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
© 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
© 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!