Archive for the ‘Courts’ Category

Tattersalls and Tabcorp are playing a dangerous game – they could be up against retrospective legislation.
April 11, 2008

IF Tattersalls and Tabcorp think they’re going to win against the Brumby government so they can continue their greedy snuffling in the trough they’ll have to lobby very keenly.

THE ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FARMERS THAT SUED THE KIRNER GOVERNMENT OVER THE EVAPORATIVE BASINS IN THE MALLEE, IN AUSTRALIA’S FIRST CLASS ACTION, WERE WINNING THEIR CASE HANDS DOWN WHEN THE KIRNER GOVERNMENT REALISED THEY WERE ABOUT TO LOSE. AND ON THE DAY BEFORE THE COURT WAS TO BRING DOWN ITS JUDGEMENT THE STATE GOVERNMENT PASSED RETROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION THAT THREW THE FARMERS CASE OUT OF COURT

THEY LEGISLATED THAT THE GOVERNMENT COULDN’T BE SUED OVER THE MATTER. OF COURSE TATTERSALLS AND TABCORP HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF MONEY FOR “LOBBYING” SO THEY JUST MIGHT MAKE IT. OF COURSE BRUMBY MAY BE PLAYING AN EDGY GAME AND HOPING FOR OFFERS. NOTHING IS AS IT SEEMS.

This week’s evidence of why we shouldn’t trust governments and business
March 30, 2008

Apart from the stockbrokering firm who who went bust for a billion and who sold their clients’ holdings (not illegal just irregular), there are the various spins from federal and state government.

The new billion dollars that was for the Victoria’s Murray-Darling cocooning was actually not new money but for the food bowl programme under John Howard. The Australian allowed us to see that in the columns of Glen Milne’s excellent investigative piece. He didn’t castigate Minister Wong for being part of the misleading spin but maybe he should have. She will be the preventer of all good things to help climate change and the effects of same.

Yes, and the third example is again to do with water. Here’s a quote from political reporter, Rick Wallace, “The First Mildura Irrigation Trust is under investigation by Finance Minister Tim Holding for investing $4.5 million it borrowed from the state treasury in funds affected by the crisis. The trust which is facing the sack, is thought to have lost $750,000. Can we really trust anyone to do anything about climate change?” And it’s only Monday.

Brumby and Port of Melbourne are pushing Victoria on its face over channel dredging
February 25, 2008

The Port of Melbourne Authority, the Brumby government, and local businessmen who are all supporting the gouging of almost pristine Port Phillip Bay should have, for the planets sake, erred on the side of caution.

It appears that not only will they endanger the Bay but will also be lined up for the damage to the planet (remember UN laws allow us to sue those responsible for careless decisions leading to the delivery of carbon into the atmosphere).

A leaked UN study (John Vidal, The Guardian) states that the true scale of climate change emissions from shipping is almost three times higher than previously believed. Shipping is responsible for 1.12bn tons of CO2, or nearly 4.5% of all global emissions of main greenhouse gas. Aviation is responsible for 650 million tons, just half that of shipping. It’s under intense pressure to lower that figure so imagine how shipping is about to feel it.

What mugs we are in Victoria. We think the game now is fast development wins. Sorry, now the environment of the planet is going under, a slow approach to development is required. And it won’t be us controlling the visits of ships but the UN (with its laws on environmental responsibility). Perhaps all countries should retire from Free Trade and all the rampant carrying of cheap goods between countries. It would appear that we should have encouraged manufacture here. It’s a different game now boys, but of course we’ll try and squeeze as much money out of the transport system as we can.

Prime Minister Rudd reduces Garnaut to just another opinion
February 21, 2008

Prime Minister Rudd heralded Garnaut as the reason he didn’t go to the election with a climate change policy. He gave him a broad brief, a Royal Commission would have loved the same, and now pretends he hadn’t regarded Ross Garnaut as a serious climate expert.

Spin is okay I suppose(no, it’s not) but when the planet’s existence as we know it is at risk we can certainly blame Rudd and preceding governments as those who had no respect for the environment, and so hit them with writs under the UN legislation that enables such action.

Do we have precedents for their not having respect or concern for the environment? Sure do. There’s the dredging in Port Phillip Bay that has not had carbon release estimated. And then there’s the Tamar valley world’s largest pulp mill go-ahead. Neither of these have world’s best practice techniques. Dumping dredged toxic material in the same water it’s dredged from is a definite no-no as far as wbp is concerned. And the toxins to be used in pulp manufacture is not used in the wbp pulp mills in Scandinavian countries.

Al Fayed’s brother-in-law, landmine dealer Adnan Khashoggi, in carpark before Diana’s car left hotel
February 20, 2008

Conspiracy theorists should make something of Adnan Khashoggi, arms dealer and landmine manufacturer and retailer, being in the hotel carpark before Princess Di’s car left.

Investigators follow the money and Princess Di was losing him plenty on landmine deals. Shouldn’t Al-Fayed’s brother-in-law be a suspect on the basis that he would benefit immensely from her death? I think there’s a whole new story to investigate here. Certainly as Al-Fayed’s evidence was merely opinion. Was he trying to keep the heat off his brother-in-law?

President Kennedy was murdered by Aristotle Onassis and those authorities that wanted to be rid of him
February 20, 2008

It’s extraordinary that papers are reporting today that the Warren Commission, run by those who hated President Kennedy, found that there was no conspiracy, as if the House Select Committee on Assassinations of 1979 had not found¬† that there was “a probable conspiracy to murder Kennedy.”

Aristotle Onassis orchestrated a group that included security agencies who wanted America rid of Kennedy. The murder was motivated by Onassis who was sleeping with Jackie prior to Dallas ( documented by JFK’s secretary), WHO HATED JOE KENNEDY AND HIS SONS BECAUSE THEY KEPT HIM FROM DOING BUSINESS IN AMERICA.¬† See Cleaning Up (Sceptre 1993) for the details of the links between Onassis, Hoover ( both cross dressers – how satirical can you get?) and Iron Bob Maheu and Lee Harvey Oswald.

Onassis and Jackie were shadowed by the security agencies (to mention them means this story would be censored – see stories of previous censorship) in the Med on the Christina as JFK requested, and so the agencies knew of Onassis’s hatred of the Kennedys.

Onassis was also desperate to prevent Jackie going to Dallas with Jack. Onassis who was banned from entering America on the day of the assassination attended tJack’s wake at the White House. Imagine the red tape massacre to allow him in so quickly.

Aborigines aren’t the only ones that require counseling
February 15, 2008

Aborigines weren’t the only wounded that needed counseling on sorry day. The white kids from small towns that had fringe dwellers were also in dire need. They grew up hating aborigines because they imitated the behaviour of their parents and have never recovered from their racism.

Small town aborigines were not allowed to visit the local swimming pool, movie house, or any white sporting venue (golf courses). They were also illegally burned out by Victoria police. In Swan Hill the police travelled into New South Wales and burnt the humpy towns behind the Federal Hotel (patrons used aboriginal women and children) and on the Willows. The families were without possessions or food and they were told to walk to Mildura.

My friend Gilbert Britten’s cousin walked into the Murray and drowned himself after the fire. Myself and several friends realised that THE POLICE BEHAVED ILLEGALLY AND SO WE DESTROYED THE POLICE BOAT ANCHORED NEAR THE TOWN. I have never lost my anger that occurs when confronted by injustice.

All the kids who grew up in towns with fringe dwellers have never lost the racism that stemmed from the experiences of their childhood.

On Port Phillip Bay dredging Premier Brumby proves himself a lightweight
January 22, 2008

Today Premier Brumby proved himself a twit over the dredging of Port Phillip Bay. His logic was frightfully flawed. He said it was better for traffic flow in and around the CBD to have large cargo ships discharging cargo than thousands of smaller ones.

Anyone who has been in a traffic grid lock knows that waiting for a large anything to unload is going to create more waiting time than a small anything to unload. And again the small ships are usually owned by small operators who are not part of the monolithic corporations who have already helped ruin the planet with their over production of everything.

For a start we don’t have thousands of small ships unloading because we don’t have huge imports like the rest of the countries on the Pacific rim. We also don’t have a large amount of manufactured products leaving our shores because they’re all being manufactured in China and India.

Many transport operators have advised the investigative panels that the ships we are dredging for can already enter our Melbourne port because by the time they reach us they will be close to empty, having visited all the other Pacific ports before us. However these transport experts have not factored in oil tankers – the most dangerous creatures to Port Phillip Bay – for they will enter fully laden (see previous posts).

Who should you blame for the diseases that effect you? Dumping toxic waste into Port Phillip Bay is the work of political hooligans
January 22, 2008

Dumping the toxic waste from the dredging back into Port Phillip Bay is far the most irresponsible act a State government could sponsor.

Apart from the global warming gases released – often twenty times the strength of CO2 – the toxic subtstances will remain in the Bay forever as they climb through the food chain to reside with us. Their cancer causing capacities are legendary. So, who will you blame when your relatives, off-spring or yourself develop such symptoms?

Hardy paid out on asbestos because they knew at the time they were producing it that it was dangerous. The State government and individuals who are pushing this craziness know the properties of arsenic and cyanide and the many heavy metals that will be released from the river once dredging and dumping begins. They will be as responsible as any asbestos producer because they know the properties they are allowing to be released.

Loving Port Phillip Bay enough to use UN legislation for criminal negligence to the environment if dredging destroys the Bay
January 21, 2008

I am personally appalled that the dredging creates the slightest risk to Port Phillip Bay’s environment. From the late forties on I was on the sand at the edge of the sea during the summer months. I witnessed with delight the snapper boats hauling in their catch in the early morning. I saw dolphins up close, I was in clinker built rowing boats fishing for flathead and I was in yachts that skimmed the Bay waters. Later I spied on lovers in the sand dunes. My experience of life was moulded by the Bay.

It is a unique Bay and it has unique creatures, including the dolphins who evolved in the Bay. The Port Phillip Bay dolphins don’t occur anywhere else on the planet. And if you imagine that the pod of sixty couldn’t disappear when the toxic water becomes their habitat ask why researchers can no longer find the pod of sixty odd dolphins that once inhabited the Gippsland lakes before blue-green algae.

As the average person (yes, farmers, gardeners and all those who understand our climate is changing) is stricken by the possibility that life on earth is about to turn dangerous, our politicians and bureaucrats, who overule our wishes are oblivious to the amounts of CO2 created by the dredging. It has not even been calculated with due accuracy. It is no longer a metaphor that Brumby fiddles with his own deluded profit oriented mind set while Rome burns, the burning is happening. How can anyone have such a criminally negligent attitude to our Bay? Don’t they realise that they may be sued for criminal negligence under the proposed United Nations draft legislation currently being considered. The legislation provides a framework of laws by which those who have been hurt by those who have thwarted the correct processes for development and created global warming gases, may be gaoled for their trangressions. Brumby certainly can’t claim ignorance of what he is doing for that is not a defence in a criminal matter. He has done his best to circumvent impartial investigation by decreeing the dredging shall go ahead regardless of evidence.

Yes, and the CSIRO with its new charter, developed under a Liberal government but not addressed by the new Labor government, can be brought to account for their self-interested, bodgy business plan for the Bay.

I ‘ll be the first aboard such an action against Brumby and the others who have displayed no respect for their environment.