Nine days ago, An evening visitor, paying respects to Hunta’s sister, who had just delivered babies,  did not latch the front door open as they left.

he left late and saw himself out, Nina and Al went to bed.

The next morning they woke up to find both Nina’s and Al’s dogs missing from the house. Ballsack, Mo, (al’s) Blair and Hunter Nina’s)

all that day they searched high and lo, putting ads on facebook, calling friends to enlist their help and driving for hours calling out, with only silence in reply.

I drove around with Nina two days in a row to the areas they had been spotted. Al and Nina and everyone caring in the village drove around too around. Nothing

Poor al bereft and so locked within himself, I saw him sneak out often to “paint the walls with his tears” so broken and sad and lost without his best mate by his side. and Nina was frantic, trying and thinking of everything she could and then some to find them and bring them home for a big feed.

It was three days when Nina got a call from the lovely beautiful lady at the stockfeeds in Biggenden, she truly is amazing, I buy my bird seed and chicken food there.

 

She had spotted blair limping and bleeding along the side a road and picked her up. The poor girl had he throat ripped open and blood pouring down her.

on the afternoon of the 18th Nina rang council again to see if there was any updates on her missing dogs.  Council admitted that Hunta had be “catchnetted” and was locked up in Gayndah Dog Jail.

The council worker Brooke came to visit Nina on the 19th at 10 am armed with his weapon of choice for the confusion delusion; a voice recorder.

He came on to Ninas property, stuck a microphone in her face when there was no witnesses around and demanded answers to questions. (I will dig deep to find ninas rights there.

As nina told him at the time she was in a state with puffy eyes sneezing and dry and dusty,because she has been cleaning up after a sander and grinder in a room that was being painted.

COuncil illegally bombarded NINA  council stream worker, spoke to Nina and said that Hunta had been found inside a cage and there was a dead goat in there. Some people do listen and NIna was armed, locked and loaded on the “record” button on her phone.

Nina will make a stat  dec on this matter,  that Brooke from council swtiched off his audio recorder before stating the last section (next paragraph) on the fate of Hunta. Nina has requested on each occasion that they furnish her with all their information and proof as part of her response to the Hunta saga. TO be met by the stream workers brick wall, of “you are not listening to me Nina”.  It reminds me of a wonderful parable of “basketball playing bear”.

Brooke stated “after his recorder was switched off”,  council were investigating council were investigating and would let her know when they knew more. He said he knew that Hunta has a beautiful soul and wouldn’t hurt a fly but he had to pass the information on to the compliance officer.

he stated “i am going to take this to the board” and yet we find (Lie)that simple simon was the pieman who just rubber stamped a murder decree not unlike pontus pilate.

What brooke did not inform Nina of was her rights, her rights to have everything in writing, to arrange formal interviews with legal assistance and support with her. And questions in advance and evidence in advance.
Ninas rights wer ejust obliterated as he best buddy was dragged off the the gas chambers of Austwitz.

Nina tried to contact council for updates to no avail. Then a few days later simon says, phoned, the

 

18th at the house on 18th. doing up paperwork voice recorded  talk to you about hunter..interview now I will record you you. brooke
te voice recording i took ended ,

 

destruction order issued

 

On the 19th of December Nina was accosted at the house in fredricks street by a rep of the council stream, brooke. Maybe it is just me, but the names are funny.

 

In order to declare a dog regulated  you must contact the owner of the dog in writing and give them time to respond, 14 days from the receipt of the written proposal minimum.

Then there is an internal appeals process that takes TIME

Then there is an external appeals process through qcat

Then there is the AAT ( I have won twice in there so far, can we make it all for 3)

In the meantime, as you use every tool at your disposal to destroy Hunta, I will utilize every tool I have within me, starting with love and my love spreads fast.

i request an open and transparent honest independant inquiry into fisaco of corruption and all previous decisions by Sion Eager in his role as stream compliance officer for north burnett regional council.

Now that you have spent so much condescending time telling NINA and the world what you have done illegally, I shall tell you nower what I , that is we, that is manyone are going to do in response to your crime.

1, take the matter further and expose your actions publicly citing evidence of your acts, this step has already begun – here. I speak truth and I have the love of God aside me, what more powerful do you have in your court?
1, Begin a case with the CCC for corruption in your council citing evidence of your acts, this step in the process.
1, contact the CEO and mayor of your council citing the evidence of your acts, this step is in the process.
1, request, citing evidence of your acts, an unbiased independant “out of stream” investigation into all descisions made by you in your role as compliance officer of your stream and review them for compliance with laws they were made under.
1, inform the state member for Callide, Bryson Head of your acts, citing the evidence in this case
1, continue creating The Quest of the Qurad, featuring Hunta the Guntur,

 

 

Simon Eager, Stream Compliance Officer, acting as an avatar for North Burnett Council, Failed to follow legislation and procedures and breached sections 94 and 127 of the ANIMAL MANAGEMENT (CATS AND DOGS) ACT 2008. in declaring Hunta a regulated dog as per your email of the 23rd of dec 2024 and attaching a destruction notice in the same email.

 yet your email stated as is the “block Catchnet’ voice from council is “the matter is under investigation”

“Good afternoon Nina, With respect to your dog Hunta, currently impounded and under investigation for dog attack offences, please see the attached documents.”

 

Now we can sit and talk pie all day, going around in circles in a feedback loop, or I can pick up the strong string of the stream and examine is with fine tooth mirror.

feedback loop see Pi and compare it to your distraction and diversion game of feedback loop on the above, as below.

section 129 Breach
you served a regulated dog notice and a destruction notice in the same email.

You stated in your email to NINA on the 23rd Dec 2024, i note that it is the first written correspondence she has received about this matter, that you had put material in the mail for her last week. Her mailbox is empty up to today with no mail from you.. Breach Lie 

Your regulated dog notice was dated 19th of December and yet you did not inform Nina until the 22nd of December by telephone and no written correspondance.

In order to declare a dog a regulated dog you must inform the owner in writing of your INTENTION to declare the dog a regulated dog.
After the owner (Nina) receives the Intention to declare Hunta by written notice, containg all information and evidence the council has on the case (transparency in council)she has 14 days to prepare a response and to contact legal assistance.

That is intention to issue the notice a step or two before issuing the notice.

I have listened to monologs of conversation from 3 different representatives of the council that represent this stream. These three conversations were full of word salad in the effort to bind and deceive NINA in your effort to appease an resident by making a “scapegoat” out of the most beautiful innocent loving dog put on this earyh by GOD.

In those three conversation each time Nina asked one thing of the workers and that was to provide proof that Hunta was responsible for killing a goat.

In response to her question, nina was diverted, talked over in a condescending way and told she was not listening to the workers. She was also told each and every time that the matter is under investigation and yet she received no letter and no emails until yesterday which breach legislation by combining the two letters in one. and yet every day nina has contacted council from the day her dogs went missing. each time the block wall of “it is under investigstion”

May I ask you, will you listen to someone trying to excuse themselves using “council” disguise murdering a family member?

I was listening very closely as were several other people in the rooms at the time.

These are the words recorded coming from all of your workers.

“I think” “I believe” “we suspect” “we believe” “we think” “we have reasonable suspicion” “catch net” – caught 😉

Those words are meaningless and have no place in the world today of truth.

Each instance of phone calls to NINA you displayed a disgusting superior attitude that overtly appeared like you had a lot to say about nothing.
covertly the subterfuge was subtle but visible.

I direct you back to Nina’s and now my question – will you please provide proof that hunta is responsible for a killing a goat?

I also direct you, the “stream compliance officer” to examine this “event” from true grounding of looking at a situation from all around and not just a black white authoritarian stance of ok we have a complaint –Let kill it ?

you have made a very hasty, deadly conclusion based on bias and prejudice. Hunta has no prejudice, go and meet her beautiful soul, she will love you even up to the moment the needle you are killing her with goes in. This is when justice and those who preform their duties under truths banner, blindfold themselves to truth, the very government becomes a decaying injustice.

You see I went around to visit a sister the other day, and she offered me a meal, because I was so damned hungry after running around exploring all day, I gratefully accepted and demolished that pi.

I didn’t ask where she got the pie from or if she had to kill a magpie to make it and I certainly will not walk out her door to be caught, netted, chained, caged then crucified| Nor caught in a pong catchnet of wordsalaed

what exactly are you killing, killing the problem by appeasing your rate payer at the detriment of a the heart of grandmother and all her family and friends?

That would make you guilty of murdering an innocent animal set on earth by GOD because you have that power over others.

Have you met the dog you are murdering? Have you looked in her eyes?

I will you to look into HUNTas eyes and tell that dog you are killing her because you think, you believe and you suspect that she ate a meal when she was hungry was set in front of her by her big brother.

 

Hunta’s Voice

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 89 Power to make declaration
(1) Simon Failed to follow correct procedures by not complying with this section of the act.

92 Withdrawing proposed declaration notice
The local government may withdraw the proposed declaration
notice by giving notice of the withdrawal to any owner of the
dog the subject of the notice.

Please do, I have better things to do than be dragged back into mans ego and power war. Honestly, it is like an old rusty battery, a bunch of neutrons stirring up the elektrons and protons. Go and gaze at a sunflower and breathe.

Having said that, I hold fast! The more you try to put bandaids on and cover up your illegal acts, the more they show themselves to me, the one and the manyones.

it stops here|

The world is over it. Using confusion, word salad and illegal acts to further your own agenda and trample on people and loving animals end.

PDF Copy of the act ——> download here
Animal Management act 2008 Qld

Hunta’s Pertinent Legislation

60 What is a regulated dog
A regulated dog is—
(a) a declared dangerous dog; or
(b) a declared menacing dog.
61 What is a declared dangerous dog

A declared dangerous dog is—
(a) a dangerous dog declared under section 94 to be a
dangerous dog; or
(b) a dog that is the subject of a declaration, however called,
if the declaration—
(i) was made under a corresponding law; and
(ii) is the same as or similar to a dangerous dog
declaration.

62 What is a declared menacing dog
A declared menacing dog is—
(a) a menacing dog declared under section 94 to be a
menacing dog; or
(b) a dog that is the subject of a declaration, however called,
if the declaration—
(i) was made under a corresponding law; and
(ii) is the same as or similar to a menacing dog
declaration

Prohibition on supply of regulated dog or proposed
declared dog
(1) A person (the relevant person) must not supply a regulated
dog or a proposed declared dog to another person unless—
(a) the relevant person gives the other person a notice
stating that the dog is a regulated dog or a proposed
declared dog, as the case may be; or
[s 68]
Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008
Chapter 4 Regulated dogs
Page 64 Current as at 28 August 2024
Authorised by the Parliamentary Counsel
(b) the relevant person has a reasonable excuse.
Maximum penalty—150 penalty units.
(2) In this section—
proposed declared dog means a dog the subject of—
(a) a proposed declaration notice that has not been
withdrawn; or
(b) a dangerous dog declaration or menacing dog
declaration that has been stay

Part 4 Regulated dog declarations
89 Power to make declaration
(1) Any local government may, by complying with the
requirements of this part—
(a) declare a particular dog to be a declared dangerous dog
(a dangerous dog declaration); or
(b) declare a particular dog to be a declared menacing dog
(a menacing dog declaration).
(2) A dangerous dog declaration may be made for a dog only if
the dog—
(a) has seriously attacked, or acted in a way that caused fear
to, a person or another animal; or
(b) may, in the opinion of an authorised person having
regard to the way the dog has behaved towards a person
or another animal, seriously attack, or act in a way that
causes fear to, the person or animal.
[s 90]

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008
Chapter 4 Regulated dogs
Page 66 Current as at 28 August 2024
Authorised by the Parliamentary Counsel
(3) A menacing dog declaration may be made for a dog only if a
ground mentioned in subsection (2) exists for the dog, except
that the attack was not serious.
(4) The declaration may be made even if the dog is not in the
local government’s area.
(5) A declaration under this section is a regulated dog
declaration.
(6) In this section—
animal has the meaning given by section 191.
seriously attack means—
(a) in relation to a person—attack the person in a way that
causes the death of, or grievous bodily harm or bodily
harm to, the person; or
(b) in relation to an animal—attack the animal in a way that
causes the death of the animal, or maims or wounds the
animal.

90 Notice of proposed declaration
(1) If a local government proposes to make a regulated dog
declaration it must give any owner of the dog a notice (a
proposed declaration notice) stating—
(a) the following details for the dog—
(i) breed;
(ii) colour;
(iii) sex;
(iv) any other noticeable distinguishing features or
marks; and
(b) the local government proposes to declare the dog to be a
regulated dog; and
(c) the type of regulated dog declaration proposed to be
made; and
(d) the reasons for the proposed declaration; and
[s 91]

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008
Chapter 4 Regulated dogs
Current as at 28 August 2024 Page 67
Authorised by the Parliamentary Counsel
(e) an owner of the dog may make, within a stated period,
written representations to show why the proposed
declaration should not be made.
(2) The stated period must end at least 14 days after the proposed
declaration notice is given.
(3) The proposed declaration notice may be accompanied by a
written opinion from a veterinary surgeon or other evidence
about the dog’s breed.

92 Withdrawing proposed declaration notice
The local government may withdraw the proposed declaration
notice by giving notice of the withdrawal to any owner of the
dog the subject of the notice.

94 Making regulated dog declaration
(1) The local government must consider any written
representations and evidence accompanying them within the
period stated in the proposed declaration notice.
(2) If, after complying with subsection (1), the local government
is satisfied that the relevant ground under section 89 still
exists, it must make the regulated dog declaration for the dog.
95 Giving information notice about decision to make
regulated dog declaration
(1) As soon as practicable after deciding to make a regulated dog
declaration, the local government must give any owner of the
dog the subject of the declaration an information notice about
the decision.
(2) However, the local government must not give an information
notice under subsection (1) if an authorised person has made a
destruction order under section 127A in relation to the dog.
Note—
See section 127A in relation to the requirement to give a single
information notice about the decisions to make the regulated dog
declaration and the destruction order.

5 Giving information notice about decision to make
regulated dog declaration
(1) As soon as practicable after deciding to make a regulated dog
declaration, the local government must give any owner of the
dog the subject of the declaration an information notice about
the decision.
(2) However, the local government must not give an information
notice under subsection (1) if an authorised person has made a
destruction order under section 127A in relation to the dog.
Note—
See section 127A in relation to the requirement to give a single
information notice about the decisions to make the regulated dog
declaration and the destruction order.
(3) The decision takes effect on the later of the following days—
(a) the day any owner of the dog is given the information
notice;
(b) a later day of effect stated in the information notice.
(4) The information notice must state—
(a) that the dog is the subject of—
(i) if the dog is a dangerous dog—a dangerous dog
declaration; or
(ii) if the dog is a menacing dog—a menacing dog
declaration; and
(b) the reasons for the declaration; and
(c) the local government that made the declaration; and
[s 96]
Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008
Chapter 4 Regulated dogs
Current as at 28 August 2024 Page 69
Authorised by the Parliamentary Counsel
(d) the day the decision takes effect; and
(e) that the dog must be kept only at the place stated in the
registration notice as the address for the dog; and
(f) if the dog is impounded—a unique number given to the
dog by the local government for the purposes of
impounding; and
(g) any other information prescribed under a regulation.

 

128 Receipt for dog in particular circumstances
(1) This section applies if the dog—
(a) has, or appears to have, a registered owner; or
(b) was seized from a person who had immediate control or
custody of it.
(2) The authorised person must, as soon as practicable after the
seizure, give the registered owner or person a written receipt
for the dog—
(a) generally describing the dog and its condition; and
(b) stating the dog has been seized.
(3) If the registered owner is not present at the place at which the
dog was seized and—
(a) the place is not a public place—the receipt may be given
by leaving it at the place in a conspicuous position and
in a reasonably secure way; or
(b) the place is a public place—the receipt may be given by
leaving it at the address stated on the registration notice
for the dog.
129 Access to seized dog
(1) This section applies until the dog is returned under
section 130 or 131.
(2) The authorised person must allow the owner of the dog to
inspect it any reasonable time, from time to time.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if it is impracticable or would
be unreasonable to allow the inspection.
(4) The inspection must be provided free of charg!