Friday 18 November 2011
Leavening the blog loaf
Because it gets so serious around here during North Coast elections, I thought I might post this………………
Alright, Fine, I’ll Add a Disclaimer to My Emails.
By James Sinclair
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This email does not create an attorney-client relationship. Probably. If it does, it will have said it does. Although it could have created an attorney-client relationship without explicitly saying so, because the law is tricky like that, and the authoritative statements in this disclaimer are not as authoritative as they look. Suffice it to say, if you aren’t absolutely certain about whether or not an attorney-client relationship exists between yourself and the sender of this email, you should probably hit “reply” and ask for some clarity.This email may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information. If it does, and you are not the intended recipient, then the sender hereby requests that you notify him of his mistake and destroy all copies in your possession. The sender also concedes that he is very, very stupid, and obviously should not be operating an electronic-mail machine without supervision.
The purpose of this disclaimer, in theory, is to protect the sender from whatever liability may result from the sender’s own failure to communicate clearly or properly send an email, even though the sender, having obtained a formal legal education, is well aware that a generic email disclaimer, even one written with that ominous language of which lawyers are so fond, is unlikely to be enforced against a party lacking a sophisticated understanding of the legal principles surrounding said disclaimer, and that in the case of a party who does understand the legal principles surrounding said disclaimer, the disclaimer merely restates what said party already knows. This disclaimer is a catch-22.
This disclaimer is not unlike the ceaseless blaring of a distant car alarm—a once-sincere warning that has evolved into an unpleasant nuisance, rendered meaningless by its own ubiquity. This disclaimer exists in a country where the demand for legal services is substantial enough to provide gainful employment for more than one million lawyers, virtually all of whom make liberal use of disclaimers purporting to protect themselves from the very litigiousness that pays their bills. You do the math.
This disclaimer is not especially concerned with intelligibility. Unlike the sender of this email, this disclaimer has no qualms about indulging in the more obnoxious trademarks of legalese, including but not limited to (i) the phrase “including but not limited to”, (ii) the use of “said” as an adjective, (iii) re-naming conventions that have little to no basis in vernacular English and, regardless, never actually recur (hereinafter referred to as “the 1980 Atlanta Falcons”), (iv) redundant, tedious, and superfluous repetition of synonymous terms, (v) ENTIRE SECTIONS OF FULLY-CAPITALIZED TEXT, PRESUMABLY INTENDED TO SAY TO THE READER, “HEY! THIS IS IMPORTANT! YOU SHOULD READ THIS PART! AND REMEMBER IT!”, AS IF NO ONE HAS EVER NOTICED THAT PHYSICALLY ENLARGING TEXT WITHOUT INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF SPACE AVAILABLE FOR SAID TEXT TO OCCUPY CREATES THE VISUAL EFFECT OF A SOLID RECTANGULAR BLOCK OF LETTERS, ROUGHLY AS CAPABLE OF IMPARTING A COHERENT THOUGHT AS A TIGHTLY-PACKED SCRABBLE® BOARD, and (vi) lowercase Roman numerals.
This disclaimer exists for precisely one reason—to make this email appear more professional. This disclaimer shall not be construed as a guarantee of actual professionalism on the part of the sender. Any actual professionalism contained herein is purely coincidental and is in no way attributable to the presence of this disclaimer. While the sender of this email likes to think the professionalism with which he approaches his work speaks for itself, this disclaimer constitutes (i) begrudging acquiescence to the industry standard, or at least a superficial imitation thereof, and (ii) begrudging acceptance of the paradoxical reality that people who exchange emails with lawyers both expect to see, and pay no attention to, legal disclaimers. If you aren’t reading this, then this disclaimer has done its job. Its sad, pointless job. THIS DISCLAIMER IS NOT INTENDED TO BE IRONIC.
Thursday 17 November 2011
Gulaptis tells political pork pies - again!
Nats candidate in the Clarence byelection, Chris duh, don’t know Gulaptis, escaped his minders again and opened his mouth without finding out the facts. He capped this off with another untruth. What survey was that again, Chris?
“SIX years after the Iluka Rd speed limit between Woombah and Iluka was dropped from 100km/h to 80km/h, Nationals candidate for the Clarence by-election Chris Gulaptis wants the O'Farrell government to reverse the change.
In 2005, the then roads minister Eric Roozendahl signed off on the speed limit reduction which was partly imposed to reduce road kill of the endangered coastal emu population that live in nearby Bundjalung National Park.
Now, Mr Gulaptis said he has a 1500 signature petition signed by locals, calling for the speed limit to be raised to 100km/h.
He said the push to reinstate the 100 km/h speed limit was instigated by former member for Clarence, Steve Cansdell.
"When it happened it was a unilateral decision by the minister without any community consultation," he said.
He understood the speed limit was under review by the minister for roads.
"The road will handle the speed, there is no reason for the road not to be 100km/h."
Mr Gulaptis could not answer whether the petition was a recent one, or one launched six years ago in opposition to the speed limit reduction, as he said he hadn't seen it, despite claiming on radio yesterday that he had it. “
Pollie in a glass house lashes out
It's becoming clear that Peter Ellem will say anything to get a vote." cried a shrill Chris Gulaptis today.
Pollie in a glass house lashes out
It's becoming clear that Peter Ellem will say anything to get a vote." cried a shrill Chris Gulaptis today.
A little cat let this out of the bag...
The Brushgrove community has long favoured building a small "low level" flood levee to protect their homes and hopefully avoid the need for emergency evacuation.
Apparently every voter's friend Chris Gulaptis has been telling residents there that a levee in their area is not on any important To Do list - saying that a former Maclean Shire councillor (not of the Nationals persuasion) agrees with him.
I'm hearing that this former councillor and longtime Brushgrove resident is irate that Gulaptis is telling so blatant an untruth.
In fact the former Maclean Shire Floodplain Management Study and Plan refers to a flood levee at Brushgrove as a feasible floodplain management option for the village and that same former councillor is still raising the need for a levee with Clarence Valley Council's Floodplain Risk Management Advisory Committee. He made his latest plea for a levee in August 2011 when he told Clarence Valley Council that the Brushgrove community would help build the levee if it got approval.
Howzat!
Chris Gulaptis caught out again in another whopper by Peter Ellem's bowling this evening:
"But Mr Ellem called on Mr Gulaptis to provide the Budget details to back up his claim.
Is this $3.7 million part of the $11.73 million the former Labor Government delivered for Casino Public School?" Mr Ellem asked.
Labor had already provided $11.73 million over two and a half years for new buildings and a refurbishment, with the work to be completed by 2012
Interestingly, the 2011/12 Budget papers from the O'Farrell-Stoner Government claim the $3.7 million funding is for 'continued major building projects at Casino Public School'.
If it is indeed the same funding, Mr Gulaptis should apologise for misleading the people of the Clarence yet again over incorrect funding claims.
Casino Public School parents, teachers and students would have been forgiven for thinking their school had received a new $3.7 million grant given Mr Gulaptis' campaign material.
This appears to be the third time Chris Gulaptis has wrongly claimed credit for millions of dollars in funding the National Party did not deliver to the Clarence," Mr Ellem said.
If Mr Gulaptis is going to keep wrongly claiming credit for funding the O'Farrell-Stoner Government has nothing to do with, how will he fight for new funding and resources for our community?
Mr Gulaptis' first campaign move was to incorrectly claimed the Nationals delivered $9 million for Grafton Base Hospital when it was actually from the Commonwealth and former Labor Government."
And another lie bites the dust
The ever inventive Chris Gulaptis told the Clarence electorate tonight; "There is not, nor has there ever been such a scheme" to build a coal seam gas mine in our area.
Studiously ignoring the enormous Metgasco elephant at Casino (with the Liberal Party's Richard Shields as its external relations manager and Nationals Stuart George as its land administration officer) which falls within the Clarence electorate and the Casino to Ipswich coal seam gas pipeline the O'Farrell Government will be pushing to completion because the "NSW government has not announced any change of policy related to coal seam gas licences,..The legal rights of any exploration holders across NSW remain unchanged."
Update:
Another deliberate misstatement rears its head
"Country Labor candidate Peter Ellem said yesterday the funding was actually provided by the former Labor Government. This may have been a Labor promise, Mr Gulaptis said, but the Coalition Government delivered it."
So tired of all this fudging and fibbing that I'll just link to a North Coast Voices post which shows the money was actually to be paid out under a contract between the former NSW Labor Government and the builder doing major capital works at Casino Public School as I write.
Clarence By-election: Nationals also on the nose in the northern end of the electorate
While much of the reporting about the National Party and its candidate Chris Gulaptis has concentrated on the Clarence valley where it has to be said they're on the nose for taking the electorate for granted a couple of contributors to The Northern Star have reminded readers that it's not all plain sailing for the Nationals in the north.
Nationals 'thumb nose' at democracy
My teenage daughter saw a National Party TV ad last night that shows Mr Cansdell supporting his replacement and asked if this was the same guy who was under a police investigation.
I said yep that is him.
She said that they have some real arrogance for even a politician to have him spruiking.
Seems they are just thumbing their noses at our democracy.
I agreed and thought, yes, they seem to not care that one of their number may have broken the law.
That was OK, not a big deal, just vote us in again.
I am greatly concerned about the message this is sending to our young people. What's next?
Alex Smith, Ballina
Two, by George
How can Stuart George, councillor with Richmond Valley Council, represent the people of the Richmond Valley properly and without bias when dealing with CSG issues when he is now an employee of Metgasco?
Moreover, how can Thomas George, State Member for Lismore, do likewise with family interests associated with Metgasco?
It appears that LNG now have 10% of shares in Metgasco and LNG is a majority owned subsidiary of China National Petroleum Corporation.
Guess where the CSG drilled in our area will be going to?
Yep, export to China.
And this will be to the detriment of our World Heritage listed areas of the Border Ranges National Park and the Great Barrier Reef.
Please write to Janelle Saffin and Thomas George pointing out your opposition to the expansion of CSG.
John Heaton, Uralba
Source: Letters, The Northern Star, 17/11/11
Three days out from polling day and Gulaptis gets well and truly told
No-one's sitting on the fence in this DEX poll on 16th November 2011
About this time in the 2007 federal election campaign Nats candidate Chris Gulaptis was receiving similar negative feedback. Pause for thought?
One comments section under The Daily Examiner article Disgraced MP in candidate's adverts:
By from Maclean on 16/11/2011 at 5:21AM
What were you thinking Mr Gulaptis!
I nearly choked in my cornflakes when I saw Steve Cansdell spruiking Chris Gulaptis on television. This has left a bad taste in my mouth and I personally feel that Mr Gulaptis has done himself a great disservice going down this track in his campaign.
I, for one, will certainly be re-considering my vote, particularly taking into account the latest info coming out regarding Mr Gulaptis' past support for coal seam gas. This latest advertising campaign from Mr Cansdell, on top of the CSG evidence coming to light is definitely not good for Mr Gulaptis.
By from Armidale on 16/11/2011 at 6:38AM
The Notional Party backroom unelected political hacks are treating the Clarence electorate with their usual contempt by having a confessed crook on their political advertising.
But then, in other times at other places the Notional Party have often believed that they are above the law by using the local Notional Party MP to get out of parking & driving fines.
The Notional Party lapdog for the Barrier OFallacy LIberal government will represent the party's financial sponsors in Clarence to protect his pre-selection for the 2015 NSW election.
Independent MPs get things done for their electorates.
By from Grafton on 16/11/2011 at 6:46AM
To get the person who caused tax dollars to be spent on the by-election to do an advert saying we cannot afford to have a rep in opposition is strange. To use him in an advert to get the people who think " steve is a good bloke" vote shows contempt for the intelligence of voters in Clarence. Certainly did not encourage me to vote Nats. In fact it had the opposite effect.
By from Maclean on 16/11/2011 at 7:05AM
Cansdell broke the law, he lied and deceived for his own personal gain and now we have to waste our time and tax payer money to vote for another candidate. Asking for an endorsement from an ex member of parliament who is facing possible criminal charges and a jail sentence shows that Gulaptis defines himself as a self serving man with no principals and no moral compass, just like his predecessor and thinks that the voters in Clarence are idiots. If he is prepared to overlook his colleagues behaviour he obviously is prepared to make an exception for a mate and that is not what makes a good political representative.
By from Ramornie on 16/11/2011 at 7:38AM
Mr Cansdell ,should have no place on Television, taking part in, advertising campaign's for the Nationals.He resigned in disgrace after making a false Stat Declaration. Which in all fairness makes his character rather shady ,untenable ,and just plain wrong to be doing these add's on tv.Mr Cansdell has lost all credibility in the eyes of most decent voters. Shame on him.
By from Yamba on 16/11/2011 at 7:40AM
Anyone living in the Lower Clarence at the turn of the century would recall that the Nats and Gulaptis can't even spell ethics - much less act ethically when it goes against their political self-interest.
By from Yamba on 16/11/2011 at 7:41AM
Has anyone asked Mr Gulaptis any hard questions yet? Is it true he stormed out of the area vowing never to return when he lost in his election bid in 2007? Is it true he left while still a Clarence Valley Councillor with 10 months still to serve, then being an absentee councillor? Is it true he has sought ALP pre-selection in the past? Would have thought these important questions to ask him to establish whether he is an political opportunist or someone who will work and lobby hard for the Clarence Electorate.
By from Junction Hill on 16/11/2011 at 7:54AM
I am at a loss as to who to vote for on Saturday. I voted National in the last election but can no longer offer that same support this time and the other parties have done little to eran my vote either. So a conumdrum I have.
By from Grafton on 16/11/2011 at 8:03AM
from Grafton on 16/11/2011 at 6:46AM said
To get the person who caused tax dollars to be spent on the by-election to do an advert saying we cannot afford to have a rep in opposition is strange. To use him in an advert to get the people who think " steve is a good bloke" vote shows contempt for the intelligence of voters in Clarence. Certainly did not encourage me to vote Nats. In fact it had the opposite effect.
same here, when i first heard labor was running a candidate against the "nats" i thought they'd be no chance!, I'm not so sure now.
By from Grafton on 16/11/2011 at 8:16AM
Does the National Party really hold the electorate in this much contempt? Do they really believe that we are that stupid and lacking in integrity that we would fall for this disgusting campaign strategy? It's been a long time since I've felt so insulted and so outraged. This is simply horrendous and unforgivable. The people in the Clarence Electorate deserve so much better. My integrity is NOT negotiable. The National Party is telling the people of the electorate that they believe that they will forgo their ethics in order to have a sitting member who is not in opposition. My vote is NOT for sale.
By from Palmers Channel on 16/11/2011 at 8:19AM
It is hard to imagine greater arrogance or greater contempt for our political system....just disgraceful. Shame on you Steve Cansdell for what you did. Shame on you Chris Gulaptis for what you are doing. I'm ashamed that I voted for Chris Gulaptis when he ran for the federal seat of Page.
By from Yamba on 16/11/2011 at 9:25AM
from Junction Hill on 16/11/2011 at 7:54AM said
I am at a loss as to who to vote for on Saturday. I voted National in the last election but can no longer offer that same support this time and the other parties have done little to eran my vote either. So a conumdrum I have.
Know how you feel Fedup but at the end of the day we are voting for someone who will work hard, be accessable to the Electorate and have the best interests of the Clarence people at heart..not a Party.
By from Yamba on 16/11/2011 at 9:29AM
Now Mr Gulaptis, I love the ad with your son but Steve Cansdell is yesterdays man and should have been consigned to political history! Keep him on and you risk losing the unloseable, what he personally did was disgraceful. I'd suggest you change your advertising company and your advisers, both are completely out of touch with public opinion re Cansdell!
By from Palmers Island on 16/11/2011 at 11:11AM
Chris Gulaptis has first experience not being in control of his electorate from Head office . The Legacy of Cansdell is bad enough without using him as a tombstone around the neck of Gulaptis . Ben Franklin should be on sidelene with Cansdell. Dumb & Dumber
By from Yamba on 16/11/2011 at 11:45AM
Why would Gulaptis seek the endorsement of somebody who deliberately and wilfully broke the law? What integrity does Cansdell have left? He signed a statement which said
"A person who intentionally makes a false statement in a statutory declaration is guilty of an offence, the punishment for which is imprisonment for a term of four years."
Cansdell's illegal and immoral action caused this by-election in the first place. He is not to be trusted, and neither is his endorsement.
"A person who intentionally makes a false statement in a statutory declaration is guilty of an offence, the punishment for which is imprisonment for a term of four years."
Cansdell's illegal and immoral action caused this by-election in the first place. He is not to be trusted, and neither is his endorsement.
By from Brooms Head on 16/11/2011 at 12:11PM
from Maclean on 16/11/2011 at 5:21AM said
What were you thinking Mr Gulaptis! I nearly choked in my cornflakes when I saw Steve Cansdell spruiking Chris Gulaptis on television. This has left a bad taste in my mouth and I personally feel that Mr Gulaptis has done himself a great disservice going down this track in his campaign. I, for one, will certainly be re-considering my vote, particularly taking into account the latest info coming out regarding Mr Gulaptis' past support for coal seam gas. This latest advertising campaign from Mr Cansdell, on top of the CSG evidence coming to light is definitely not good for Mr Gulaptis.
I think the whole of the Lower Clarence who once strongly supported Gulaptis would and should be thinking along the same lines as you. If he loses this unlosable(?) by election, he has only himself to blame.
By from Brooms Head on 16/11/2011 at 12:22PM
from Yamba on 16/11/2011 at 9:25AM said
Know how you feel Fedup but at the end of the day we are voting for someone who will work hard, be accessable to the Electorate and have the best interests of the Clarence people at heart..not a Party.
I agree. I can't vote Labour back in, and now I cannot vote Nats after this Cansdell/Gulattis/coal seam gas fiasco. It's not in me to vote Greens. What can I do Fedup? So, I'm going to vote for the man Peter Ellem. When he was the editor of DEX he was totally behind the Clarence Valley - and I'm sure he will continue to do so now.
By from Yamba on 16/11/2011 at 3:19PM
Noticed Mr Gulaptis has his NATS website already under construction....now thats CONFIDENCE for yuh!!!
By from Australia on 16/11/2011 at 3:20PM
Most pollies suffer from 'foot in mouth disease' and their egos won't allow them to see the bleeding obvious. On every paper there should be a box for a vote headed 'none of the above' so that those who cannot support those standing have a choice that makes their vote count as opposed to an informal vote that is merely put down to an error is casting the vote. This method would truly reflect voter preference.
By from Maclean on 16/11/2011 at 3:36PM
No, I can’t vote National, of course not – in all conscience who can? Not in this electorate anyway. From the moment scandal broke the Nationals have done everything possible to downplay Cansdell’s actions: “mistake” “error of judgment” and no one in that party has been game to come out and say “Yes, our local member had to admit to a criminal act”. It’s as if not one of them can see that what Cansdell did was not just illegal but that he let us his constituents down, badly – people who position themselves as leaders in the community and who seek elected office have to present as squeaky clean and conduct themselves accordingly. So, seemingly Gulaptis as our prospective representative sees nothing wrong with Cansdell’s actions either? God help us, are we in for more of the same? Judging by the culture manifest among the local Nationals we have every reason to fear the worst, so what now? Dodgy land deals, cronyism, back handers...all the things we’ve witnessed elsewhere suddenly flourishing in the Clarence? Here we are afflicted with a party seemingly bereft of values pushing a candidate that frankly represents the scrapings of the electoral field. Thank you National Party....who the hell CAN I vote for out of this sorry lot? It won’t be your offering that’s for sure.
By from Grafton on 16/11/2011 at 4:23PM
It also concerns me that they're happy to 'ignore' the situation in relation to the false swearing of a Statutory Declaration. I think people are forgetting that if you are aware of a 'corrupt act' and fail to report that 'act' then you are also guilty of an offence under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988. If the police, or ICAC, are in fact conducting an investigation and they uncover 'other' corrupt acts then anyone else involved who's failed to report these acts will also be subjected to criminal charges. On the bright side though, those that do come forward with their knowledge of any alleged acts before they are brought to light by an investigation, will covered by the strengthened whistle blower provisions in that same Act. I wonder if this possibility is even relevant? I'm so glad I never worked for him.
Lock the Gate Alliance endorses Greens and commends Labor in 2011 Clarence by-election
As the Clarence by-election campaign enters its final days, the candidate endorsements begin to emerge…………………
Lock the Gate Alliance president Drew Hutton said his organisation had no political affiliation but would recommend a vote based on candidates' record on coal and coal seam gas.
Mr Hutton said he had studied the records of all eight candidates and was pleased that one of the independents and the Labor candidate had supported a moratorium on coal seam gas until all social and environmental issues had been addressed.
However, Ms Cavanaugh's strong advocacy on this issue over a long period made her the best candidate for voters to express their opposition to coal seam gas moving into their region.
The New South Wales Greens had also done a great deal to keep this industry under control, especially through the work of mining spokesperson Jeremy Buckingham.
"The people of Clarence have companies like Metgasco, Red Sky and Arrow looking to cover much of the region with gas wells, pipelines and other infrastructure turning this beautiful region into a bleak industrial zone," Mr Hutton said.
"The tourism and agricultural industries will be at risk and underground water will be threatened.
"Coal seam gas is the biggest issue facing the voters of Clarence and the best way to send a clear message to Premier Barry O'Farrell that it is not wanted here is to give a vote to the Greens."
Nationals extremely comfortable with Clarence by-election adverts featuring law-breaking former MP
Once again the North Coast Nationals and Chris Gulaptis demonstrate their lack of understanding when it comes to Ethics 101. One shudders to think how the Clarence electorate will fare under this particular stewardship.
The Daily Examiner 16 November 2011:
A POLITICAL row has developed over the National Party's use of disgraced MP Steve Cansdell in advertisements endorsing Clarence by-election candidate Chris Gulaptis, three days out from the polls.
Despite resigning from parliament on September 16 after admitting he falsified a statutory declaration to avoid losing his driver's licence over a 2005 speeding fine, the National Party saw fit to include Mr Cansdell in Mr Gulaptis' advertising campaign.
As well as appearing in Mr Gulaptis' campaign television advertisement, a photo of Mr Gulaptis with Mr Cansdell features in a campaign leaflet delivered across the Clarence electorate.
While supporting County Labor candidate in the by-election, Peter Ellem, opposition leader John Robertson yesterday accused the National Party of not understanding the seriousness of Mr Cansdell's offence.
"The thing that I am amazed by is that it is quite a serious offence, but the National Party is treating it as something that isn't significant," he said.
"Marcus Einfeld went to jail for a similar thing but they are treating this like a joke."
Mr Robertson also questioned why Grafton police were yet to lay any charges against Mr Cansdell.
"Three days out from an election, it has been eight weeks (since this became public), and still there is nothing," he said.
"Frankly people will have a right to be sceptical if they make some sort of announcement next week."
The Nationals' State director Ben Franklin said he didn't think Mr Cansdell appearing in the advertisements would negatively affect Chris Gulaptis's campaign.
"I am extremely comfortable about Steve appearing in a television ad," he said.
"I, for one, as the state director of the party, was extremely pleased that he wanted to do a television ad to make it clear what his views were about in the by-election."
NSW Noxious and Environmental Weed Control Handbook (5th edition) now available
This handbook has been compiled as a guide for noxious and environmental weed control in non-crop, aquatic and bushland situations.
Contents include:
· Integrated weed management
· Managing your legal responsibilities when applying pesticides
· Reducing herbicide spray drift
· Using adjuvants with herbicides
· Cleaning and decontaminating boom sprays and spot sprayers
· Withholding periods
· Herbicide resistance
· Control techniques using herbicides
· Weeds declared noxious in New South Wales
· Pesticide permits
· Noxious and environmental weed control
· Gas gun/splatter gun application
· Appendix 1: Spray calibration methods
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
