Former national security, foreign policy, and intelligence officials politely tell U.S. federal court that Trump is undermining national security

STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al.  v  DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the States, et al., Response to Emergency Motion Exhibit A:

We, Madeleine K. Albright, Avril D. Haines, Michael V. Hayden, John F. Kerry, John E. McLaughlin, Lisa O. Monaco, Michael J. Morell, Janet A. Napolitano, Leon E. Panetta, and Susan E. Rice declare as follows:

1. We are former national security, foreign policy, and intelligence officials in the United States Government:

a. Madeleine K. Albright served as Secretary of State from 1997 to 2001. A refugee and naturalized American citizen, she served as U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations from 1993 to 1997 and has been a member of the Central Intelligence Agency External Advisory Board since 2009 and the Defense Policy Board since 2011, in which capacities she has received assessments of threats facing the United States.

b. Avril D. Haines served as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2013 to 2015, and as Deputy National Security Advisor from 2015 to January 20, 2017.

c. Michael V. Hayden served as Director of the National Security Agency from 1999 to 2005, and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2006 to 2009.

d. John F. Kerry served as Secretary of State from 2013 to January 20, 2017.

2. We have collectively devoted decades to combatting the various terrorist threats that the United States faces in a dynamic and dangerous world. We have all held the highest security clearances. A number of us have worked at senior levels in administrations of both political parties. Four of us (Haines, Kerry, Monaco and Rice) were current on active intelligence regarding all credible terrorist threat streams directed against the U.S. as recently as one week before the issuance of the Jan. 27, 2017 Executive Order on “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (“Order”).

3. We all agree that the United States faces real threats from terrorist networks and must take all prudent and effective steps to combat them, including the appropriate vetting of travelers to the United States. We all are nevertheless unaware of any specific threat that would justify the travel ban established by the Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017. We view the Order as one that ultimately undermines the national security of the United States, rather than making us safer. In our professional opinion, this Order cannot be justified on national security or foreign policy grounds. It does not perform its declared task of “protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” To the contrary, the Order disrupts thousands of lives, including those of refugees and visa holders all previously vetted by standing procedures that the Administration has not shown to be inadequate. It could do long-term damage to our national security and foreign policy interests, endangering U.S. troops in the field and disrupting counterterrorism and national security partnerships. It will aid ISIL’s propaganda effort and serve its recruitment message by feeding into the narrative that the United States is at war with Islam. It will hinder relationships with the very communities that law enforcement professionals need to address the threat. It will have a damaging humanitarian and economic impact on the lives and jobs of American citizens and residents. And apart from all of these concerns, the Order offends our nation’s laws and values.

4. There is no national security purpose for a total bar on entry for aliens from the seven named countries. Since September 11, 2001, not a single terrorist attack in the United States has been perpetrated by aliens from the countries named in the Order. Very few attacks on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001 have been traced to foreign nationals at all. The overwhelming majority of attacks have been committed by U.S. citizens. The Administration has identified no information or basis for believing there is now a heightened or particularized future threat from the seven named countries. Nor is there any rational basis for exempting from the ban particular religious minorities (e.g., Christians), suggesting that the real target of the ban remains one religious group (Muslims). In short, the Administration offers no reason why it abruptly shifted to group-based bans when we have a tested individualized vetting system developed and implemented by national security professionals across the government to guard the homeland, which is continually re-evaluated to ensure that it is effective.

5. In our professional opinion, the Order will harm the interests of the United States in many respects:

a. The Order will endanger U.S. troops in the field. Every day, American soldiers work and fight alongside allies in some of the named countries who put their lives on the line to protect Americans. For example, allies who would be barred by the Order work alongside our men and women in Iraq fighting against ISIL. To the extent that the Order bans travel by individuals cooperating against ISIL, we risk placing our military efforts at risk by sending an insulting message to those citizens and all Muslims.

b. The Order will disrupt key counterterrorism, foreign policy, and national security partnerships that are critical to our obtaining the necessary information sharing and collaboration in intelligence, law enforcement, military, and diplomatic channels to address the threat posed by terrorist groups such as ISIL. The international criticism of the Order has been intense, and it has alienated U.S. allies. It will strain our relationships with partner countries in Europe and the Middle East, on whom we rely for vital counterterrorism cooperation, undermining years of effort to bring them closer. By alienating these partners, we could lose access to the intelligence and resources necessary to fight the root causes of terror or disrupt attacks launched from abroad, before an attack occurs within our borders.

c. The Order will endanger intelligence sources in the field. For current information, our intelligence officers may rely on human sources in some of the countries listed. The Order breaches faith with those very sources, who have risked much or all to keep Americans safe – and whom our officers had promised always to protect with the full might of our government and our people.

d. Left in place, the Executive Order will likely feed the recruitment narrative of ISIL and other extremists that portray the United States as at war with Islam. As government officials, we took every step we could to counter violent extremism. Because of the Order’s disparate impact against Muslim travelers and immigrants, it feeds ISIL’s narrative and sends the wrong message to the Muslim community here at home and all over the world: the U.S. government is at war with them based on their religion. The Order may even endanger Christian communities, by handing ISIL a recruiting tool and propaganda victory that spreads their message that the United States is engaged in a religious war. e. The Order will disrupt ongoing law enforcement efforts. By alienating Muslim-American communities in the United States, it will harm our efforts to enlist their aid in identifying radicalized individuals who might launch attacks of the kind recently seen in San Bernardino and Orlando.

f. The Order will have a devastating humanitarian impact. When the Order issued, those disrupted included women and children who had been victimized by actual terrorists. Tens of thousands of travelers today face deep uncertainty about whether they may travel to or from the United States: for medical treatment, study or scholarly exchange, funerals or other pressing family reasons. While the Order allows for the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security to agree to admit travelers from these countries on a case-by-case basis, in our experience it would be unrealistic for these overburdened agencies to apply such procedures to every one of the thousands of affected individuals with urgent and compelling needs to travel.

g. The Order will cause economic damage to American citizens and residents. The Order will affect many foreign travelers, particularly students, who annually inject hundreds of billions into the U.S. economy, supporting well over a million U.S. jobs. Since the Order issued, affected companies have noted its adverse impacts on many strategic economic sectors, including defense, technology, medicine, culture and others…….

The shocking truth about historic institutional child sexual abuse in Australia

A Child’s Morning Prayer

Lord, I awake and see your light,
For You have kept me through the night,
To You I lift my hands and pray,
Keep me from sin throughout this day,
And if I die before it's done,
Save me through Jesus Christ, Your Son.

Amen.

A Child’s Night Prayer

Angel of God, my Guardian dear,

to whom His love commits me here,

ever this night be at my side,

to light and guard,

to rule and guide.

Amen

Origin unknown

The Commonwealth of Australia Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse held its first public hearing in Sydney from Monday 16 to Thursday 19 September 2013. The Royal Commission's first public hearing into the Catholic Church in Australia and child sexual abuse began on Monday, 9 December 2013 and multiple hearings relating to Catholic institutions and specific clergy followed over the next four years. 

Excerpts from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Public Hearing into Catholic Church Authorities, Case Study 50, transcript, 6 February 2017:

1. This is the Royal Commission’s 50th public hearing…..

7. It was plain that hearings were needed to examine the responses of faith-based institutions, given that, as at the end of 2016, 60% of survivors attending a private session reported abuse in those institutions. Of those survivors, nearly two thirds reported abuse in Catholic institutions. While the percentage has varied over time, at present over 37% of all private session attendees reported sexual abuse in a Catholic institution. Consequently Catholic institutions were a key part of the Royal Commission’s public hearings. …….

26. Between January 1980 and February 2015, 4,444 people alleged incidents of child sexual abuse made to 93 Catholic Church authorities. These claims related to over 1000 separate institutions.

27. The claims survey sought information about the people who made claims of child sexual abuse. Where the gender of people making a claim was reported, 78% were male and 22% were female. Of those people who made claims of child sexual abuse received by religious orders with only religious brother members, 97% were male.

28. The average age of people who made claims of child sexual abuse, at the time of the alleged abuse, was 10.5 for girls and 11.6 for boys. The average time between the alleged abuse and the date a claim was made was 33 years.

29. The claims survey sought information about alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse. A total of 1,880 alleged perpetrators were identified in claims of child sexual abuse. Over 500 unknown people were identified as alleged perpetrators. It cannot be determined whether any of those people whose identities are unknown were identified by another claimant in a separate claim.

30. Of the 1,880 identified alleged perpetrators:

a. 597 or 32% were religious brothers

b. 572 or 30% were priests

c. 543 or 29% were lay people

d. 96 or 5% were religious sisters.

31. Of all alleged perpetrators, 90% were male and 10% were female.

32. The Royal Commission surveyed 75 Catholic Church authorities with priest members, including archdioceses, dioceses and religious orders about the number of their members who ministered in Australia between 1 January 1950 and 31 December 2010. Ten Catholic religious orders with religious brother or sister members provided the same information about their members.

33. This information, when analysed in conjunction with the claims data, enabled calculation of the proportion of priests and religious brother and sister members of these Catholic Church authorities who ministered in this period and who were alleged perpetrators.

34. Of priests from the 75 Catholic Church authorities with priest members surveyed, who ministered in Australia between 1950 and 2010, 7.9% of diocesan priests were alleged perpetrators and 5.7% of religious priests were alleged perpetrators. Overall, 7% of priests were alleged perpetrators.

35. The Archdiocese of Adelaide and the Dominican Friars had the lowest overall proportion of priests who ministered in the period 1950 to 2010 and were alleged perpetrators, at 2.4% and 2.1% respectively.

36. The following five archdioceses or dioceses with priest members which had the highest overall proportion of priests who ministered in the period 1950 to 2010 and who were alleged perpetrators:

a. 11.7% of priests from the Diocese of Wollongong were alleged perpetrators

b. 13.9% of priests from the Diocese of Lismore were alleged perpetrators

c. 14.1% of priests from the Diocese of Port Pirie were alleged perpetrators

d. 14.7% of priests from the Diocese of Sandhurst were alleged perpetrators

e. 15.1% of priests from the Diocese of Sale were alleged perpetrators.

37. The following five religious orders with priest members had the highest overall proportion of priests who ministered in the period 1950 to 2010 and who were alleged perpetrators:

a. 8.0% of priests from the Vincentians – The Congregation of the Mission were alleged perpetrators

b. 13.7% of priests from the Pallottines – Society of the Catholic Apostolate were alleged perpetrators

d. 17.2% of priests from the Salesians of Don Bosco were alleged perpetrators

e. 21.5% of priests from the Benedictine Community of New Norcia were alleged perpetrators.

38. In relation to religious orders with religious brother and sister members, the Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart and the Sisters of Mercy (Brisbane) had the lowest overall proportions of members who were alleged perpetrators, at 0.6% and 0.3% respectively.

39. The following five religious orders with only religious brother members had the highest overall proportion of religious brothers who ministered in the period 1950 to 2010 and who were alleged perpetrators:

a. 13.8% of De La Salle Brothers were alleged perpetrators

b. 20.4% of Marist Brothers were alleged perpetrators

c. 21.9% of Salesians of Don Bosco brothers were alleged perpetrators

d. 22.0% of Christian Brothers were alleged perpetrators

e. 40.4% of St John of God Brothers were alleged perpetrators.

c. 13.9% of priests from the Marist Fathers – Society of Mary were alleged perpetrators, as distinct from the Marist Brothers.

NOTE:

The St. John of God Brothers were established in Australia in the 1940s by eight men, six of whom were believed to be paedophiles. Brothers Kilian Herbert and Laurence Hartley arrived in Sydney from Ireland on 11 August 1947 to head this small group.

Previous North Coast Voices posts on child sexual abuse can be found here.

News.com.au, 6 February 2017:

A brief of evidence concerning historical claims of sexual abuse at the hands of Cardinal George Pell has been delivered to prosecutors for consideration.

Victoria Police confirmed with AAP on Monday night that investigators had delivered the brief to the Office of Public Prosecutions.

It's a significant development in the case since three police travelled to Rome in October to speak with the former Ballarat priest and Melbourne archbishop.

Cardinal Pell now resides full-time at the Vatican. He cited ill-health as a reason he could not travel back to Australia to give evidence in last year's royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse, appearing instead via video link.

Allegations emerged in 2015 from two men who said they were groped as children by Cardinal Pell when he was a priest in Ballarat during the 1970s.

Another man claimed he saw the priest expose himself to young boys in the late 1980s.

Cardinal Pell previously released a statement rejecting "all and every allegation of sexual abuse" and would continue co-operating with Victoria Police until the investigation was finalised.

The Northern Star, 7 February 2017:

WEDNESDAY 4.30pm: NEARLY 14% of Lismore's most experienced Catholic priests were accused of sexually abusing children by 2010 but the diocese's spokesman, the Most Reverend Geoffrey Jarrett, has reserved comment.

Between 52 and 64 priests have served in the Diocese of Lismore in each decade since 1950, with 129 priests having served in the area by 2010, detailed data presented to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has shown.

Some 18 of those priests, or 13.9%, have been accused of sexually abusing children throughout their careers, marking Lismore as one of the nation's top five worst dioceses for child sex accusations against the Church.

Too soon to comment: Diocese of Lismore

But Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese Bishop Jarrett, standing in while Bishop-elect Father Gregory Homeming prepares for his ordination, said it was too early to comment publicly on findings.

"My response is that we are in the early days of the Royal Commission's present three week hearing, and until it completes its investigation, it would be premature to comment on the first release of statistics," Bishop Jarrett said via email to The Northern Star.

"We would expect to have a fuller picture and a wider range of issues as time goes on and I will be available for comment at the end of the hearing."

The Noongar People of West Australia may just have saved the southern section of The Great Barrier Reef from degradation by the foreign-owned Adani Group

In the beginning…

February 2016 statement:

We are a group of Noongar people from the South West region of Western Australia seeking funding to support our legal costs to oppose the 6 Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) settlements with the South West Land & Sea Council (SWALSC) and the State Government.

Our group was founded in December 2014 to oppose the 6 ILUA settlements and to campaign against the authorization meetings held from 31 January 2015 to 28 March 2015.

 With an estimated 35,000 Noongar people in the south west region. We believe that the ILUA settlements discriminate against our people. The Noongar people are required to surrender all land in return for small pockets of land set aside under the deal. We are required to surrender our traditional ownership and native title rights, to have the power and civil right to negotiate for any royalties forthcoming. Through this ILUA, we are also required to surrender ('relinquish') all rights to challenge against 'negligence' under 'duty of care' within civil law legal obligations, any hurt, suffering and pain from the enactment of the native title act and all other acts.

 The Noongar people and Non-Aboriginal people will have no say about land developments and the clearance of large areas of bushlands, thus preventing our say into any further destructions of 'natural resources' (food, fauna and habitat) for our native wildlife and surrounding environment within the South West lands. Additionally, to this we will have no say about corporate control via mining development entities and prevention of the devastating impact on the environment, they withhold. These are just a few of the 'unfair treatment' and blatant disregard of civil rights requirements of this ILUA settlement…..

See full text here.

High Court of Australia transcript McGlade v Registrar  Native Title Tribunal & Ors here.

The implications…..

Townsville Bulletin, 3 February 2017:

ADANI's $21 billion coal mine has been thrown into doubt by a shock Federal Court decision that threatens to void scores of native title deals across Australia.

Both the State and Federal governments were last night scrambling to secure legal advice on the implications of the decision, which has sent the nation's mining industry into meltdown.

The Bulletin has learned Attorney-General George Brandis has been poring over the judgment to determine whether urgent legislation was required to avert a crisis.

And Adani has sought assurances from the Palaszczuk Government that the decision, handed down in Perth on Thursday, will not derail its planned Galilee Basin mega mine.

In the McGlade v Registrar National Native Title Tribunal decision, the Full Federal Court ruled a native title agreement covering a vast area across the southwest of Western Australia invalid.

Industry insiders have warned the decision threatens the validity of scores of native title agreements worth billions of dollars struck between tribes and developers across Australia since 2010.

An Adani spokesman told the Bulletin the company had sought legal advice on the implications of the case on its project.

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has also requested urgent advice on what impact the decision will have on billions of dollars worth of development projects either completed, under way or planned.

Minister for State Development and Minister for Natural Resources and Mines Anthony Lynham said he would seek discussions on the issue with colleagues in the Commonwealth, states and territories.

And he conceded the Federal Court decision would potentially also impact non-mining projects.

"Yesterday's Federal Court decision could be very significant nationally, and not just for the resources sector," he said.

"The government is awaiting advice from Crown Law on the implications of this decision for Queensland, and other governments are likely to be doing the same across the country."…..

The Western Australia case concerned an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) struck between members of the Noongar tribe and the WA Government.

The deal, in which the Noongar people were to receive $1.3 billion in cash, land and benefits over 12 years, took five years to establish and was hailed as the largest native title agreement in Australian history.

But the Full Court upheld a challenge by members of the Noongar claim who said that they had not signed the final agreement and that it must therefore be declared invalid.

The decision went against the ruling in 2010 case QGC Pty Ltd v Bygrave and Others, which found an ILUA could be registered if at least one of the named applicants was party to it.

Legal experts and political insiders last night said the only way to avoid mass confusion surrounding the validity of ILUAs would be to amend the federal Native Title Act.

"The mining industry, it is fair to say, is in meltdown over this,'' said one senior industry source.

"This has devastating implications — not just for mining but for any development that was subject to an indigenous land use agreement.''

A spokeswoman for Senator Brandis said the Commonwealth was carefully studying the decision…..

The Commonwealth is considering what steps may need to be taken to deal with the issues raised by the Full Court and provide certainty for all parties in the native title system."

A High Court challenge to the decision would take a minimum of 12 months to process.

Adani has already indicated that any protracted delays at this point would force it to walk away from the giant Carmichael mine project.

The project has become a lightning rod for the green movement, which has mobilised nationally to delay and obstruct it.

Minister for Northern Australia Matt Canavan said the Federal Government was seeking further advice on implications for mining and other developments.

Trump to build The Wall and start roundup and gaoling of undocumented immigrants in the face of strong resistance

The Guardian, 26 January 2017:

An executive order on “sanctuary cities” signed by Donald Trump on Wednesday has placed in the crosshairs over 400 cities and counties that offer some form of safe haven to America’s 11 million undocumented migrants.

These localities include some of the largest, most progressive metropolises in the United States, many of which have already begun preparations to fight one of Trump’s most aggressive campaign pledges– to force compliance with federal immigration agencies in a bid to ramp up deportations. The beginnings of that pledge have now been formalised by executive action within Trump’s first week in office.

The order issued on Wednesday claims these jurisdictions “willfully violate federal law” causing “immeasurable harm to the American people”, and instructs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the US Department of Justice (DoJ) to explore which cities could be in violation of federal law and ways of stripping sanctuary jurisdictions of federal grant money, which amounts to billions of dollars across many different federal departments.

The order also instructs the US attorney general to explore “appropriate enforcement action” against any local government agency it deems to be in violation of a broad federal law that encourages – but does not compel – communication between local authorities and the DHS.

Trump’s mandate also issues an extraordinary instruction to the DHS to publish a weekly list of so-called “criminal actions” committed by undocumented migrants and publicly announce which jurisdictions had previously “ignored or otherwise failed” to detain the accused individuals.

The City and County of San Francisco is suing President Trump, the Secretary of the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Acting Attorney General alleging that the Executive order of 25 January 2017 titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States violates the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that In blatant disregard of the law, the President of the United States seeks to coerce local authorities into abandoning what are known as “Sanctuary City” laws and policies.

On 31 January 2017 the City Attorney Dennis Herrera stated:

The president’s executive order is not only unconstitutional, it’s un-American…. That is why we must stand up and oppose it. We are a nation of immigrants and a land of laws. We must be the ‘guardians of our democracy’ that President Obama urged us all to be in his farewell address.....

This lawsuit is not a step I take lightly…..But it is one that is necessary to defend the people of this city, this state and this country from the wild overreach of a president whose words and actions have thus far shown little respect for our Constitution or the rule of law. This country was founded on the principle that the federal government cannot force state and local governments to do its job for it, like carrying out immigration policy.  I am defending that bedrock American principle today.....

The Trump administration falsely believes that sanctuary cities harbor criminals and make communities unsafe.  To the contrary, any persons who is booked in San Francisco has their fingerprints sent to the federal government. If the federal government has a criminal warrant for that person, San Francisco complies with that.  Moreover, sanctuary cities have less crime, fewer people in poverty and lower unemployment than other counties, according to a recent study by Tom K. Wong, an associate professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego. There are, on average, 35.5 fewer crimes committed per 10,000 people in sanctuary jurisdictions compared to non-sanctuary counties, according to Wong’s findings in a report for the Center for American Progress. 

On 3 February 2017 The Globe and Mail reported:

Tom Cochran, the chief executive of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, said he has never seen an atmosphere like this in his four decades at the organization, not even in the waning days of the Nixon administration. “It’s totally different from anything we’ve ever seen,” he said.

Mr. Cochran said his group is pushing back against Mr. Trump’s executive order on sanctuary cities, both in public and in private. He has requested a meeting with the new Secretary of Homeland Security, John Kelly, who has much of the responsibility for implementing the sanctuary cities order. Mr. Cochran intends to bring city police chiefs to the meeting to explain why they feel fostering trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement is important for public safety.

Some cities are disputing that the Trump definition of a "sanctuary city" applies to them.

BACKGROUND

Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, 25 January 2017

Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, 25 January 2017

Trump's fifth executive order is challenged for the sixth time in seven days

On 27 January 2017 U.S. President Donald Trump issued Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States and on the basis of its provisions an est. 60,000-100,000 entry and stay visas were provisionally revoked immediately.

I do not think that Trump thought that resistance to his immigration policies would see at least fifty court filings to date and, in relation to this particular executive order would see six judges issue temporary restraining orders of varying lengths.

This is the latest:

State of Washington vs. Donald J. Trump, et al

Court: Western District of Washington

Subject Matter: Civil Rights

Case Summary: 17-CV-00141-JLR

The State of Washington (State) filed this action challenging the President’s Executive Order on immigration of January 27, 2017. The State seeks a finding that certain sections of the Executive Order are contrary to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and enjoining Defendants from implementing or enforcing those sections. The State further seeks entry of a nationwide temporary restraining order. The hearing on this matter was conducted on February 3, 2017.

Judge James L. Robart presiding

The State of Washington’s complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief is 14 pages long with supporting documentation which included the Donald J. Trump Statement on Preventing Muslim Immigration.

The complaint in part alleges that:

President Trump’s actions and that of the U.S. federal government were illegal and violated the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution;

they were depriving individuals of their liberty interests without due process of law; 

the Immigration and Nationality Act  prohibits discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas on the basis of race, nationality, place of 18 birth, or place of residence;

in violation of provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act the Executive Order suspends all immigrant and 7 non-immigrant entry into Washington by individuals from seven countries and forecloses their ability to apply for asylum and withholding of removal, as well as foreclosing their ability to apply for relief under the Convention Against Torture;

the Executive order was motivated by animus and a desire to hurt a particular group; and

it was Trump’s intention to ban immigration and/or travel based on an individual’s Islamic faith and prioritise immigration from Middle Eastern countries based on an individual’s Christian faith.

On 3 February federal judge James L. Robart issued a nation-wide restraining order (with no identified end date) which blocks enforcement of Trump’s 27 January 2017 Executive Order effective immediately.

Tro by zerohedge on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/338362589/Tro

The White House response was typically indiscreet and was later amended to remove the description of the court’s judgment as “outrageous”.

The next court hearing date is yet to be set or Monday, 6 February 2017.

UPDATE

Trump's tweeted reaction to the Robart restraining order - commencing 11:59 PM on 4 Feb 2017:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal asked to rule on Humane Society International FOI request

NSW Environmental Defender’s Office (EDO), 20 January 2017:

Humane Society International v Department of the Environment and Energy

Our client, Humane Society International (HSI), is seeking access to documents held by the Australian Department of the Environment and Energy on the adequacy of NSW’s biodiversity offsets policy for major projects ('the Policy').

HSI argues that the public has a right to know why the Australian Government believes, despite evidence to the contrary, that the NSW Policy meets national standards. On behalf of HSI, we are asking the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to find that it is in the public interest to release the documents under Freedom of Information laws. 

Background

Biodiversity offsets have become standard practice in the approval and assessment of major developments in Australia, even though there is little evidence that offset schemes achieve their intended purpose of protecting threatened species from extinction.

Biodiversity offsets allow developers such as mining companies to buy/manage land, or pay money into a fund, to compensate for the clearing of forests and areas containing threatened plants and animals.

Community groups such as HSI are concerned that the method for calculating biodiversity offsets in NSW, contained in the NSW Policy, does not properly protect the environment – including the plants and animals on the national list of threatened species and ecological communities.

The Australian Government, which is responsible for the national list of threatened species – and has international obligations to protect and conserve biodiversity in Australia – has stated that the NSW Policy meets national standards of environmental protection. However, analysis by EDOs of Australia shows clearly that the NSW policy provides weaker environmental protection than required under national environment policies.

With the Australian Government delegating more and more development approval powers to the states and territories under its ‘one stop shop’ policy, community groups fear that there will be fewer protections for our nationally threatened species and ecological communities.

HSI is therefore seeking access to documents detailing the Australian Government’s analysis of the NSW Policy. Access to this information is vital for the public to have confidence that important environmental protections are not being eroded.

Links

•        Offsets policies failing to protect threatened species, 5 May 2014
•        Federal handover of environmental approval powers to the states
•        NSW biodiversity offsets policy for major projects 

To stay in touch with news on this case and our other cases, sign up to our weekly eBulletin.

---

Help defend the environment
With your support, we can continue to help community groups like 4nature defend the environment. Please make a donation today.

When Twitter becomes a lethal weapon

A U.S. District Court’s response to Twitter being used to deliver a strobe effect video to a known epileptic…..

Rule 202 Order_signed 12.19.16_copy by Kurt Eichenwald on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/document/334699195/Rule-202-Order-signed-12-19-16-copy

Culleton's political & legal capers continue

Former grain acquisition agent for AWB Limited and former One Nation senator Rodney Norman "Rod" Culleton had a two days……

Click on image to enlarge

News.com.au, 19 December 2016:

“Rod Culleton is a pain in my backside. I am glad to see the back of him.”

Senator Hanson said she had not asked him to resign previously, and said she would stick by him. But now she’s changed her tune.

“He asked if I wanted him to resign. Previously, with his legal cases, he has asked if I wanted him to resign. I have said that I would stick by him, but this time I said yes because I believe that he did not comply with section 44, section 2 of the Australian Constitution.”

She added that he had been asking for money from the party.

“That is what he is angry about. He is going to court today for bankruptcy. He is trying to get the money for that,” she said…..

He accused Senator Hanson and her chief of staff of trying to force him to resign and wielding control over his office.

“The PHON leader’s rants against me have been accompanied by demands for my resignation and control over diaries, office management and staffing by Senator Hanson and her chief of staff, James Ashby,” he said. “The irrational dictates have caused only distrust and disunity.”

The embattled senator is facing legal battles, including one case before the High Court, which could render him ineligible as a parliamentarian.

The Sydney Morning Herald, 19 December 2016:

The judge ordered a number of brief adjournments and it took more than an hour for the hearing to recommence.

Once back in court Senator Culleton asked how proceedings could continue to which Justice Michael Barker responded "I'm running this court, not you." 

But in a bizarre turn of events police arrived at court to forcibly remove Bruce Bell and Frank Bertola, the two people alleged to be in breach of VROs…..

Earlier, Senator Culleton, who is representing himself in the case, took to the stand to cross examine the police officer who handed him his bankruptcy papers.

He asked the officer how he had responded to the notice to which Sergeant Matthew Scott said: "You put your hands in the air and said 'I'm not f---ing taking that."

Senator Culleton responded, saying: "Given my experience with you guys maybe I thought I was going to get Tasered."  

The former One Nation representative was in court to challenge a three-year-old court judgment ordering him to pay $205,000 in damages to former Wesfarmers director Dick Lester.

"If you're not going to remove them, I will stand down," Senator Culleton said during a brief spell in front of the judge before walking out on proceedings.

"If you're not going to address the issue, I will remove myself, I need my wife here now. I will not be bullied."

A legal hearing involving West Australian senator Rod Culleton descended into chaos on Monday morning with the embattled politician delaying proceedings by refusing to take to the court room.

Less than 24 hours after resigning from Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party, Senator Culleton demanded an adjournment in Federal Court in Perth - claiming two people in attendance were breaching violence restraining orders, taken out by his wife Ioanna.

Earlier, Senator Culleton, who is representing himself in the case, took to the stand to cross examine the police officer who handed him his bankruptcy papers.

He asked the officer how he had responded to the notice to which Sergeant Matthew Scott said: "You put your hands in the air and said 'I'm not f---ing taking that."……

@abcnewsPerth

NOTE:  The matter of  Bell v Culleton [2016] as it now stands in the High Court of Australia can be found at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCATrans/2016/289.html