Peter Ridd Action Fund is here.
From the action fund page.
JCU Appeals.
We must fight again, and will need about $1.5M AUD to take this as far as the High Court if necessary.
Last year I was fired by James Cook University after saying that Great Barrier Reef science institutions were untrustworthy due to their systemic lack of quality assurance processes. This was after a distinguished career of over 30 years working on the Great Barrier Reef and at the university.
With remarkable public support in this GoFundMe campaign, we raised legal funds to challenge the university and the Judge ruled that JCU had acted unlawfully on 28 counts and ruled that JCU should pay compensation of $1.2 million.
But now JCU has filed papers in court to appeal.
There are many important points of principle that we must fight for.
· An academic should be able to make challenging statements about controversial subjects such as the Great Barrier Reef or climate change.
· A university should never stifle debate
· The university should not silence a local scientist whose work shows that the farmers of North Queensland Australia are not destroying the Great Barrier Reef. JCU has let down its local region.
· Universities must start to reflect a greater diversity of views.
On hearing that JCU was appealing, Cheryl and I seriously considered just walking away. After all, why should I ask donors for $1.5M to fight a pointless battle that the State or Federal education ministers could settle with a phone call to JCU. $1.5M is a crazy amount that could be used for much better things.
JCU will use its infinite financial resources – effectively government money – to appeal. They have hired three or four senior barristers, one of which we are told charges over $20K per day and between them must be over $40K per day.
Last week JCU also stayed the judgement and capped my access to the compensation for legal fees.
So I must very regretfully ask again for help. We need the best legal assistance to ensure a win. My fabulous legal team led by Stuart Wood AM QC has greatly discounted their costs so far. But appeals are horribly expensive and we need to be prepared to ultimately go to the High Court.
Your donation, great or small, will not just help me fund this essential battle, it will also send a powerful message to governments about what the public expect of our universities. It might well take a couple of months to reach the target.
It is a crazy world that we have to spend this much for legal costs, but this is a fight that we have to win because of the principles it represents.
I have little doubt that we will win.
Note: because the public already donated $260K to this fund for the original court case, the target is set to $1.760M ($260K plus $1.5M). Note this does not include the funds that Cheryl and I have contributed so far (about $200K). Any funds that might be left over will be donated for Science Quality Assurance purposes or to promote academic freedom.
Notice to Appeal https://platogbr.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/notice-of-appeal-jcu-v-ridd-stamped-1.pdf
HT/scarface and Roy M
Money donated, good luck and shame on the Uni for stifling free speech.
Peter,
Is there a distinction between seeking leave to appeal and somewhat automatically appealing, knowing that permission is or will be granted?
Years ago I spent half a day listening to the Judges of the High Court stepping one by one through a hundred or more applications for leave to appeal to them A small handful succeeded. Does this matter face that process? (I am not a lawyer). Geoff S
In the US getting a case before the Supreme Court is very difficult, most are denied. I expect the first round of appeals is much easier in Australia like it is here.
JCU is what happens when people have been paid way too much to promote and believe their own propaganda for far too long. Eventually they lose touch with common sense. If they are so bad at understanding the law, imagine what they do with the science.
“No man for any considerable period can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true.” Nathaniel Hawthorne
I notice theyve timed it for the max greentard frenzy media time when all we have heard all day is the utter rubbish claims by the pre gabfest IPCC un muck from america.
curious that.
I dont have a cracker to donate but sure can email my few saner politicians and local papers etc and kep speaking out about the costs and the insanity and stifling free speech
*ugh* Media overload on climate blah blah blah in Aus…
I think the best solution would be to go after the board of the university in person. This would make them think twice about launching court action with other peoples money.
One has to ask what kind of mushrooms is the JCU-management smoking ?
Shame on you JCU !
//TJ
Donated. Good luck Dr. Ridd!
The appeal contention in 4 a] to d]
https://platogbr.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/notice-of-appeal-jcu-v-ridd-stamped-1.pdf
should be required reading for anyone who wishes to support Dr Ridd.
It behoves Federal Minister to declare this a test case and advise JCU to have it brought before the High Court.
By doing so the Commonwealth can then fund the defendant’s case.
If JCU declines then it is open to the minister, as this is a test case,to fund the
defence at the Federal circuit Court.
Otherwise it will become another example of ‘Lawfare’ over the GBR.
At the moment the Federal Government is inadvertently funding by proxy a Goliath vs David legal case wheras justice demands that, in a test case, the taxpayer, us, get a fair go and not end up being hit twice for endless hearings and appeals, or just see Dr Ridd ground down with a decision that could be easily appealed, should there be sufficient funds and time.
The appeals also could add to damages to Dr Ridd as his most productive years toward the end of his academic career will be wasted arguing with JCU.
There is the larger problem of the ‘lost opportunity’ to overcome the mess.
While tied up in this lawfare, there could not be the time to make a submission to the Productivity Commission about the need for verifiable, repeatable and standardised measurements of the GBR.
The Commission may want to advocate the setting up of oversight and the facilitation of open enquiry, desperately needed to clear the air.
Just to do this would shed scientific light on the limits of freedom for farming, agriculture generally and mining that is congruent with the long term health of the reef.
‘Today, I announce a step forward in re-establishing our hard won reputation for robust environmental standards and regulation implemented in a consistent and reasonable way that allows for economic development alongside environmental regulation. I announce that we will ask the Productivity Commission to conduct a 12 month inquiry into Australian resources regulation with a focus on streamlining processes.’ 5th August 2019
https://www.minister.industry.gov.au/ministers/canavan/speeches/address-nsw-mining-health-safety-environment-and-community-conference
https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/resources/issues
The GBR figures predominantly in this one.
Its time for both academic and government leadership.
“Its time for both academic and government leadership.”
Yeah, neither is going to happen in Aus anytime soon…
Donated already and am hopeful that the judge will be even angrier with the JCU team this time around. Those toads deserve to be publicly humiliated for this outrageous behavior. Maybe this time some heads will roll for their monstrous abuse of the court system and wasteful spending of tax money!
According to the filing:
Orders sought
6. That the appeal be allowed.
This would appear to be the JCU’s request for permission to appeal.
It’s the preliminary step to get an appeal heard.
This request should not cost Peter a cent, the judges should just review the written evidence from the first trial, and bill JCU for their time, whatever the outcome. I’m describing a fair system, no idea if it applies in this case.
I don’t speak, I do.
Just sent some money.
Hope the fine they get is doubled.
Reduced to its minimum and thus probably misleading, the JCU appeal is that there are 2 sets of legislation and/or contract and the first Judge gave supremacy to the wrong one.
In that light, if correct, this is not a general, national test of academic freedom, free speech, etc. It might be morphed into these areas if certain steps are taken by policy makers, but it is a guess about that happening.
Nothing I have written here is intended to reduce the potential for success of Peter Ridd, or to indicate that I am opposed to measures to prevent future conduct of this type by JCU, which institution of learning I joined in the second year of its existence, a time of comparative academic innocence and freedom from the dread, heavy hand of the excessively fantasising bureaucrat.
Please donate for Peter as your means allow. Geoff S
‘first Judge gave supremacy to the wrong one.’
In other words the ‘Mission Statement’ was to be read prior to the ‘contract of employment’ in the opinion of Judge Vasta, the ‘second judge’.
In my non legal opinion what was different was that the ‘Mission Statement’, the ethos of the university, bound JCU to freedom of academic enquiry,an overarching and prior obligation and that the two statements were to be read together.
When read together they reinforced the obligation of JCU to allow Dr Ridd untrammeled use of this freedom without Micky Mouse, over reaching and petty use of regulation.I hope I am not laboring the point, however , as case law was not offered by the defence, and the Judge offered none, this is a test case and should be heard by the Supreme Court.
If so it may be cheaper to go to the top now, rather than wind up there exhausted in a few years time.
Not that this is Dr Ridd’s call, but it is time for the minister to step in.
As rightly pointed out, this is ‘leave to appeal’, however its hard to see that being refused.
Almost $440,995 when I donated at the seven hour mark since the WUWT post.
The median amount was $100, the average $188 and the there were two donations of $10,000 out of 682 donations.
I hadn’t seen the $10,000 donations last night. I was merely impressed with the percentage of three figure donations.
It’s nice to see how many people are upset that the JCU is continuing to pursue this. I hope things will turn into a backlash directed toward JCU – all the money they’re spending on this has got to be taking away from projects that would actually be useful.
I am alone in thinking that this is the perfect opportunity for a wealthy non-believer to offer to cover the costs? There must be somebody out there on our side to counter Soros, Rockerfeller, etc.?
With the cost of contesting an appeal makes me think that JUC are just doing it in the hope – expectation? – of it not being contested. If they lose then I hope they are really stung for compensation.
I’m sure that Michael Mann’s case against Tim Ball was also relying on it not being contested.
I hope that these cases will put an end to related lawsuits from people who see the court system as a club to attack those who disagree.
Non-believer in what precisely?:
That the climate should not or cannot change? ->
Climate changes. Period. Full stop. To suggest otherwise is the actual belief in fantasy. To suggest that neither active geology nor active biology to have no effect is a belief in fantasy. Any planet that has one or more of these items will experience a changing climate: active weather, active geology, active biology.
I wish that the words “believe” or “belief” would stop being used in these largely undisciplined and anti-scientific way.
These ideas should be stated more eloquently and rigorously.
Happy to join the fight in this small way. $C100 is ~ on par with $A. Peter,I feel you are fighting this for all of us. My regards to you and your wife. I hope when you win this that you will consider a speaking tour in N America and Europe.
MODERATOR: Maybe you could keep this at the top of the site for a few days to ensure more people see it.
It’s not like they are spending their own money.
I do not give lightly to causes, everything goes into funding my self I guess :-), but will do to this one. What is more, will do my utmost to publicize the website. An important battle in this war, because a war it is. You are my hero Mr. Ridd and I say that from the heart, almost tearing up from my own words, believe it or not.
This issue makes me sick to my stomach. Universities MUST teach and practice HOW to learn NOT what to learn. I fully support Peter and the tyranny of this university and the lawyers working for it.
Have you watched this video which is so relevant how climate science is evolving these days? Every politician must watch.
+22 :<)
2 + 2 = infinity, because we must properly account for an infinity of alternate universes, where an infinity of iterations of this addition are occurring simultaneously.
That film, thus, presents a very close-minded view of the truth. (^_^)
They really are vile scum slithering about with our taxes like this. I’m in again but where’s my Govt when they’re really needed? They have the power to fund public interest cases of the highest order like this to send a loud and clear message to any like rock spiders. What a disgrace to besmirch the name of James Cook like this.
“A university should never stifle debate”
Note that “the Conversation”, an opinion site sponsored by universities, has announced it will be removing all comments from climate skeptics.
https://theconversation.com/theres-a-good-reason-were-moderating-climate-change-deniers-uninformed-comments-undermine-expertise-123857
Universities are looking more and more like indoctrination centers these days.
The authors last line:
“We owe it to the academics we publish, to our readers, and to the planet.”
We owe it to the planet ?
Whenever any of the proponents of AGW reference “the planet” in a sense that it implies it is a/has “being”, we know they have crossed far into the realm of religion. A pagan religion at that.
This is a growing trend in Australia. Commenters at the SMH are demanding the same. The alarmists are trying their hardest to stifle debate and the media are, almost, going along with it.
As I see it, James Cook University’s plan is to run Peter Ridd out of money and so force him to abandon the case. This kind of behaviour is an unfortunate consequence of how expensive the legal process is.
That would work if it was just Peter Ridd they were attacking, the university has more (taxpayer’s) money that any normal person. In this case they are attacking science and freedom of speech, which makes them the enemies of every civilised person on the planet, and the internet enables us to mobilise against them.
I have contributed, for a second time, and I hope everybody else has or will.
I also appeal to the Australians reading this to pursue other avenues: Write to your MP about the way your (taxpayer’s) money is being spent. Ask any alumni you know not to donate to the university. Discourage any potential students you know from going there.
Will there be prosecution to Scientists for all wrong prediction? We are hearing many false alarms which never proved right. Did they ever apologise in open media? Are they aware of how much damage those are causing to common people with sensitive minds? Children with emotional crisis will be seriously affected with such baseless propaganda. What measures have been taken by the government in this regard?
The only scientists that I recall being prosecuted for any failed prediction were some Italians a few years ago when an earthquake struck. Any “scientists” in the field of climate is well protected by the cause supporters.
Does Australia have a “Loser-Pays” legal system?
https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/law-and-practice/practice-documents/practice-notes/gpn-costs
It looks as if both sides end up bearing greater costs than can be considered by an employed academic.
Which unbalances the scales of equal access to Silks.