About 1,500 lawmakers, government employees and foreign guests were finally freed in the early hours of Friday morning after thousands of irate protesters had formed a human chain around the Bosnian Parliament building in Sarajevo for 14 hours to demonstrate against an impasse over a law on identification documents.
Women with babies in carriages, pensioners and students faced off with police officers deployed to the scene as foreigners trapped inside — including about 250 foreign bankers attending a conference to examine investment opportunities — called their embassies back home to say they had been taken hostage.
Some of the protesters held up a sign saying, “We don’t want entities, we want identities” — a reference to the byzantine bureaucratic system in Bosnia that has magnified ethnic enmities, entrenched political deadlock and impeded the country’s progress toward joining the European Union.
At the root of the crisis is the failure of lawmakers to agree on a new law on how to determine the 13-digit identification numbers assigned to every citizen. The previous law lapsed in February, leaving all babies born since then without the identification documents necessary to travel abroad or see a doctor.
Bosnian Serbs have demanded that the identification cards have a specific number specifying their region, while the country’s Muslim Bosniak and Croat legislators want the identification numbers to be random to avoid further stoking of ethnic division.
In Liverpool Plains Shire Council v Vella [2013] NSLEC 54 the Court states
[5] ... Mr Vella did not appear at the hearing of today's notice of motion. This is presumably because, as a member of the "Independent Religious State - Free State of Australia" ("FSA"), a purportedly sovereign religious state established within the Commonwealth of Australia, Mr Vella does not recognise the jurisdiction of this Court. This has been his position to date in the proceedings.
[6] Unsurprisingly, the council has therefore had difficulty serving Mr Vella. Orders for substituted service were accordingly made by Court on 12 April 2013. Previously, at a directions hearing before Sheahan J on 22 March 2013, affidavits of service were provided to the Court demonstrating that Mr Vella had been served with the initiating summons and supporting affidavits.
[7] The council relied on the following affidavits in order to demonstrate that Mr Vella was aware of the hearing of the application today: (a) the affidavit of service of Mr Nathan Hennessey, sworn 8 April 2013; (b) the affidavit of service of Ms Belinda Morris, affirmed 15 April 2013; (c) the affidavit of Mr Mark Brothers, affirmed 19 April 2013; and (d) the affidavit of Mr Michael Urquhart, sworn 10 April 2013.
[8] Mr Urquhart, the Director of Corporate Services at the council, also gave oral evidence to the Court that on 19 April 2013, he was called to the front counter at the council's offices where he was handed two envelopes containing documents that had been physically handed by Mr Vella to the council's customer service officer, Ms Dale Lyon. Ms Lyon has had previous dealings with Mr Vella and is aware of his identity. The envelopes appear to have been, according to the evidence of Mr Urquhart, opened and then re-sealed.
[9] The envelopes contained the affidavit of Mr Michael Urquhart sworn 10 April 2013, the affidavit Mr Mark Brothers sworn 9 April 2013, the amended notice of motion seeking injunctive relief and the order for substituted service. The amended notice of motion expressly states in handwriting on the front page that "this motion is listed at 9.00 am on 22 April 2013".
[10] Based on the evidence contained in the affidavits referred to above and Mr Urquhart's oral evidence, I am satisfied that Mr Vella was aware of today's hearing.
[11] However, when the matter was called on for hearing at 11.00am, no one appeared for Mr Vella. The matter was called three times outside the courtroom. The matter therefore proceeded in his absence.
The Interlocutory Relief should be granted
12The council relied on the following affidavits in support of its application for injunctive relief, which I have read and considered: (a) affidavit of Ms Donna Ausling, filed 15 March 2013; (b) the affidavit of Mr Stephen Ryder, filed 15 March 2013; (c) the affidavit of Mr Terrence Robinson, sworn 13 March 2013; (d) the affidavits of Mr Mark Brothers, sworn 9 and 19 April 2013; and (e) the affidavit of Mr Urquhart, sworn 10 April 2013.
[13] Ms Ausling is the Manager-Planning and Development with the council. On 14 November 2012 she prepared a planning report in relation to the property. That report indicates that the land upon which the development is occurring is zoned R1 General Residential within the Liverpool Plains Local Environmental Plan 2011 ("the LEP"). In her opinion, the works that have been undertaken on the property consist of "alterations and additions to an existing dwelling" within the terms of the LEP. The works would be permitted with development consent within the Zone. Clause 2.7 of the LEP mandates that demolition works also require development consent.
[14] Mr Ryder, the Compliance Officer of the council, undertook a number of drive-by inspections of the property. Mr Ryder attempted to enter onto the property to carry out an inspection of the building works but Mr Vella refused him entry and threatened to sue him for trespass.
[15] As a consequence of these inspections, on 15 October 2012 a request to immediately cease all building work was served on Mr Vella by the council. This was followed up by a letter to similar effect on 2 November 2012, which attached a Notice of Intention to Issue an Order under s 121B of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 ("the EPAA"). Also attached to Mr Ryder's affidavit were photographs showing the extent of the building works and their ongoing nature. Building works were observed to have been carried out as recently as 2 April 2013. ...
[18] The development works on the property include: (a) the addition of cladding and wall lining to an extension of a building at the rear of the property; (b) cladding added to the side of the building; (c) the removal of walls and windows at the front and side of the building; and (d) the addition of roof sheeting to the building.
[19] It appears, at least from the affidavit evidence of Mr Urquhart, that Mr Vella claims that he is merely "the builder" and that the property in fact belongs to the "Church of Jesus Christ", and therefore, the council has sued the wrong entity.
[20] However, the affidavit of Mr Robinson deposes to the fact that in late 2011, Ms Kathleen Eykamp sold the property to "Jo Vella". The solicitor acting for Ms Eykamp believed "Jo Vella" to be the same person as the respondent in these proceedings. Attached to the affidavit is a certificate of transfer which names the transferee as "Jo Vella". Settlement took place on 14 November 2011, at which Mr Vella attended personally. ...
[25] There is nothing presently before the Court that suggests an arguable defence to the substantive proceedings is available to Mr Vella (see Shoalhaven City Council v Ellis [2011] NSWLEC 225). There is, therefore, a serious question to be tried.
Balance of Convenience
[26] In my opinion, the balance of convenience favours, heavily, the granting of the injunction. First, the building and demolition works are not trivial, they are extensive. Second, the council deposed that it has serious concerns regarding the structural integrity of the building works. To date it has been unable to inspect those building works because Mr Vella has refused the council permission to enter upon the property. Third, given the resistance to date by Mr Vella to accept service, to participate in these proceedings, or to acknowledge, let alone to accede to, the council's requests to cease development on the property to date, I find that, absent granting the relief sought, the unlawful building works will continue unless he is ordered to cease development on the property.
[27] An illustration of Mr Vella's attitude to the council and to the proceedings was contained in a four page document written by an individual describing himself as "John of the Vella Family" faxed to the Court on 21 March 2013. The document stated that:
6. I, John of the Vella Family say, the property known as 90 Dewhurst Street, Werris Creek 2341 Australia is lawfully registered and titled within the Land Register of the Independent Religious State - Free State Australia, and is no longer a legal title within the Land Register of the corporate State of New South Wales ...
7. I, John of the Vella Family say, the property known as 90 Dewhurst Street, Werris Creek 2341 Australia is a lawful Estate housing the "Ministry of Jesus Christ the Redeemer" and a place for worship of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
8. I, John of the Vella Family say, the property known as 90 Dewhurst Street, Werris Creek 2341 Australia is a lawful Estate within in the Jurisdiction of the Independent Religious State - Free State Australia, (Religious State).
9. I, John of the Vella Family, a lawful citizen of Independent Religious State - Free State Australia, (Religious State) lawfully seceded from the corporate State of New South Wales, and the corrupted State of New South Wales.
10. I, John of the Vella Family, a lawful citizen of Independent Religious State - Free State Australia, and the Independent Religious State, Free State Australia say, the said Administration prescribing itself, as the Land and Environment court of New South Wales is without power or jurisdiction to consider or interpret any section or sections of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1990 (UK).
11. I, John of the Vella Family, a lawful citizen of Independent Religious State - Free State Australia, and the Independent Religious State, Free State Australia say, the said Administration prescribing itself as the Land and Environment court of New South Wales is without power or jurisdiction to interpret s116 of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1990 (UK).
12. I, John of the Vella Family, a lawful citizen of Independent Religious State - Free State Australia, and the Independent Religious State, Free State Australia say, the said Administration prescribing itself, as the Land and Environment court of New South Wales is without power or jurisdiction to adjudicate over maters attaining to Religion, Religious belief, Religious standing, or Religious interpretation, that being a consequence only possible to individuals or assembles for obedience and way of life that which excels far beyond that of any Governance or alleged power.
[28] I have no hesitation in finding that "John of the Vella Family" is the same person as the respondent in these proceedings.
