This was brought to my attention by a posting by Jay Hanson on
killer_ape-peak_oil@yahoogroups.com
"Overturn the 1886 Supreme Court decision Santa Clara County v. Southern
Pacific Railroad. Get corporations OUT of the propaganda business!
The 1886 Santa Clara decision is a social trap that is impossible for
humans to escape."
so I googled '1886 Santa Clara' - and got this excellent essay on the
manner in which US corporations aquired "personhood" status within the US
constitution - a status that appears to have been accepted in AUSTRALIA and
I'm sure a lot of other countries (as the US corporate model has been
adopted just about everywhere..)
Meyers outlines methods that could be employed to reverse the situation -
maybe someone with understanding of corporate law might comment on how it
applies in here and other countries.
It is a long essay - but absolutely well worth the read.. it clearly
explains how we have got into anti-democratic mess that we are in now...
Hugh
http://www.iiipublishing.com/afd/santaclara.html
and http://www.iiipublishing.com/alliance.htm
The Santa Clara Blues:
Corporate Personhood versus Democracy
by William Meyers
What Corporate Personhood Is
Corporate Personhood is a legal fiction. The choice of the word "person"
arises from the way the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was worded
and from earlier legal usage of the word person. A corporation is an
artificial entity, created by the granting of a charter by a government
that grants such charters. Corporation in this essay will be confined to
businesses run for profit that have been granted corporate charters by the
States of the United States. The Federal Government of the United States
usually does not grant corporate charters to businesses (exceptions include
the Post Office and Amtrak).
Corporations are artificial entities owned by stockholders, who may be
humans or other corporations. They are required by law to have officers and
a board of directors (in small corporations these may all be the same
people). In effect the corporation is a collective of individuals with a
special legal status and privileges not given to ordinary unincorporated
businesses or groups of individuals.
Obviously a corporation is itself no more a person (though it is owned and
staffed by persons) than a locomotive or a mob. So why, in the USA, is a
corporation considered to be a person under law?
snip............................
Corporate personhood is at the root of such Supreme Court rulings as First
National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti [435 U.S. 765 (1978)], which equate
corporate donations to political campaigns with free speech. They allow
corporate money to govern the political process. These rulings can be
reversed once the 1886 decision is reversed, since they are directly
dependent upon it. Then we should be able to force corporations out of the
political process. We could do this through legislation or through the
chartering process. Without personhood the corporations are not entitled to
1st Amendment rights; they will have only what privileges the people,
through our government, gives them. We can and should prohibit them from
making any kind of contribution to politicians, to lobbying groups, or to
campaigns involving referenda. Any advertising that does not sell products,
that is, any advertising not presenting factual information about the
products or services a corporation offers, should be prohibited.
Later in this essay the secondary effects of removing corporations and
their money from the political decision making (including regulatory)
process will be examined. First other changes that are directly dependent
upon revoking corporate personhood need examining.
Without the protection of the 14th Amendment, corporations could be
purposefully discriminated against in legislation. It would even become
possible to discriminate against particular types and sizes of
corporations. The citizens would thereby gain much greater control over the
economy, both nationally and at the local level. For instance, the Supreme
Court in the past, based on corporate personhood, has held that States and
localities cannot favor small or local businesses over corporate chain
stores or out-of-state businesses, as in Liggett v. Lee [288 U.S. 517
(1933)]. Towns that want all business to be local, or even that want to
keep out certain chains but allow others, will be able to have that
control, if they wish. They could also finally have truly effective "bad
boy" laws (which prohibit businesses with criminal records from operating
in a community), as opposed to the current ineffective ones (because we'll
be able to limit corporations appeals to the courts).
Without personhood the due process used for corporations could be different
than the due process used for individuals or unincorporated businesses. As
an illustration, corporations might only be allowed a single hearing when
their actions effect an endangered species, rather than the current system
where they can spend millions of dollars of their own money, and of
taxpayer money, and of the non-profit environmental groups that oppose
them, in an unending series of appeals and diversionary legal filings.
Another example would be that corporate charters, granted by the states,
might channel certain types of corporate wrongdoing into special courts
where justice is swift and stern, including the immediate closing of
businesses that violate environmental, consumer safety, or labor laws.
Another important constitutional "right" given to corporations is
protection under the 4th Amendment, which states, AThe right of the people
to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons to be
seized." The key Supreme Court decision here was Hale v. Henkel [201 U.S.
43 (1906)], which established that corporations have protection under the
4th Amendment based in part on their status as persons. It was decided that
a subpoena issued by a federal grand jury to the secretary of a
corporation, MacAndrews & Forbes Company, amounted to such an unreasonable
search and seizure. This ruling made it difficult to enforce the Sherman
anti-monopoly act, which naturally required the papers of corporations in
order to determine if there existed grounds for an indictment. Oddly the
same ruling recognized it would be very hard to give the 5th Amendment
right that "nor shall any person ... be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself," because a corporation, not being a natural
person, cannot testify at all. It can be represented in court by natural
persons, who cannot take the 5th on the corporation's behalf, because you
only have the right to not incriminate yourself; you have no immunity to
testifying against other persons.
The importance of the 4th Amendment right of corporate persons is shown,
among other places, in Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. [436 U.S. 307 (1978)].
The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA), enacted to try to
get employees safe working environments, allowed for surprise inspections
of workplaces. These inspections were struck down by the Supreme Court,
which declared that OSHA inspections required either the corporation's
permission or a warrant. Apparently the constitutional personhood rights of
corporations trump the rights of real persons. Thousands of workers have
died, been maimed, or poisoned since 1978, while on the job; many of these
accidents were preventable, but the Supreme Court did not consider the
liberty of the workers, only the liberty of corporations and their wealthy
owners in making this murderous decision. No workplace that follows OSHA
safety rules need fear a surprise inspection.
Revoking corporate personhood and 4th Amendment rights for corporations
would allow the government to make reasonable inspections to insure worker
safety, to insure that toxic substances are not being emitted, and to
insure that corporations are operating as allowed by their charters and the
law. Revoking personhood should not be feared by law-abiding, legitimate
businesses and corporations who are obeying the law.
We now return to the possible secondary results of ending corporate
personhood and getting corporations out of the political process.
With corporations out of the political process the whole nature of
regulation would change for the better. Whether regarding the environment
or food safety, we would not have to compromise with powerful corporate
political machines. Do the people want to prohibit clear-cutting? Then the
laws will prohibit clear-cutting, because no politician will be on a
wood-products corporation's payroll. Do the people want zero emissions into
streams and rivers? Then the law will prohibit any and all toxic emissions,
because the politicians will rely on people for votes, not on polluting
corporations for money to buy votes.
The main roadblock to single-payer, national health care has been the
enormous amount of lobbying and campaign contributions from those
corporations that profit from the current system. By prohibiting
corporate-sponsored campaign contributions to politicians and
corporate-sponsored propaganda on television, the national consensus in
favor of national health care could no longer be thwarted.
snip..........................................
Tasmanians, and others who are interested in this awesome plant, are
invited to have their say at GoHemp Tasmania
<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/gohemptas/>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
" .... China is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gasses, with
80 per cent of its electricity coming from coal-fired powered stations.
The filthy air in many of its industrial cities is there to behold with
the naked eye, and locals regularly complain of respiratory problems.
What is less known is that China also plans to become the world's leader
in renewable energy .. "
Wind turbines in China
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/12/2597095.htm>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Climate Emergency Rallies...
http://www.climaterally.org
Visit the site above to get details of a rally near you
Rally in:
* ADELAIDE * BRISBANE * CANBERRA * HOBART * MELBOURNE * PERTH
* SYDNEY * WOLLONGONG
I hope to be rattling a tin for Bob Brown's legal costs in Brisbane (if i can
get a lift with someone heading down) otherwise I will be in the park at Gin Gin
opposite the IGA (on the Bruce- look for the Greens Flag) for most of the day.
Cheers
Anne
Comments about this appear in today's Crikey as follows:
16 . Australia's solar industry left in the shade
Laurie Mallia, a member of the Clean Energy Council Solar PV
Directorate, writes:
Yesterday, the Federal Government abruptly ended the means-tested solar
rebate scheme which gave households a strong incentive to buy rooftop
solar energy systems.
Industry had known the current system was seen by the government as
unsustainable, but as is often the case with decisions related to the
solar industry, we were given little notice -- in yesterday's case,
literally a few hours -- before the change took place.
This kind of jumpy policy-making makes it extremely difficult for the
solar industry to know where it stands and provide certainty to the
thousands of people it employs.
The rebate scheme was criticised by some as being too generous and has
now been replaced by a less expensive solar credits system.
Both these initiatives provide a short-term incentive for people to put
an energy system on top of their house, but don't properly tap into
the real benefits of solar or provide industry with the direction
needed to stimulate growth and local investment.
Australia's glaring inability to see the success of overseas Gross
Feed-in Tariff (GFiT) models to encourage solar use is concerning.
These schemes are essentially an ongoing payment to homeowners who have
installed rooftop solar energy systems (or any type of renewable energy
system) which are connected to the main electricity grid.
Homeowners receive a payment -- typically, around 60 cents per kilowatt
hour, or four times the price of coal-fired electricity -- for the
power produced by their system. The bigger the system, the more power
is produced and the bigger the GFIT payment.
Globally, GFiT schemes have encouraged millions of people to install
renewable energy systems and do their bit to slow global warming.
Various tariffs and incentives operate in parts of Australia (the ACT
is the only state or territory that has adopted a GFiT) but we still
wait for a national, consistent GFiT scheme.
Germany's GFiT program has created nearly 250,000 new jobs in
renewable energy; the sector will soon overtake Germany's car
industry as the nation's number one employer. And Germany only gets
half as much sunshine as Australia.
We're blessed with the highest average solar radiation of any
continent -- a free, endless source of power. Yet despite this natural
advantage, Germany produces 200 times more solar energy than Australia
does.
Concerns that it will raise energy prices for all consumers (to pay for
the GFiT) are exaggerated; you can expect a one-off, sub-CPI rise.
Claims that households will be hundreds of dollars a year worse off are
nonsense.
Less than ten per cent of Australia's energy currently comes from
renewable sources; given that we won't be damming our precious
rivers to produce hydroelectric power -- and nobody really expects to
see wind turbines in every backyard alongside the Hills Hoists -- solar
really is the best way to go.
It also means we don't have to wait for large-scale renewable
energy developments; every Australian can turn their home into a clean,
green power station and do their bit for the environment. At the same
time, it'll generate investment that will produce thousands of new,
"green collar" jobs and renewable energy expertise right here at home.
The government needs to show that it is serious about the Australian
solar industry by seriously considering implementing a proven GFiT
scheme.
Send your tips to boss@... <mailto:boss@...> or
submit them anonymously here
<http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=0abe6dc2-5dd3-4\
9d9-ab73-ad5ace94ab36&rid=0c455ffe-e339-48e4-a9a2-f9cbfb4f04e4> .
Comment on this article
<http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=e8df8436-3320-4\
305-b62f-2fe76b797acc&rid=0c455ffe-e339-48e4-a9a2-f9cbfb4f04e4>
Send this article to a friend
<http://redirect.cmailer.com.au/LinkRedirector.aspx?clid=633b36df-0cff-4\
499-a48b-42209c218c46&rid=0c455ffe-e339-48e4-a9a2-f9cbfb4f04e4>
Back to Index <#top>
--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., Dr Bob Rich <bobrich@...>
wrote:
>
> But I've read in today's paper that Rudd is stopping the solar
> installation rebate early.
> :(
> Bob
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Dr Bob Rich
> http://bobswriting.com
> http://anxietyanddepression-help.com
> http://mudsmith.net
> Commit random acts of kindness
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Hi Anne,
Tasmanian Times has just published an excellent commentary on the legal
background to Bob's case by Dr Kevin Bonham
<http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/browns-seat-at-ris\
k-over-legal-bill/>
Notes: FT = Forestry Tasmania; RFA = Regional Forest Agreement; EPBC
= Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which you
can read about here. <http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/index.html>
"Wayward" refers to poster John Hayward and #3 etc refers to the posted
comment number.
Here's Kevin's comment as published:
1.
Wayward is wayward again - #3 is wrong or at least misleading. pilko in
#16 makes the same mistake as does Garry Stannus in #22 and I doubt
those three are the only ones who have it wrong. It's a complex
matter but it is possible to wade through all the cases and see what
actually happened.
The overturning of the original case on appeal was nothing to do with
the amendment to the law made following the original case.
The overturning was with reference to the law as it stood when the
original case was heard.
The appeal court found that RFA forestry operations were not subject to
the EPBC Act and never had been. So let's not pretend that Marshall
J's original finding reflected the law as it stood at that time.
That finding is overturned.
The finding that does reflect the subsequent change in the law is the
High Court's denial of leave to appeal the overturning. So what has
happened is:
* Marshall found that logging in the areas violated the EPBC act.
* His finding was overturned on appeal.
* The overturning now cannot be appealed because the High Court has
ruled that such an appeal is not worth hearing given that the laws have
been changed, so that even if the original finding was reinstated, it
would have no new effect.
Notably when Brown sought leave to appeal the overturning he was not
required to pay FT's costs even though his application failed.
Amy (#10) - can you produce any evidence that FT claims buttongrass to
be locked-up forest? Seems like you might be having trouble telling
rainforest from buttongrass from that comment.
Brian Walters SC (#11) points out that "none of the findings of fact
were disagreed with by the higher courts". This is true but the
appeal judges found that a great many of the findings of fact made by
Marshall J were irrelevant to the determination of the case and
furthermore criticised him for determining those issues at all.
Likewise those findings of fact were not relevant to the reasons for
upholding FT's appeal, or the reasons for declining Brown the right
to appeal the appeal result, so the lack of overturning of a great many
of Marshall J's findings is irrelevant at best.
Another question is the issue of payment for cases brought in the
supposed public interest as opposed to for profit. I do not agree that
discouraging profiteering is the only reason to apply costs. Gilly
(#24) is correct - protecting respondents from having to pay fees for
unsuccessful cases brought against them in the supposed public interest
is another important factor. Furthermore allowing such cases to be
brought without costs being awarded against the unsuccessful party just
encourages more of what I have half-jokingly referred to on another
thread as SLAGPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Government Participation) -
court cases brought to cost the government money and obstruct and
intimidate government processes. Or change the G to a C (for Corporate)
for the same result.
Peter G (#12) - no, as the Senate system does not employ recounts for
casual vacancies; the Tasmanian Parliament would appoint a Green to
serve as Brown's replacement.
Posted by Dr Kevin Bonham <mailto:k_bonham@...> on
09/06/09 at 10:59 PM
--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., "Anne"
<cyberactivist@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks for this message Peter, it fills in the gaps very well...
> I have put together a comment using this article with further
background notes and posted it as a comment to the website front page
appeal. My comment is here:
> http://globalclimatechangeaction.org/comment/reply/319
> I will be further sharing this comment to Facebook and as a link in
Twitter.
> I have very little to give, but will be giving everything that i can.
>
> Anne
>
> --- In ClimateChangeAction@..., "Peter Bright"
hobart_elf@ wrote:
> >
> > Here's an extract from today's Crikey at Tasmanian Times about Bob's
> > case:
> >
> > Tasmanian Times
> >
<http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/browns-seat-at-ris\
\
> > k-over-legal-bill/>
> >
> >
> > 1.
> > From Crikey today:
> > By Bernard Keane
> > Howard's dead hand behind the Bob Brown bankruptcy scare
> > The possible bankruptcy of Greens Senator Bob Brown as a consequence
> > ofForestry Tasmania's demand for legal fees would be a victory
> > frombeyond the political grave for Paul Lennon and John Howard and a
> > bigwin for the Tasmanian Government's efforts to stymie scrutiny of
> > itsforestry practices.
> >
> > 2.
> > Brown needs to find over $239,000 by 29 June or face
> > bankruptcyproceedings initiated by Forestry Tasmania's lawyers Page
> > Seager. Underthe Constitution, Brown would be forced to give up his
> > Senate seat ifdeclared bankrupt, leaving the choice of a replacement
in
> > the hands ofthe Tasmanian Government.
> >
> > The legal saga surrounding logging in the Wielangta Forest islengthy
and
> > complicated (the Senate Environment committee has anexcellent
summary)
> > but revolves around a simple fact: John Howard andPaul Lennon
changed
> > the rules after Brown won in court to nullify hisFederal Court win
over
> > Forestry Tasmania.
> >
> > Brown took Federal Court action in 2005 to prevent logging in
> > theWielangta Forest north-east of Hobart. Brown's case centred on
> > theinteraction of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
> > ConservationAct 1999 and Regional Forestry Agreements which allowed
> > states andlogging companies to avoid the impact of the EPBC if the
> > Agreementprovided for protection for significant species.
> >
> > Brown argued that logging in the Wielangta Forest was not
inaccordance
> > with the protection measures described in the relevant RFAand
therefore
> > the protections of the EPBC  — in essence, that
> > loggingneeded Commonwealth approval  — applied. In
> > December 2006, FederalCourt Justice Marshall awarded a comprehensive
> > victory to Brown,declaring that there was evidence the logging was
> > harming three majorprotected species (the Tasmanian wedge-tailed
eagle,
> > the broad-toothedstag beetle and the swift parrot) and that the
relevant
> > protectivemeasures, based around a reserve system, did not comply
with
> > the RFAclause.
> >
> > Forestry Tasmania immediately appealed and nearly a year later,three
> > Federal Court justices rules that the mere existence of a
reservesystem
> > was sufficient to meet the requirements of the RFA, regardlessof
whether
> > the reserve system actually protected any species or not.Marshall's
> > findings that the logging had damaged the three protectedspecies
still
> > stood (and stand).
> >
> > Brown appealed to the High Court, but by then John Howard and
PaulLennon
> > had conspired to remove the basis for the legal action. On
23February
> > 2007, Howard and Lennon had agreed to amend the relevant RFAso that
the
> > clause.
> >
> > The State agrees to protect the Priority Species listed inAttachment
2
> > (Part A) through the CAR Reserve System or by applyingrelevant
> > management prescriptions was removed and replaced with asimple
statement
> > that the reserve system protected threatened species.In effect,
Lennon
> > and Howard were agreeing that black was white. Therewas no
Parliamentary
> > scrutiny in either the Commonwealth or Tasmania ofthe amendment.
> >
> > The High Court refused to grant Brown special leave to appealbecause
the
> > new clause meant he had little chance of success. Itrefused to award
> > costs against him, but Brown was still left the billfrom the Federal
> > Court appeal hearing.
> >
> > Forestry Tasmania is owned by the Tasmanian Government and has
> > closelinks with logging company Gunns. Gunns unsuccessfully tried
> > tolitigate Brown and other environmentalists out of the forestry
> > debatewith a punitive lawsuit that has progressively collapsed,
although
> > thecompany is still pursuing seven individuals.
> >
> > The Forestry Tasmania action, however, is a different matter. Thisis
the
> > Tasmania Government pursuing Brown for daring to beat it incourt to
such
> > an extent that it changed the rules to ensure victory.
> >
> > Brown has launched an appeal for donations.
> > Posted by kate <mailto:laughable7250@ on 09/06/09 at
> > 03:50 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
There's more about this hot topic on Tasmanian Times under the heading
...
Solar industry uproar
You can read about it, and add your own comments, here.
<http://tasmaniantimes.com/>
--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., Dr Bob Rich <bobrich@...>
wrote:
>
> But I've read in today's paper that Rudd is stopping the solar
> installation rebate early.
> :(
> Bob
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Dr Bob Rich
> http://bobswriting.com
> http://anxietyanddepression-help.com
> http://mudsmith.net
> Commit random acts of kindness
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
But I've read in today's paper that Rudd is stopping the solar
installation rebate early.
:(
Bob
--------------------------------------------------
Dr Bob Rich
http://bobswriting.comhttp://anxietyanddepression-help.comhttp://mudsmith.net
Commit random acts of kindness
---------------------------------------------------
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Thanks for this message Peter, it fills in the gaps very well...
I have put together a comment using this article with further background notes
and posted it as a comment to the website front page appeal. My comment is here:
http://globalclimatechangeaction.org/comment/reply/319
I will be further sharing this comment to Facebook and as a link in Twitter.
I have very little to give, but will be giving everything that i can.
Anne
--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., "Peter Bright" <hobart_elf@...>
wrote:
>
> Here's an extract from today's Crikey at Tasmanian Times about Bob's
> case:
>
> Tasmanian Times
> <http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/browns-seat-at-ris\
> k-over-legal-bill/>
>
>
> 1.
> From Crikey today:
> By Bernard Keane
> Howard's dead hand behind the Bob Brown bankruptcy scare
> The possible bankruptcy of Greens Senator Bob Brown as a consequence
> ofForestry Tasmania's demand for legal fees would be a victory
> frombeyond the political grave for Paul Lennon and John Howard and a
> bigwin for the Tasmanian Government's efforts to stymie scrutiny of
> itsforestry practices.
>
> 2.
> Brown needs to find over $239,000 by 29 June or face
> bankruptcyproceedings initiated by Forestry Tasmania's lawyers Page
> Seager. Underthe Constitution, Brown would be forced to give up his
> Senate seat ifdeclared bankrupt, leaving the choice of a replacement in
> the hands ofthe Tasmanian Government.
>
> The legal saga surrounding logging in the Wielangta Forest islengthy and
> complicated (the Senate Environment committee has anexcellent summary)
> but revolves around a simple fact: John Howard andPaul Lennon changed
> the rules after Brown won in court to nullify hisFederal Court win over
> Forestry Tasmania.
>
> Brown took Federal Court action in 2005 to prevent logging in
> theWielangta Forest north-east of Hobart. Brown's case centred on
> theinteraction of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
> ConservationAct 1999 and Regional Forestry Agreements which allowed
> states andlogging companies to avoid the impact of the EPBC if the
> Agreementprovided for protection for significant species.
>
> Brown argued that logging in the Wielangta Forest was not inaccordance
> with the protection measures described in the relevant RFAand therefore
> the protections of the EPBC  — in essence, that
> loggingneeded Commonwealth approval  — applied. In
> December 2006, FederalCourt Justice Marshall awarded a comprehensive
> victory to Brown,declaring that there was evidence the logging was
> harming three majorprotected species (the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle,
> the broad-toothedstag beetle and the swift parrot) and that the relevant
> protectivemeasures, based around a reserve system, did not comply with
> the RFAclause.
>
> Forestry Tasmania immediately appealed and nearly a year later,three
> Federal Court justices rules that the mere existence of a reservesystem
> was sufficient to meet the requirements of the RFA, regardlessof whether
> the reserve system actually protected any species or not.Marshall's
> findings that the logging had damaged the three protectedspecies still
> stood (and stand).
>
> Brown appealed to the High Court, but by then John Howard and PaulLennon
> had conspired to remove the basis for the legal action. On 23February
> 2007, Howard and Lennon had agreed to amend the relevant RFAso that the
> clause.
>
> The State agrees to protect the Priority Species listed inAttachment 2
> (Part A) through the CAR Reserve System or by applyingrelevant
> management prescriptions was removed and replaced with asimple statement
> that the reserve system protected threatened species.In effect, Lennon
> and Howard were agreeing that black was white. Therewas no Parliamentary
> scrutiny in either the Commonwealth or Tasmania ofthe amendment.
>
> The High Court refused to grant Brown special leave to appealbecause the
> new clause meant he had little chance of success. Itrefused to award
> costs against him, but Brown was still left the billfrom the Federal
> Court appeal hearing.
>
> Forestry Tasmania is owned by the Tasmanian Government and has
> closelinks with logging company Gunns. Gunns unsuccessfully tried
> tolitigate Brown and other environmentalists out of the forestry
> debatewith a punitive lawsuit that has progressively collapsed, although
> thecompany is still pursuing seven individuals.
>
> The Forestry Tasmania action, however, is a different matter. Thisis the
> Tasmania Government pursuing Brown for daring to beat it incourt to such
> an extent that it changed the rules to ensure victory.
>
> Brown has launched an appeal for donations.
> Posted by kate <mailto:laughable7250@...> on 09/06/09 at
> 03:50 PM
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Here's an extract from today's Crikey at Tasmanian Times about Bob's
case:
Tasmanian Times
<http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/browns-seat-at-ris\
k-over-legal-bill/>
1.
From Crikey today:
By Bernard Keane
Howard's dead hand behind the Bob Brown bankruptcy scare
The possible bankruptcy of Greens Senator Bob Brown as a consequence
ofForestry Tasmania's demand for legal fees would be a victory
frombeyond the political grave for Paul Lennon and John Howard and a
bigwin for the Tasmanian Government's efforts to stymie scrutiny of
itsforestry practices.
2.
Brown needs to find over $239,000 by 29 June or face
bankruptcyproceedings initiated by Forestry Tasmania's lawyers Page
Seager. Underthe Constitution, Brown would be forced to give up his
Senate seat ifdeclared bankrupt, leaving the choice of a replacement in
the hands ofthe Tasmanian Government.
The legal saga surrounding logging in the Wielangta Forest islengthy and
complicated (the Senate Environment committee has anexcellent summary)
but revolves around a simple fact: John Howard andPaul Lennon changed
the rules after Brown won in court to nullify hisFederal Court win over
Forestry Tasmania.
Brown took Federal Court action in 2005 to prevent logging in
theWielangta Forest north-east of Hobart. Brown's case centred on
theinteraction of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity
ConservationAct 1999 and Regional Forestry Agreements which allowed
states andlogging companies to avoid the impact of the EPBC if the
Agreementprovided for protection for significant species.
Brown argued that logging in the Wielangta Forest was not inaccordance
with the protection measures described in the relevant RFAand therefore
the protections of the EPBC  — in essence, that
loggingneeded Commonwealth approval  — applied. In
December 2006, FederalCourt Justice Marshall awarded a comprehensive
victory to Brown,declaring that there was evidence the logging was
harming three majorprotected species (the Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle,
the broad-toothedstag beetle and the swift parrot) and that the relevant
protectivemeasures, based around a reserve system, did not comply with
the RFAclause.
Forestry Tasmania immediately appealed and nearly a year later,three
Federal Court justices rules that the mere existence of a reservesystem
was sufficient to meet the requirements of the RFA, regardlessof whether
the reserve system actually protected any species or not.Marshall's
findings that the logging had damaged the three protectedspecies still
stood (and stand).
Brown appealed to the High Court, but by then John Howard and PaulLennon
had conspired to remove the basis for the legal action. On 23February
2007, Howard and Lennon had agreed to amend the relevant RFAso that the
clause.
The State agrees to protect the Priority Species listed inAttachment 2
(Part A) through the CAR Reserve System or by applyingrelevant
management prescriptions was removed and replaced with asimple statement
that the reserve system protected threatened species.In effect, Lennon
and Howard were agreeing that black was white. Therewas no Parliamentary
scrutiny in either the Commonwealth or Tasmania ofthe amendment.
The High Court refused to grant Brown special leave to appealbecause the
new clause meant he had little chance of success. Itrefused to award
costs against him, but Brown was still left the billfrom the Federal
Court appeal hearing.
Forestry Tasmania is owned by the Tasmanian Government and has
closelinks with logging company Gunns. Gunns unsuccessfully tried
tolitigate Brown and other environmentalists out of the forestry
debatewith a punitive lawsuit that has progressively collapsed, although
thecompany is still pursuing seven individuals.
The Forestry Tasmania action, however, is a different matter. Thisis the
Tasmania Government pursuing Brown for daring to beat it incourt to such
an extent that it changed the rules to ensure victory.
Brown has launched an appeal for donations.
Posted by kate <mailto:laughable7250@...> on 09/06/09 at
03:50 PM
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I've not verified this claim by John Hayward in his post today on
Tasmanian Times, but if he's right then we have outrage upon outrage as
Goliath uses bulldozers to crush our Bob.
"Here you see the full moral majesty of Barty's regime, moving
toeliminate a major part of what's respectable in Tassie politics
throughtheir control of the legal system. Remember that the
government/Forestry Tasmania defeated this environmental action on
appeal after amending the legislation on which Brown won the original
judgment"
John Hayward
John's reference to Barty is to David Bartlett, Tasmania's Labor
Premier.
John's email address is
hayward@...
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Read Tasmanian Times comments here: Readers' comments ....
<http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/browns-seat-at-ris\
k-over-legal-bill/>
--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., "Anne"
<cyberactivist@...> wrote:
>
> Short Video from Bob Brown & details on how to donate:
> Front page "sticky" in top spot...
> http://globalclimatechangeaction.org/BBAppeal
>
> For those wishing to contribute to the outrageous court costs awarded
against Bob Brown following his legal challenge against Forestry
Tasmania (destroyer of old growth), the details are:
>
> Name of account: Bob Brown Forest Account
> BSB No. 633 000
> A/C No. 125 133 793
> Name of person to be placed in the reference
>
> Or - Cheque made payable to Bob Brown Forest Account GPO Box 404,
Hobart, 7001.
>
> Huge ~THANK YOU~ to anyone who can...
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Click on "Read more here" to access readers' comments on Tasmanian Times
...
Brown's seat at risk over legal bill
[image]
Picture: ABC
ABC ONLINE
Australian Greens leader Bob Brown says he cannot afford to pay a
$240,000 Forestry Tasmania bill, a move which could see him lose his
seat in the Senate. Senator Brown was ordered to pay the money after
losing a federal court case to stop logging in the Wielangta Forest in
south-east Tasmania. He says he has been told he could end up bankrupt
if he does not pay, meaning he would lose his Senate seat. Read more
here <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/08/2592384.htm>
--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., "Anne"
<cyberactivist@...> wrote:
>
> Short Video from Bob Brown & details on how to donate:
> Front page "sticky" in top spot...
> http://globalclimatechangeaction.org/BBAppeal
>
> For those wishing to contribute to the outrageous court costs awarded
against Bob Brown following his legal challenge against Forestry
Tasmania (destroyer of old growth), the details are:
>
> Name of account: Bob Brown Forest Account
> BSB No. 633 000
> A/C No. 125 133 793
> Name of person to be placed in the reference
>
> Or - Cheque made payable to Bob Brown Forest Account GPO Box 404,
Hobart, 7001.
>
> Huge ~THANK YOU~ to anyone who can...
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Short Video from Bob Brown & details on how to donate:
Front page "sticky" in top spot...
http://globalclimatechangeaction.org/BBAppeal
For those wishing to contribute to the outrageous court costs awarded against
Bob Brown following his legal challenge against Forestry Tasmania (destroyer of
old growth), the details are:
Name of account: Bob Brown Forest Account
BSB No. 633 000
A/C No. 125 133 793
Name of person to be placed in the reference
Or - Cheque made payable to Bob Brown Forest Account GPO Box 404, Hobart, 7001.
Huge ~THANK YOU~ to anyone who can...
Achim Steiner, UNEP's executive director, says that "2008 was the first year
where there was more investment in non-carbon energy sources than in high carbon
and nuclear energy."
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47108
(1)
This Saturday, July 6, 1pm, Australian Museum, Sydney:
"Talk One" on Climate Change
more details:
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/news-and-events/events/austmusexhib-120509
---------------------
(2)
Then the BIG ONE!
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/news-and-events/events/climaterally-130609
National Climate Emergency Rally, 13 June
"Add your voice to the thousands of Australians who want action on climate
change from the Rudd government.
Join the Climate Emergency Rally in your city. Bring family and friends and wear
red for emergency. Let's use our power to build a safe climate future.
Climate change is the biggest challenge of our time. The rally is our chance to
show the government that the Australian public wants strong, swift action to
solve the climate crisis.
Voters elected Kevin Rudd on a promise to tackle climate change but he has
turned into little more than a cheerleader for the big polluters. Together we
can build a people's movement for a safe climate future. Let's use our power!"
Find a rally in your city
Adelaide
Where: Tarndanyangga (Victoria Square)
Time: 11am
Brisbane
Where: Queens Park, Elizabeth/George Streets
Time: 1pm
More info: David 0403 871 082 or Ewan 0401 234 610
Canberra
Where: Garema Place, Civic
Time: 1pm
Hobart
Where: Parliament Lawns, Hobart
Time: 12 noon
More info: Contact Jess on 0428 274 280
Melbourne
Where: State Library, cnr La Trobe and Swanston sts (march to Treasury Gardens)
Time: 1pm
More info: (03) 9639 3660 or info@...
Perth
Where: Forrest Place, Perth
Time: 12.30pm
Sydney
Where: Barangaroo, Hickson Road, Millers Point
Time: 10am
Wollongong
Where: Wollongong Mall amphitheatre(cnr Crown and Church sts)
Time: 12 noon
More info: Phone 0425 329 963
We need our political leaders to act for the climate. Add your voice on June 13
to demand they:
1. Invest in renewable energy
We want 100% renewable energy by 2020.
2. Create green collar jobs and support workers
We can renew our economy by creating hundreds of thousands of green jobs and
supporting workers to make the shift to sustainable industries.
3. Back a strong global deal
Australia must take the lead in global climate talks in Copenhagen 09, not
undermine them with an ineffective 5%-25% emissions target. We must support
those contries least responsible for climate change, including our Pacific
neighbours.
4. Make big polluters pay with strong climate policy
The government's draft Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme must not become law in
its current form. It would allow big companies to go on polluting and won't
reduce Australia's greenhouse pollution.
Join thousands of Australians to stand up for real and urgent action!
------------------------
(3)
Talk Two: Solving the Climate Crisis (25 July, 1pm)
John Hepburn, Greenpeace Climate and Energy Campaign Coordinator, will outline
how we can solve the climate crisis and explore the role of everyday people in
creating this change.
Event details
Location: Theatre G, Australian Museum, 6 College St, Sydney (Google map)
-------------------------
Talks are free with general entry to the Museum. General entry is $12 (adults)
and $8 (concession).
The first 5 people to confirm their attendance will receive a free pass to the
Museum. RSVP to Greenpeace on 1800 815 151 or email
greenpeace@.... RSVP recommended but not essential.
Of course you are right and this fellow is up himself. The essay is a
list of debating tricks that wouldn't stand up to any examination.
If every human now alive was to do subsistence farming, they would
not find enough arable land to do so. The only way we can generate
the current food production is through technology, which causes the
climate change.
Global human water use is higher than global rainfall over all the
land areas. We are mining the aquifers.
Every year, topsoil is irrevocably destroyed, reducing the carrying
capacity of the planet.
The seas have been fished out of many previously productive species.
We are destroying forests faster than they are growing.
Etc.
:)
Bob
--------------------------------------------------
Dr Bob Rich
http://bobswriting.comhttp://anxietyanddepression-help.comhttp://mudsmith.net
Commit random acts of kindness
---------------------------------------------------
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
from Energyresources energyresources@yahoogroups.com
ALAN PAGE <afmo@...> wrote...
What is going on here?
All annual or dedicated energy crops thqat must be harvested or tended
frequently should be banned. If energy is going to come from farms it
needs to be acquired from farm wastes or by-products. The discussions by
people like Meadows, Brown, Pimentel and Ehrlich are calls for
understanding of the overshoot and collapse situation that we are now well
into. The policies of our government, agricultural research,
agri-business, financial system and aid agencies have built this house of
cards around what is financially feasible for the very rich. These same
entities and individuals have systematically stripped rural societies of
their survival capacity and political power so that the ultra rich could
benefit from this planned destruction. I have a monograph by the New
England Small Farm Institute to document this process in the 50's in the US.
We are seeing the failure of environmental stability in the expanding dead
zones at the mouths of all rivers, the progress of desert encroachment, and
formation of failed states described by Lester Brown of the World Watch
Inst. Paul Ehrlich may have his timing slightly off but the basis of his
argument is sound. We are going to find that the existing population is
way too high for our declining water and energy supplies.
On this site there has been little discussion of the efficiencies of
various energy conversion systems for bio-based fuels. It is clear that
the use of bio conversion (as opposed to pyrolysis) has tremendous built in
energy costs that cause the system to be ineffective even if it were used
only on woody wastes where there is no additional energy expenditures
beyond just collecting it and moving it to the fermentation system. To
suggest that it is appropriate to use fertile or operable or even infertile
ag quality land for bio-energy is outrageous. There are emerging
techniques that need to be applied to depleted ag land to return it to
stability and productivity for the long run.
It is unfortunate that people here are unwilling to consider the tremendous
potential of the use of carbon negative energy systems to ameliorate the
variety of maladies that now face us including the desert encroachment,
failed states because of top soil loss, and the need to extract and hold
carbon from reentry to the atmosphere. The more our group has studied this
alternative system the greater the potential we find as Sir James Lovelock
has discussed in his recent interview in the Nature Magazine series.
Alan Page
I was recently made aware of an extensive list of Scientists who refute Global
Warming/Climate Change as a man made phenomena. These scientists do not dispute
that Climate Change is happening, they argue that it is a natural cycle. They go
on to ask governments to steer taxes into disaster preparation and continued
growth to tackle the problem. The link is here:
http://www.rense.com/general79/d3m.htm
My updated reply is here:
http://globalclimatechangeaction.org/4changedeniers
In line with their letter, have added one line to my reply:
"Disaster mitigation strategies must be put into place to protect those most
vulnerable."
""1. Population does not cause climate change
Advocates of population control say that one of the most effective measures
we can take to combat climate change is to sharply reduce the number of
humans on the planet. This wrongly focuses on treating one symptom of an
irrational, polluting system rather than dealing with the root causes.
People are not pollution. Blaming too many people for driving climate
change is like blaming too many trees for causing bushfires.
The real cause of climate change is an economy locked into burning fossil
fuels for energy and unsustainable agriculture. Unless we transform the
economy and our society along sustainable lines as rapidly as possible, we
have no hope of securing an inhabitable planet, regardless of population
levels.
Population-based arguments fail to admit that population levels will impact
on the environment in a very different way in a zero carbon emissions
economy. Making the shift to renewable energy -- not reduction in human
population -- is the most urgent task we face.""
etc...
No - I strongly disagree - people ARE the drivers of climate change -
because of "wants" - whether fostered by western capitalist idologies and
advertising - or traditional tribal drives (land division, for example) -
which, because of the very significant reduction in infant mortality(thanks
to fossil fuelled technology) , - is becoming a serious issue in many
countries..). plus we occupy space...and so obliterating the other
planetary organisms with whom we share this earth - and who provide
services for us - that money can't buy..
However uncomfortable - human population reduction is a necessary component
of responding to the current climate change state of affairs. It can be
done - especially in western countries - by eliminating the "natalist"
promotions - such as Australia's child payment schemes - and as an example,
hiking tax rates on folks with more than one child.
Human populations worldwide - are now 'infected' with EXPECTATIONS of a
western materialistic technological future - think of the Nano car in
India. It ain't gonna happen... we don't have the energy.
The human population spike is due ENTIRELY to the availability of cheap
energy - fossil fuel - no other reason... (we are absolutely NO different
to any other organism - given a 'shot' of energy - there is a peak in
population numbers - followed by a crash.) Think agriculture - one of the
most energy intensive industries in the West - and the model we've exported
everywhere. (hey - I'm not being inconsistent here - as the expansion of
agriculture everywhere is causing de-forestation - loss of carbon stores -
part of the problem - NO MATTER WHAT sort of agriculture is practiced). -
The Horse has Bolted......and we HAVE to discard anthropocentric mindsets..
Exactly what population level will be the 'sustainable' one - is a guess -
probably about 500 million.. - but that depends on all sorts of issues..
I for one am a supporter for 'letting ourselves down slowly' - 1 child per
couple...(better stated as 1/2 child per person) - some suggest this might
not be slow enough .. and it is highly possible that resource wars (which I
suspect will be inevitable-and soon) will speed the process...
happy times ahead..
Hugh
>By Simon Butler
>
>June 1, 2009 -- Climate change is the greatest challenge humanity has
>ever faced. The scientific evidence of the scale of the threat is
>overwhelming, compelling and frightening. Climate tipping points --
>points which if crossed will lead to runaway global warming -- are being
>crossed now.
>
>We live in a time of consequences. So itís crucial that the climate
>justice movement -- made up of those determined to take a stand now to
>win a safe climate future -- campaigns for the changes that can actually
>make a difference.
>
>A discussion has surfaced about whether population-control measures
>should be a key plank in the climate action movementís campaign arsenal.
>Below are 10 reasons why such a decision would hinder, rather than help,
>the necessary task of building a movement that can win.
>
>Full article at http://links.org.au/node/1076
By Simon Butler
June 1, 2009 -- Climate change is the greatest challenge humanity has
ever faced. The scientific evidence of the scale of the threat is
overwhelming, compelling and frightening. Climate tipping points --
points which if crossed will lead to runaway global warming -- are being
crossed now.
We live in a time of consequences. So it’s crucial that the climate
justice movement -- made up of those determined to take a stand now to
win a safe climate future -- campaigns for the changes that can actually
make a difference.
A discussion has surfaced about whether population-control measures
should be a key plank in the climate action movement’s campaign arsenal.
Below are 10 reasons why such a decision would hinder, rather than help,
the necessary task of building a movement that can win.
Full article at http://links.org.au/node/1076
Subscribe free to Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal at
http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373
You can also follow Links on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LinksSocialism
Offline 
Send Email
