PDA

View Full Version : Bob Brown facing bankruptcy over court fees



Capablanca-Fan
08-06-2009, 11:00 PM
Greenstapo leader Bob Brown tried to put loggers out of business, but now they could be doing the same to him (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25605522-5005961,00.html):


GREENS leader Senator Bob Brown ... last week received a letter from Forestry Tasmania, a wholly-owned State Government business, demanding he pay nearly $240,000 in legal costs by June 29.

The Greens Senator was ordered to pay the fees by the Federal Court, after he lost on appeal his long running court case against Forestry Tasmania to halt logging in the Wielangta State Forest on Tasmania’s east coast.... But he said he did not personally have the funds available to pay the legal demand, and could not raise them in the next three weeks…

Any senator declared bankrupt or insolvent — or who is forced to enter into a payment schedule with creditors — is immediately disqualified from holding a seat in Federal Parliament.

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2009, 03:43 AM
I'd like to move the Brown thing somewhere else as it is not relevant to global warming as such - the costs issue arises from a series of court cases about threatened species.

The original case was won by Brown and then overturned on appeal. The appeal court was extremely critical of the original judge, who they said had missed a relatively straightforward line of argument that would have quashed Brown's case much earlier - hence a great deal of court effort and cost was wasted exploring issues not relevant to the correct outcome of the case.

I therefore have a vestige of sympathy for Brown over the size of the bill, but not very much; he chose to take this case on and should have known the risks.

Brown is 64 and can't go on forever; the party has to face the prospect of political life without him at some stage.

Capablanca-Fan
09-06-2009, 06:59 PM
I'd like to move the Brown thing somewhere else as it is not relevant to global warming as such — the costs issue arises from a series of court cases about threatened species.

The original case was won by Brown and then overturned on appeal. The appeal court was extremely critical of the original judge, who they said had missed a relatively straightforward line of argument that would have quashed Brown's case much earlier — hence a great deal of court effort and cost was wasted exploring issues not relevant to the correct outcome of the case.

I therefore have a vestige of sympathy for Brown over the size of the bill, but not very much; he chose to take this case on and should have known the risks.

Brown is 64 and can't go on forever; the party has to face the prospect of political life without him at some stage.
Go for it; maybe State Politics thread. Our system of loser pays, followed by most Western countries, is far better than the Yankee system which does nothing to discourage vexatious litigation. In America, Brown would have had no risk for this lawsuit that could have cost lots of jobs.

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2009, 08:54 PM
Go for it; maybe State Politics thread.

Gave it its own thread (though it will probably be a small one) since Brown is now a federal senator and he was taking his action under the federal EPBC Act (that said, it's also the Tasmanian forestry battle played out on a federal stage).


Our system of loser pays, followed by most Western countries, is far better than the Yankee system which does nothing to discourage vexatious litigation. In America, Brown would have had no risk for this lawsuit that could have cost lots of jobs.

Brown did manage to get out of being forced to pay FT's costs in his disallowed High Court appeal attempt against FT's successful appeal. But in his High Court appeal, the High Court refused him permission to appeal in a split decision specifically because the subsequent changes to the relevant legislation meant that any success in his appeal would be legally meaningless.

Desmond
10-06-2009, 10:20 PM
Brown is 64 and can't go on forever; the party has to face the prospect of political life without him at some stage.
I have to wonder if they wouldn't be better off without him. He always manages to find a microphone but does he say anything worth listening to.

Kevin Bonham
11-06-2009, 01:50 PM
Forestry Tasmania (disclaimer: I have sometimes worked for these people) have responded to the claims by Brown as follows:

* The debt has existed since Jan 2008 (I can vouch that this is definitely true).
* FT offered Brown that he could settle the debt for $200K instead of the $240K owing.
* Brown declined and counter-offered to settle for $140K.
* FT considered this inadequate and decided to take him to the cleaners.

antichrist
11-06-2009, 09:00 PM
I have to wonder if they wouldn't be better off without him. He always manages to find a microphone but does he say anything worth listening to.

I reakon every word is almost priceless except...

When that swine flu came out he was saying to quarantine them or something. Remember the hooha when Fred Nile suggested that we quarantine the first homosexuals (as they were known in those days) returning from the USA Mardi Gra in about 1980> when AIDS first came out in the West. There was a big homosexual and breast beating and righteous about that against Fred. But Fred may have been right, it may have saved thousands of homosexual lives in Australia over the next 20 years. Not that Fred may have necessarily cared much for those lives - only tongue wagging on that one.

In the mid ninties we certainly did have the gay plague. In Sydney at least coz I used to see their mag with hundreds of new arbituaries each week.

Now don't bar me over anything politicially incorrect coz I am in the middle of an interesting game, not really interesting but am winning I believe.

arosar
19-06-2009, 11:01 PM
Now tell me youse blokes. What do youse reckon about that sheila who took her little baby into the Senate chamber yesterday? I gotta tell youse, I am so pissed off by that! I reckon it was just a stunt. The Senate is no place for children. Now they're goin' off about child-friendliness and all this crap. I mean look, we got women in the office, but they don't bloody bring their babies to work! So what's so bloody special about this woman Hanson-Young or whatever her name is?

AR

Basil
20-06-2009, 03:13 AM
What do youse reckon about that sheila who took her little baby into the Senate chamber yesterday? I gotta tell youse, I am so pissed off by that! I reckon it was just a stunt.
Stunt or not - that mealy-mouthed "distressed" clown is the person 'we've' (read 'some tossers somewhere') have appointed as good governance oversight in this country.

May God help us all. Or you can just give up, like I have.

Igor_Goldenberg
20-06-2009, 12:22 PM
I agree with Howard. Her behaviour is appalling, but the fact that the likes of her are elected even more appalling.

antichrist
20-06-2009, 12:35 PM
What is wrong with all you fuddy duddies - I am older than most of you and even I am more tolerant that you misogamist (whatever they are called). It was only for a quick vote the baby was in there for, and due to separation of 24 hours that mum and babe were about to have the mum wanted to have every precious min with her babe.

Many senators are only there to further some greedy sectional interests, they don't really care about the country. The Greens do care about the country they are organic and babies are also organic - get it. That is Byron Bay hype but you will never catch me uttering that word holistic! They can shove that one.

Kevin Bonham
20-06-2009, 01:23 PM
She's not the first to do it - for instance Michelle O'Byrne (Labor, Tas, now a state MP) used to do it several years ago.

Also she has done it before without problems, so while I agree that the Greens are prone to stunts, in this case the claim that it is a stunt isn't very convincing.

Given that it was against standing orders there was always the risk standing orders could be enforced and therefore she was responsible for the situation that arose. It would have been better to seek changes to the standing orders first.

Probably the best argument against allowing 2-3 year olds into parliamentary chambers is that they should not be corrupted by exposure to people below their maturity level.

antichrist
20-06-2009, 01:27 PM
Don't worry if the woman was breast feeding those male senators would have been perving. Poviding the baby does not disturb the house so what. Like this board it may get the members to realise that there is a life outside of their own self importance.

Spiny Norman
21-06-2009, 06:25 AM
Probably the best argument against allowing 2-3 year olds into parliamentary chambers is that they should not be corrupted by exposure to people below their maturity level.
:clap: :clap: :clap:

Capablanca-Fan
21-06-2009, 01:36 PM
What is wrong with all you fuddy duddies - I am older than most of you and even I am more tolerant that you misogamist (whatever they are called).
Older isn't always wider. Misogamist = hater of marriage; misogynist = hater of women, while you're a misotheist :P