53 thoughts on “Monday Message Board”

1. James Hansen et al open letter in the NYT asking that nuclear power be reconsidered as a valid option.

2. Well folks, it has been two months until the low-information voter professional-moocher handout class were conned into voting for a fraud and the results bear me out. The spending of a bankrupt Australia is wholly out of control (we are about to be sold off en masse to China) and unemployment is still increasing. All this took place with the LNP in charge and for once I would like it if they took responsibility for installing literally the worst government that has ever existed in the history of the universe, literally. Time to kick this Prime Ministerial total failure (in every possible way) to the gutter.

3. I have been trying to research ‘petitions of right’ – according to Robert Shenton French et al “With limited exceptions [???] , contemporary Australian Crown proceedings legislation provides that civil proceedings, without restriction of type, can be initiated against the Crown. These statutes replace the old petition of right procedure for contract with the ordinary procedure for suits between citizens, and make provision for the equal treatment of the citizen and the executive by the court.” (Reflections on the Australian Constitution)

   In the Judiciary Act (1903), rather than use the word Crown, it phrases the suit as being against the Commonwealth – I think this is the incorrect phrasing, but you work with what you have.

   56 (1) (1) A person making a claim against the Commonwealth, whether in contract or in tort, may in respect of the claim bring a suit against the Commonwealth:
   (a) in the High Court;

   The Victorian Crown Proceedings Act (1958) has procedures for Claims against the Crown (this is not quite the same either as a Petition of Right, which was known as a Bill of Grace [as opposed to Bill of Parliament, Bill of Council etc]), but is better than the Commonwealth phrasing – for what exactly is supposed to be meant by Commonwealth in this regard – I think it’s just a pretty bit of phrasing with no real merit. However it does go on to say the action will be taken against the Crown under the title “the State of Victoria”, which again is a nice bit of legal sophistry to disguise the fact that the Crown and the State of Victoria are not the same thing at all. It would be like saying that the Crown was the Kingdom, when they are quite obviously distinct things.

   22 (1)Every proceeding which may be taken by or against the Crown under this Part shall be taken in the court which would have jurisdiction if the proceeding were between subject and subject.

   23 (1) (a) the Crown shall be liable in respect of any contract made on its behalf in the same manner as a subject is liable in respect of his contracts; and
   (b) the Crown shall be liable for the torts of any servant or agent of the Crown or independent contractor employed by the Crown as nearly as possible in the same manner as a subject is liable for the torts of his servant or agent or of an independent contractor employed by him.

   I think it would be better and more polite to write it up as a traditional Petition of Right, due to the relationship between Crown and Subject that that implies (and also because the tribunals commissioned to investigate the Petition of Right claims would be directed to do what “reason” “justice” “right” “law” and “good “faith” demanded — whereas I am not sure what the court justices are directed to do at all), and then to make the civil claim on top of this — and then this would be in effect like a Royal Commission.

   Because under this civil way the suppliant would have to claim past and ongoing damages due to historical, present and projected carbon emissions, I think it would be better to have something written so that the damages wouldn’t go to the suppliants, but to poor people abroad in other Commonwealth countries.