Dear Members,

I have just read and signed the online petition:

     "Protect the Tweed and Kyogle areas"

hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition
service, at:

     http://www.PetitionOnline.com/NRG01e/
<http://www.petitiononline.com/NRG01e/>

I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you might
agree, too.  If you can spare a moment, please take a look, and consider
signing it yourself.

Best wishes,

Peter Bright
Hobart



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Greetings to you all,
 
Your online "Online Resources Center" for all your Irrigation, Climate, Ground
Water, GIS, Remote Sensing and Spatial Hydrology FREE data needs…  Also lots
of Tutorials, Articles, Reviews, Hot Jobs and news about GIS, Remote Sensing and
Spatial Hydrology…

http://free-gis-data.blogspot.com/
 
Thanks for your time!
 
Sincerely,
The Moderator,
http://free-gis-data.blogspot.com
 
Note: This site will be updated with more and more free GIS stuff daily, so
please keep visiting in future!
Please ignore, and My sincere apologies if this is a repost !




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Please forgive me for sending out a second message so quickly,
The previous post was not edited completely when sent (it has been deleted).

1. http://globalclimatechangeaction.org/NukePoll2

i invite all CCA members to please view latest poll, send suggestions for
answers if something you want to say is not there (more can be added). Please
distribute this poll widely throughout your networks.

2.
http://www.facebook.com/photo_search.php?oid=107298993085&view=user#/group.php?g\
\id=107298993085&ref=mf

i have been given the honour of being appointed as an admin to a new Facebook
Group, "Nuclear Free Australia". If you are a user please join this group.
1033 Facebook friends have been invited.

3. http://globalclimatechangeaction.org/LOH

the Light on the Hill Campaign (LOH) is now supported by the Electrical Trades
Union, The Plumbers Union, Transport Workers Union, and the all encompassing
Council of Qld Unions, (Nurses Union, Teachers Union, Miscellaneous Workers
Union, etc etc.).
I will be attending the Bundaberg "smoko" next Wednesday the 1st of July with my
Greens flag. More details on the website. link above. Will share pix to the
website link above.

3a. http://globalclimatechangeaction.org/files/ETU_LOTH-Brisbane.pdf

If you can attend an event near you, there are downloadable fliers ready to
print available as an attachment to the above post at

3b. I have cross posted this information to both local and state wide friends
within the Qld Greens.

3c. The Qld Greens has an article on their front page (with picture of Drew
Hutton) supporting these actions. http://qld.greens.org.au

4. Years of sells off's by former governments sees us in the predicament we are
now facing as a state, nation and as current honourary "planetary custodians".

Selling off nation assets to the highest and most polluting bidders will not see
us through this mess we now find ourselves in.

Local jobs for local people
Locally produced sustainable crops
Localised clean and efficient power supplies
Clean water catching facilities
Adequate user friendly public transport...

is what is needed and necessary now.

Members, it is time to get active in a community group near you. The ALP needs
to clearly understand, from the ACTIONS of their voters, that they will not hold
onto power if they continue to sell of our futures.

5. Please ad me as a friend if you join Facebook.
link at bottom left side column of website:
http://www.new.facebook.com/anne.jackson

5a. Please "follow me" on twitter.
http://twitter/anneemu

No more political bullshit.

Anne Jackson nee Goddard

Hiya All :-)

Hope everyone has been keeping well.

I have just received the exciting news that starting next Monday in Cairns (22nd
June) there will be a series of meetings and rallies culminating in a Brissy
Rally on the 3rd of July. Below is further information. I hope these events
receive high attendance numbers. Please feel free to share this information with
networks, Facebook friends, via Twitter or via any means you can think of.
Privatisation = Theft.
I will be attending the Bundaberg meeting (carrying my trusty old Greens flag).
Further details can be provided can be provided via the Facebook Groups
mentioned at the end of this post or on request via cyberactivist@...
Warm regards
Anne

Monday 22/06/09 Cairns
(via Invite) QR Depot Meeting 7.30am - 9.30am
(public)
Rally 1pm Desley Boyles Office, Spence St, Cairns
Community Forum
6 - 8pm Queensland Railways Institute Inc.
43 Aumuller Street, Portsmith.

Tuesday 23/06/09 Townsville
Rally - 1pm Lindy Nelson Carr Office, Ross River Road
Community Forum -
6 - 8pm Wanderers Cricket Club, Hugh Street, Townsville

Wednesday 24/06/09 Bowen/Pring
QR Depot Meeting
Time and venue TBA

Thursday 25/06/09 Mackay
Rally - 10.00 am Old Town Hall Park, Sydney Street, Mackay
QR Depot Meeting 12:00, venue TBA
Community Forum 6-8pm
Harrup Park Country Club, Mackay

Friday 26/06/09 Moranbah
2x Community Forums
4:30pm - 6pm Moranbah Leagues Club
7:30pm - 9:30pm Moranbah Leagues Club

Monday 29/06/09 Rockhampton
Rally - 1pm Rob Schenwarten Office, Bolsover St, Rockhampton
Community Forum
6-8pm Frenchville Sports Club
105 Clifton Street, North Rockhampton

Tuesday 30/06/09 Gladstone
Rally - 1pm Goondoon St Courtyard, Opposite Council Chambers
Community Forum
6-8pm Rocky Glen Hotel, Dawson Highway, Gladstone

Wednesday 01/07/09 Bundaberg
"Smoko" Venue and time TBA

Thursday 01/07/09 Maryborough
Rally - 1pm Queens Park, Maryborough.
Community Forum:
6 - 8pm Carriers Arms Hotel, 405 Alice Street, Maryborough.
Community Forum

Thursday 02/07/09 Yandina
QR Depot Meeting "Smoko"
Venue and time TBA

Thursday 02/07/09 Toowoomba
Rally - 1pm Picnic Point Park, Tourist Road, Toowoomba.
Toowoomba Community Forum
6 - 8pm South Toowoomba Bowls Club 331 Hume Street, Toowoomba

Friday 03/07/09 Brisbane
Rally - Venue and time TBA

Note from Simmo (ETU):
ETU’s “Light on the Hill” campaign
against privatisation of State Govt assets starts this week
Putting labour values back into Labor
The Electrical Trades Union’s (ETU) Statewide campaign against the privatisation
of State Government assets will commence this week.
The Light on the Hill campaign will include workplace meetings, rallies, public
meetings in regional cities, radio and newspaper advertising and literature
drops.
The advertising starts in north Queensland this Thursday, with the first public
events being held in Cairns next Monday, 22 June. The campaign will then work
its way down the coast over the next two weeks with a major rally scheduled for
Brisbane on Friday July 3.
Today’s ETU announcement coincides with the unveiling of the State Government’s
2009-10 budget, which is expected to include proceeds from the sale of a number
of State Government corporations including most of Queensland Rail.
ETU secretary, Peter Simpson, said the campaign is about stopping this fire sale
of State Government assets and putting labour values back into the Labor Party.
“ETU members strongly oppose the sale of public assets such as Queensland Rail
and the port authorities. We are far from convinced that selling off important
public assets is a sensible long-term response to these short-term economic
difficulties.
“We also believe that if the State Government gets away with this then things
such as electricity and water will be next. That would be an even bigger
disaster for the people of Queensland,” Mr Simpson said.
Ongoing Light on the Hill campaign details will be released ahead of each event.
-----
There is also a couple of facebook groups you may like to join:
1. Light on the Hill (ETU)
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/event.php?eid=91050067034&ref=mf
2. Green Unionists
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=87600994619&ref=mf
_________________________________________________________________
View photos of singles in your area Click Here
http://dating.ninemsn.com.au/search/search.aspx?exec=go&tp=q&gc=2&tr=1&lage=18&u\
age=55&cl=14&sl=0&dist=50&po=1&do=2&trackingid=1046138&r2s=1&_t=773166090&_r=WLM\
_EndText

Nanosolar at $1 per watt - eventually!
<http://www.green-planet-solar-energy.com/nanosolar.html>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Solar energy <http://www.green-planet-solar-energy.com/index.html>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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]

Help Save the Earth, Time to Subsitute Hemp for Oil

Hemp for everything
<http://www.alternet.org/water/140739/help_save_the_earth%2C_time_to_sub\
situte_hemp_for_oil/>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well done Ewan and All.  Dave its good to see you coming in under
Climate Action Brisbane.

Cheers,

Brooke

On 16/6/09 0:42, Ewan Saunders wrote:
>
>
> Hi folks,
> Thanks to all who helped build, support and participate in Saturday's
> Climate Emergency Rally. Thanks to the others on the organising team -
> Drew, David, Charles, Sandra, Sue, Dom, and Jeff earlier on. Thanks to
> Nicole McIntyre for your beautiful music, Michael Cane for the brilliant
> PA, our excellent and moving speakers - Sam, Sandra, Simmo, John,
> Kirsten and Larissa, those who gave workshops, those who came on the
> day, and who spread the word far and wide. Thanks to Simmo and the ETU
> for helping with costs, the QCC for photocopying posters, the Resistance
> crew who put them up outside about 15 high schools and pulled off a
> great media stunt on the Friday, the many people who helped leaflet at
> Greenfest, Colman for giving us the Greenfest stall free of charge, etc
> etc etc. We had people who travelled from the Gold Coast, Sunshine
> Coast, northern NSW, who knows where else? We got national media,
> including channel 7 TV news, and across the country we were reported in
> international press. We put Penny Wong on the defensive - defending the
> CPRS and expressly opposing our demands. All this with a total media
> blackout in the leadup! Good work everyone.
>
> Here's some national and international coverage I dredged up.
> Cheers,
> Ewan
>
> National
> http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/798/41126
> <http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/798/41126>
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/13/2597392.htm
> <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/13/2597392.htm>
>
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/rally-declares-climate-emergenc\
y-20090614-c7bj.html
>
<http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/rally-declares-climate-emergen\
cy-20090614-c7bj.html>
>
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/stop-wasting-time-and-save-the-planet-mr-rudd-2\
0090613-c6oo.html
>
<http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/stop-wasting-time-and-save-the-planet-mr-rudd-\
20090613-c6oo.html>
>
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/climate-activists-blockade-rudd\
s-office-20090613-c6oe.html
>
<http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/climate-activists-blockade-rud\
ds-office-20090613-c6oe.html>
> http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuId=77&ContentID=147927
> <http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuId=77&ContentID=147927>
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/15/2598208.htm
> <http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/15/2598208.htm>
>
> International
>
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/80855/-thousands-in-australia-rally-to-urge-gr\
eater-environmental-protection.html
>
<http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/80855/-thousands-in-australia-rally-to-urge-g\
reater-environmental-protection.html>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8098452.stm
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8098452.stm>
> http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=976140&lang=eng_news
> <http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=976140&lang=eng_news>
> http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-06-13-voa11.cfm
> <http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-06-13-voa11.cfm>
>
>


[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]

LATEST: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/11/2594942.htm "Public
donations pay Brown's legal bill"
:-)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tasmania's Mercury article
<http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2009/06/11/78535_todays-news.html>



[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.com
http://anxietyanddepression-help.com
http://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]

Tasmanian Times
<http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/browns-seat-at-ris\
k-over-legal-bill/>



[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]

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/solar-rebate-to-end-within-hours-2\
0090609-c1j7.html#

Grrrr!

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...

NIWA
<http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/cli\
var/ipcc>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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

It's my pleasure to let you know that the next issue of my newsletter is
now available for viewing. This completes the 8th year of its publication,
and you can find a huge amount of interesting stuff in the archives,
    http://mudsmith.net/bobbing.html
    The current issue is at
    http://mudsmith.net/bobbing8-7.html

    Contributions always welcome.
    :)
    Bob
--------------------------------------------------
Dr Bob Rich
http://bobswriting.com
http://anxietyanddepression-help.com
http://mudsmith.net
Commit random acts of kindness
    ---------------------------------------------------

(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.