should be put out of its misery. A qcat. Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Quick, cheap arbitration – possibly for less than a thousand dollars. The Queensland Government has allowed appeals against gun license revocation. The umpire or ‘member’ concerned is to secure the evidence from both sides, provide it to both sides, listen, then make a decision. Appeals against decisions are possible.

The method of communication in relation to the son’s hearing was a telephone hook-up between Sergeant Danielle Ayscough, female head of the Licensing Section, our son, and a ‘Member Collier’. Collier, in our son’s recollections, rambled, whilst mentioning nothing of what he subsequently published as his sole reason for disallowing the license. Keep in mind: the ‘members’ are paid – how much, I could never extract from them. Their charter stipulates all evidence is to be tabled before any hearing. They are to act as umpires, not sycophants. The government, to its credit, requires them to be impartial. The police view is to be given no favours over and above the view of the applicant. Collier had on his desk much of the information available throughout this site. The secret madness file, the proof of criminality on the part of the sergeant, the trashing of government provisions, the open defiance. Sergeant Ayscough herself went to the hearing knowing that rules under which firearms are to be inspected were treated as non-existent. She went so far as to flatly contradict the magistrate who had cleared the defendant of improper storage. She had been previously supplied with information which would have terminated the delusions of any capable administrator. Collier, and QCAT, likewise. All on record.

Believe it or not, Danielle, “The Respondent”, is not my wife. She is not even my ex. ….. We had never met. One wonders if she could be Collier’s wife ……………… ?

14th May, 2019, Extracts from QCAT Decision, Member Collier presiding:

Son Heywood resides with his parents and other family members on their family farm. His father, Mr Philip Heywood was described by the Respondent as a deeply religious man with a strong to overbearing personality that he exercises when dealing with the family members residing with him. Son Heywood is a member of a family in which the patriarch has had his firearms licence revoked based on misuse, and has been prosecuted for the misuse. Weapons held at the Heywoods’ home have been discovered by the QPS as being insecurely stored; The local police officer in charge does not support the issue of a licence to Son Heywood; and there is a significant history of mental health issues in the Heywood family. ….. .

The Respondent included in the written material provided to the Tribunal a letter prepared by Philip Heywood that has been, apparently, sent to numerous politicians and the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission, and which could be described as adverse criticism of the conduct of the QPS, in particular the officer in charge of the local police station in Theodore. This eight-page email is a disjoint, incoherent, rambling discourse suggestive of being produced by a person of intelligence but suffering mental health issues. A shorter diatribe of similar quality accompanies Son Heywood’s Application before this Tribunal. I draw the inference from these documents that the statement accompanying Son Heywood’s Application was most likely produced by his father, supporting the conclusion that he may be a proxy for his father in pursuit of a firearms licence. …… .

There are a number of factors supportive of Son Heywood’s application for a firearms licence: he has no disclosed criminal record or history; the QPS does not have any particular concern about issuing him a firearms licence providing he is outside the influence of his family.

END Decision Extract.

Quoting the above Decision: “A shorter diatribe of similar quality accompanies Son Heywood’s Application before this Tribunal.”

The “shorter diatribe”, edited by a Canberra librarian, wife of a former head of a Commonwealth Department, one inconsequential item herewith deleted for privacy, but note, anything to do with health had always been done in full consultation with and agreement with the excellent Queensland Health Department and, hitherto, the helpful police:

I contest assertions of Weapons Licensing.

1. Firearms practices at our property are not unsafe.

a). There has never been a firearms incident on our property. One of my brothers took his own life with a firearm on a nearby property more than a decade ago. This was the act of a man with physical incapacities coupled with mental disorder. It was not a reflection on the firearms practices on our property though, through devious means, he did gain use of one of our firearms.

b).Some evidence was not provided to the Court. In the court proceedings, my father was found guilty of having a loaded firearm in storage. Yet, according to the Occurrence Sheet, quote: “no round in chamber.” A bolt action rifle without a round in the chamber is not loaded. This information about Sergeant Weimar’s evidence did not become available until after the Court decision(s).

c). I attach references to my safety-mindedness. This includes one from a JP. An ex policeman also certified my safety-awareness via a positive outcome of the firearms safety course.

2. Regarding mental health.

a). If anyone has any evidence that I have a mental health problem, I ask that they provide it herewith. I value this Tribunal as witness. There is no evidence whatsoever of dangerous tendencies or diagnosed problems. I request the Licensing Section retract forthwith any suggestion or implication that I have a mental health problem.

b). At least one representative of the Licensing Section, namely, Danielle Ayscough, has asserted: “I considered information provided to me by local police regarding the mental fitness of your [Philip Heywood’s] sons who currently reside with you.” It is not for the police to diagnose mental health fitness, or to be the authority on this.

In summary, there is no evidence of unsafe practices at Theodore or of worrying mental conditions in my family, regarding safety issues.


[1] Does diagnosed mental health mean that people are more dangerous? “Research has shown that people receiving effective treatment for a mental illness are no more violent or dangerous than the rest of the population. People with a mental illness are more likely to harm themselves – or to be harmed – than they are to hurt other people.” This is from a Victorian government publication. https://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/ConditionsAndTreatments/mental-illness-and-violence

Responsible people under responsible medication are safer than some other groups in society.

The Licensing Branch has shown itself to be

a. Ignorant of the facts of the family and of the whole case,
b. Exhibiting discrimination against those suffering a mental illness.

I submit that I am a suitable person to be granted a gun licence.

END Son’s QCAT submission.

In time I (Philip Heywood) travelled to Brisbane to proceed with my own QCAT hearing. It did not last long. The sign on the door reads, “No personal abuse”. I read the slanderous parts of Collier’s Decision to the Member – it was this time a member Kanowski, not Collier. I asked him if it was personal abuse and was he going to allow the abuse? No answer. I then produced a written demand for tabling the evidence utilized in Son’s hearing, proving I am as described in Collier’s Decision. The supposed “eight- page e-mail”, etc. etc.. No answer. I mentioned the possibility of reporting QCAT to the Attorney General. I received a written, stamped assurance that my concerns would be actioned.  Danielle Ayscough, my ex.ex., slunk out the door. I never saw that member again. In fact, even the enticement of seeing my ex.ex. again was insufficient to draw me back to the Capitol. The next Member (someone called Aughterson, telephone hook-up) could not find the officially stamped demand for the necessary tabling of the evidence. I never heard from that Member again. The next Member (musical chairs, musical members) could not find the stamped demand. I baled out.

I yet hold the official QCAT stamped document reassuring us of investigation of the possibility of tabling the evidence. Darling Daniella, on her part, never tabled anything but unfounded personal abuse, and a literal basketfull of filibuster, the standard ship’s anchor’s worth of reading deterrent.

By way of finale:

Previous to Son’s mid-year expedition, on 21st Feb. 2019, I had travelled to Queen Street to appear in person, early in the QCAT proceedings. Contrary to the advice given in the QCAT advisory, only QPS, not myself, was invited to give a statement. I spent the entire time correcting the (decent) male police officer from Licensing. He did not even know of what I had been found guilty in court! Some cock and bull he started with – but he changed his attitude. (Possibly, he later sent us the secret file??) The Moderator, a decent man whose name I have forgotten, finally aligned with the facts, but gave little hope of a future tribunal being anything but rubber stampers without any interest in umpiring on the facts. He recommended applying to the C.C.C.. (Recommendation enacted, CCC handed it to QPS, QPS simply killed off QPS credibility. Weimar did nothing nothing wrong – forgeries, evidence planting, secret red flagging, breaking the rules …… . No Queensland policeman from henceforth is prima facie believable under oath. Proof in your hands. All publishable.)

This preliminary QCAT hearing was not recorded. I never encountered that moderator again. The lies were simply re-sprouted, especially at Son’s QCAT Decision 14TH May, 2019. (refer above.) We decided to appeal Son’s banning from firearms.

Meanwhile, the April 2019 arrival in the Heywood family computer of an hitherto concealed police file proving the reporting sergeant criminal-delusional had prompted us to hire Allan Grant, Grant and Simpson lawyers, Rockhampton. He was hired mid-year, at about the time Son’s QCAT Decision was handed down. The agreement was for Allan G. to handle Son’s affairs at QCAT with Son doing little or nothing bar sign off on paperwork. The sequence is as follows:

Decision effectively banning Son from owning a rifle was handed down by Member Collier, 14th May, 2019.

Commensurate with instructions, Allan Grant filed a (fully paid) QCAT appeal for Son.

7th June, 2019, QCAT notified Son, 001.jpg, APL 133-19, “QCAT has received your application to commence proceedings.” The proceedings can only have been those set in motion by Allan Grant. Son had no other proceedings afoot with QCAT. This message was forwarded by Son to Allan Grant, by courtesy, not, one would have assumed, by necessity, 20th June.

So, by 20th June, Grant and Simpson would have known one way or another that QCAT was programmed to hear Son’s appeal. They were handling his case. In confirmation:

E-mail 17th June from Grant & Simpson: “… we have paid fees to QCAT for filing the application for leave to appear ….. it will be necessary for you to provide us with a further cheque .. of $1,500 … . We will require this to continue with the Directions Hearing ….” [This was paid forthwith.] End e-mail quote.

Son was absent, working elsewhere much of the second half of 2019 – but his surface and some relevant electronic mail came to the home address. He was presumably in contact with Grant & Simpson electronically at all times – and he was not running his case.

E-mail 20th June from Grant & Simpson, to Son: “… A copy of the notice of directions hearing is attached for your reference for 9.30 am on 29th July 2019. For some reason, they have mistakenly inserted your Father’s name Philip Heywood, when the decision which we referred to GAR340-18 [Son’s Decision registration number] is the decision affecting your gun license application. We have therefore forwarded a letter to QCAT asking for clarification. We propose to attend the Directions hearing without the necessity of your appearance on 29th July 2019 to ascertain how the matter may progress. …. We will advize following the Directions Hearing … .”

On 29TH July 2019, Philip Heywood, who had been scheduled for a telephone hearing with QCAT, waited three quarters of an hour on the telephone, whereupon in conference with the detained QCAT Member, by mutual agreement postponed his hearing until Son’s appeal was heard. He knew nothing of a supposed hearing for Son on that day. Neither, it seems, did Son. And Allan Grant seems to have been equally kept in the dark:

Copy of e-mail sent 13th August from Grant & Simpson to QCAT: “…. We note having filed the Application for Leave to appear on a refusal to grant a firearms license to Son with the Tribunal …… We further note that we have since attended to filing of the Affidavit of Service confirming the appeal documents which were served on the Queensland Police Service on 5th July 2019, which Affidavit was filed on 12th July 2019. …..We presume the Tribunal will shortly issue Directions for the listing of this matter to enable us to proceed with our client’s appeal.” End e-mail quote.

Surface mail dated 24th Sept., from Grant & Simpson, arrived at our home in Son’s absence, asking for Son to sign something which states, “I did not realize the Tribunal had sent me the directions by email on 11July 2019, I did not ever see the email until my solicitors queried same. …. My solicitors did not see the Directions until 19th Sept. …. I would be unfairly prejudiced if an extension of time is refused …. .”

Having paid QCAT over a thousand dollars for the benefit of this non-entertainment, which included their failure to notify our lawyer of a hearing, we were then hastily given the opportunity of actually running the appeal – a new name, a M’b’r Howard’s, being appended – only if we came up with another two or three thousand dollars to buy a copy of Son’s old telephone hearing back in May. Said hearing, as Son recalls, being some meaningless yarn on the ‘phone. No evidence was tabled, no investigation, no documents in the English language – the imaginary ‘diatribes’ – shorter or longer versions – might have been on the moon. Simply, a shorter, or longer, meaningless conversation for the purpose of being able to point to a conversation. Lies and defamation, inc..

The fiasco sputtered to an end with their final refusal to table or consider facts, combined with members playing musical chairs, as outlined previously.

The late and lamented premier Bjelke Petersen has it. “Nothing, but nothing, and I repeat that, nothing could restore my faith in the Justice system.” At that time, it had been his system! He might posthumously thank Providence that the Qcat had not then invaded Queensland! Time to move on, seeking a better future?