Talk:Principality of Hutt River/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Excessive Weight Given to Casley's Claims

Wayne (and presumably others), too much weight is given to Casley's Claims, particularly when the only back up source is a puff piece from a Reporter who is clearly simply reporting the Claims Casley has made without checking them out. I refer to the use of Reference 7 to claim that Casley "had effectively set a persuasive precedent for international recognition of Hutt River under the Geneva Convention" through his "declaration of war". This same "reference 7" is used to claim that Casley and his family are no longer on the electoral roll. But if you actually READ the "reference" it says this: "In recent elections Australian voters have received ID cards to take with them to the polling booths, but subjects of Hutt River have received no such documents." I have NEVER received any such ID card, nor have I been asked to produce one at the polling station. The reporter who wrote the article is not Australian, and was no doubt told this nonsense by Casley himself and has repeated it as fact. How reliable is this article as a source of anything other than Casley's assertions? If Casley's assertion is so compelling, please explain why no actual government has ever recognized Casley's "independence"? There seems to be too much of a pro-Hutt River bias in many of the edits here: such as the previous insertion of the fact that Casley had "bought" star names from a private scammer. As if this somehow added weight to his claims of being a "NASA employee" and a "mathematician/physicist". It is reasonable to describe what Casley claims as his legal position for his assertions for independence, but it must be clear that these are claims he, personally has made, and is not really supported by relevant authority. Claims should be presented as claims, and not given false "official status" just because they were written about in an article, usually by someone unfamiliar with the law, or even that Australians don't have a special ID card you have to produce at elections! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me correct you. The reference does say they are no longer on the electoral roll. The fact that you "have NEVER received any such ID card" only means you have never been removed from the electoral roll. If you have been removed from the electoral roll, then you would receive a letter you can take to the polling booth if you do want to vote. If you don't want to take the letter you can sign a statutory declaration stating you are entitled to vote instead. This is called a declaration vote. I linked to "persuasive precedent" so please read what it is before critising. Any court in the world can overturn it but Casley did set it under the wording of the convention. The article is clear about who is claiming what. Maybe the article is too technical for you regarding the legal issues. Every article supporting a Casley claim you call a puff piece, I understand you hate the guy and what he has done but how about finding an article to refute a claim instead of inserting your POV. It is also a bit overboard (and often bad grammar) to add the word "claim" everywhere when the sentences often have already made it clear to the reader it is only Casley saying something. Wayne (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI : There are style principles about using words such as "claim" at WP:CLAIM. Afterwriting (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I take your point Afterwriting. That would apply to Casley claiming that he's a Mathematician/Physicist who worked for NASA. It's highly unlikely, and not really backed up with evidence, but to say "claims" does carry a negative implication I suppose. However when he makes statements about travelling overseas on his own Hutt River Passport, and not an Australian one, that is a CLAIM about a legal matter which seems to run counter to the evidence, such as the EU declaring the Hutt River Passports are "fantasy passports" to which visas must not be attached, and Australian law which doesn't recognise them either. My view, and I'd like to hear your take on this, is that we should be neutral about something Casley says he's done in his life, or his motives etc unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. However when he is making a legal claim, something a little stronger is needed. "Argues" perhaps?
Wayne, I have a few issues. Firstly, there is no real evidence presented here, in the form of court cases etc which say that Casley doesn't pay taxes. It seems highly likely that the man DOES pay his council rates at the very least (he admitted to the NY Times he makes annual "gifts" to the Northampton Council!). Just because he doesn't call the payments "rates" doesn't change the fact the payments are made! Secondly, you missing the point on the electoral roll. IF the journalist had actually gotten hold of a copy of the roll for that district, and verified that Casley's name was NOT on it, it would be a source. But this guy is clearly claiming that all Australians were issued ID's to take to polling stations, and the "fact" that Casley didn't get one is proof that he isn't on the roll. So how reliable is it? The journalist repeated Casley's claims of a) not being on the roll, and b)Casley citing the fact he didn't get this mythical ID card as proof. He DIDN'T bother to verify whether any such ID card existed (it would have been a simple matter to find out it didn't). If he didn't do that basic level of fact checking, he certainly wouldn't have poured through the electoral roll to see that Casley's name wasn't on it! The full quote is here:
"The royal couple contend that they and the rest of Hutt River’s subjects have been removed from the Australian electoral roll. In recent elections Australian voters have received ID cards to take with them to the polling booths, but subjects of Hutt River have received no such documents."
So he is clearly only repeating Casley's claim he isn't on the roll, and hasn't independently verified it, and the "evidence" which is presented is bogus. And don't go on about "original research" - I'm not putting stuff into the article, just making a comment on how good the "sources" backing Casley are. These are simply journalists, not lawyers, and many of them are unfamiliar with Australian legal and political systems, as evidenced by the assertion that Australians have to take a special ID to the polls. BTW your talk about declaration votes etc is totally beside the point. The article is clearly not referring to this, it says "Australian voters have received ID cards to take with them to the polling booths". As for the meaning of the treaty. Casley "said" he was at war. That was it. He "ended" the war a few days later without taking any action, but he was "undefeated" and so is "automatically recognised as sovereign" or so he asserts. How can you say he "established a persuasive president"? Even the article doesn't say that. A persuasive president is a legal opinion, or possibly a decision in another jurisdiction, about a specific matter. Casley is neither a legal academic nor a judge. He might be a "bush lawyer" but would that seriously make his opinion count as a persuasive president? You seem to have an agenda of your own, in puffing up his claims - like putting in that stuff about him buying star names from the International Star Registry, but making it out that this supported his contentions that he worked for NASA as a "mathematician/physicist" and had a star named "in his honour" (hint hint, due to his brilliant work for the space agency!). Now the Negus show certainly reported this stuff at face value - showing they just presented Casley's claims without further investigation, i.e. it isn't a serious segment. You could say the same for many of those little articles. As for Casley being "good for tourism"... That was true in the '70's. But the people he gets now are mostly international backpackers etc on their way to Perth after going to Monkey Mia, Coral Bay or perhaps Broome. They drive past, or are in a bus, and stop in to have a look. They do not go to Northampton specifically to see Hutt River. Also some of the "sources" report how much money everyone could make out of Hutt River if only the "nasty short sighted Australian Government" would recognise it. It would be a Singapore, a Switzerland, a Hong Kong, a Monaco. A centre of health research with millions living there etc. Do you honestly think this is "supported" by these articles? For some reason Wayne, you are BIASED towards backing Casley's claims. If you want to put in real backing for Casley not paying Federal Taxes, how about you put in referenced material about that court case you said he had over tax evasion. A man who thinks all Australians have to show a special ID card to vote is not likely to be an authority on whether or not Casley is exempted from taxes, or to have undertaken an even basic fact check on the matter - it would have revealed that we do NOT need an ID to go to the polls. Casley contends many things: the Statute of Limitations means his "declaration of independence" was "official" when he hadn't been arrested after 2 years; he worked for NASA; WA was never claimed by Britain, only Perth was; he pays no taxes (but does make annual "gifts"); he ONLY travels under his own passports. It's fine state his position on things, but it HAS to be clear that these are simply HIS assertions, and are not independently verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI Wayne, as I said earlier, I do not hate Casley. In WA he's regarded as a joke, although some do see him as a egomaniac and grandstander. However some of his assertions about WA etc are misleading, and others, like working for NASA, travelling under his own passports etc are highly doubtful at best. It's one thing to play along with the gag as a newspaper, TV station or official, but Wikipedia is supposed to be a factual source. Hence if Casley makes an assertion that WA was never claimed, it should be clear that it is only Casley who tries to claim this, and it is not a fact (I pointed you to Stirling's commission which contradicts this, and his proclamation did not specify the colony's limits to be used as a counter claim). Incidentally, I am trying to make it LESS POV by steering it away from a bias to a fringe position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
You read too much into the article. Don't overthink it. It's obvious that Casley wouldn't have said all Australians have ID cards because he would know better so it seems to be simple journalistic misinterpretation. That people removed from the rolls do get an "ID" letter to take to the polling booth if they want to vote seems to back that up. The article does not say that the declaration of independence was "official." It says it had de facto recognition which is true. The two year Statute of Limitations is a legal fact. That Casley pays no Federal taxes is a fact supported by his tax returns. Very few of the claims you dispute are actually mentioned in the article. You claim I have an agenda to support Casley yet I'm the one who has added virtually all of negative information currently in the article. He's a bush lawyer who has successfully used loopholes and legal ambiguities so accept that. Why would the government legislate to close those loopholes if they had not existed? Why doesn't the government take legal action against HRP? Because those loopholes leave only Western Australia able to take him to court and they wont for some unknown reason. Casley has his opinion on why but if you have a source providing another reason, use it. As long as the article is cited and it is clear on who said/did what I see no problem. If a sentence already states something is Casley's view why does it have to also have the word claim repeatedly inserted making the sentence grammatically incorrect and POV? If it's presented as Casley's opinion we know it is his claim. I'm sure readers are more intelligent than you credit and can work out for themselves what are Casley or the governments claims. Wayne (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Wayne, there are other micronations in Australia who followed Hutt River's lead. None of them are in jail. If the failure to prosecute is solely down to "loopholes" Canberra has now closed, why is that the case? Casley's claim that the Commonwealth cannot act against him seems to be solely due to his belief that the statute of limitations would preclude it. BUT that assumes the statute of limitations applies to his actions. The last victim of the Claremont Serial Killer was murdered in 1997, but if the police got sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the perpetrator today, they could lay charges even though the crime was more than 2 years ago. This is because the statue of limitations does not apply to serious crimes such as murder. So does the statue of limitations really apply to secessionism? Even if it did, it does not make the actions legal. If I through a brick through a shop window 3 years ago, and the police didn't catch me, the statue of limitations may make me "safe" from being charged over that incident. It does NOT however make it legal, and it certainly does not give me the right to continue to through bricks through shop windows, so if I through a brick through the same shop's window yesterday, the fact I wasn't charged for doing it 3 years ago is no defence. If Casley's actions in 1970 were illegal, they remain illegal, and he hasn't retracted anything. Casley may be right about some of his claims, but they are uncertain at best, and should not be presented as if they are actual facts. As for the tax status. We don't really know. The only people who cite the document pinned to his wall are people from overseas, who may be mistaking Casley's copy of the tax return document HE filled out. He seems to pay council rates (doesn't matter what he calls it). As for the tax issue - why don't you put in the details of his court case? Did the court find he was not liable to pay Australian taxes, or did they find he was paying them but calling them something else? In any case, Hutt River is a wheat farm which also sells wildflowers and other agricultural produce. It has no means to export any of this except by traversing WA. As such any transactions that take place with shipping companies in Perth etc would be subject to any State and Federal taxes that normally apply. About the only income I can see Casley being able to "earn" in Hutt River itself is the 0.5% tax he supposedly levies in the Principality, and sales from that shop of his - which now apparently isn't even staffed and runs on an honour system. Now perhaps he has found real loopholes to avoid tax, but the sources don't really prove this. They simply state "he doesn't pay tax", presumably because he told them so! I note that no Australian written article makes reference to the ATO document purporting to declare he is a "non-resident for tax purposes". The fact this is the specific wording on the tax pack makes me wonder if it isn't just a copy of Casley's tax return. The ATO refuses to comment. In fact many of the sources quoted here as proof he doesn't pay tax actually say they cannot confirm it for that reason! As for Casley getting that letter to entitle him to vote assumes he has been removed from the roll in the first place. Yet the fact he hasn't received such "ID" is cited as the proof that he HAS been removed from the roll, and hence is no longer regarded as an Australian citizen. Do you want me to check out the roll for that district and find out? You cannot remove your name from the roll BTW.
As for my asserting that you're "pro-Prince Leonard", I'm basing that on your earlier correspondence with Tigerman2005, and the fact you were a) insisting that Casley's claim about WA not, in its entirety, being claimed was true, even when I gave you the link to Stirling's formal commission as Governor which clearly included the whole of WA. You also got tetchy when I objected to Casley being called a "former mathematician and physicist who wrote articles for NASA" when there was really no supporting evidence for this, apart from journalists clearly repeating his assertions, and the fact it defied logic - the man has no educational qualifications or equivalent experience/history of such work for NASA to employ him in such a capacity. Casley may regard himself as such, but it stretching credulity for Wikipedia to make it sound as an established fact. You also added the star names Casley had obviously bought from that scammer, as if this supported his delusions of grandeur. All it really did was show how the hollowness of some of the claims. My view is that if Casley is living out a fantasy, let him. But specific claims about tax, the law, and his past employment where they cannot be properly referenced (and that means not some journo parroting Casley) and seem to fly in the face of common sense (NASA picking a man out of a shipping office with no scientific publications or qualifications to work for them as a mathematician or physicist is one; him travelling on his own passport when no country in the world recognizes it is another) should be treated with caution, and not just taking at face value. It is a fact (in the article) that the EU has put the Hutt River passports on its list of fantasy passports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Casley has committed no crimes, his actions in 1970 were legal. The only action the Federal government could take was to charge him with "infringement of territory" which is why he invoked the British Treason Act in an attempt to negate it. The infringement of territory law has a two year statute of limitations. Casley may make gifts to the council but we have to assume he pays no Federal tax unless proof he does can be found.. Re the passports. My believing that there is ambiguity in the claiming of WA does not mean I am pro-Casley. I get "tetchy" when editors overlook Wikipedia's rules for content when arguing to delete information they don't like. Wayne (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Wayne, that "letter" supposedly from the "Department of Territories", is it not the one that was discussed a few years ago on this talk page and regarded as bogus? Firstly, WA never came under the jurisdiction of the Department of Territories, that's the NT, PNG (before Independence), ACT, Jarvis Bay, AAT, Heard Island, Norfolk Island, Lord Howe Island, Christmas Island, etc. It certainly didn't judge whether Casley's passport was valid! That the DFAT's area surely! It is already in the article that the EU has included the Principality's passports on its list of fantasy passports, so it is highly dubious that a real document would say his passports are valid! How can they be? A quick check shows that the Department of Territories existing between 1951 and 1968, when it was renamed. Too early for Hutt River. The name was reused from December 1984 until July 1987. It dealt with the above named territories and "constitutional development" in the NT. It would have had no involvement in the Hutt River dispute. But the wording of the document about "containing the situation" etc makes it sound like it was written in the 70's before these "loopholes" were closed. No Department of Territories then! It is also poorly worded, and unsigned! I think we can discount that document. The ATO does not decide on the legality of Casley's claims of sovereignty, so how is it that they "deemed him" as a non-resident for tax purposes? Is it because that's what he marked on the return? He isn't paying tax, according to that document, because he isn't earning any money. Yet his farm would be trading in Australia, and would have to be a legally registered entity in Australia for that to occur, and would therefore be subject to Australian tax. Since one of those letters is almost certainly a forgery, I wonder about the legitimacy of the others. As for Casley, he denies paying rates - yet it seems that he actually does pay them, he just calls them something else. As for that first document... I note that it, too, is unsigned, but purports to be a document sent by half the Australian Government Departments to some guy called RR Berne (whoever he is). Not sure who the Foreign Ministry would have been contacting, the Ambassador to the UN would be the logical choice, but there never was one at the UN called Berne. It makes separate reference to the Foreign Minister and Foreign Affairs (why?). Details of Casley's court case over taxation should be in the article if you can reference them. The Commonwealth Government refers to Hutt River as a private business. Presumably it pays company tax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Too much WP:OR, you need references to support those claims. According to Casley those documents were gained under FOI. As they are hosted on his own website we don't give them undue weight per WP:SPS, in fact we actually give them no weight and I have no problem with that. However, if they are forgeries (the letterhead is at least legitimate) then why hasn't he been prosecuted for forging government documents which carries a 10 year maximum jail term? At the very least they can force him to take the documents down from his website. Nothing in the wording of the document indicates any specific date although the content does imply sometime later than 1980. The Foreign Ministry document was not contacting anyone, it is obviously a reply to a query. There was a R Berne in the French ministry and also one in the U.S. but it could be anyone anywhere. I never said that the ATO decides on the legality of sovereignty, it decides who pays tax. The ATO's own website doesn't say that the HRP actions, such as registering companies etc, that are illegal in Australia are illegal, it says they "may be illegal." As far as a I know, Casley's company is not registered in Australia and pays no tax despite bringing in a substantial income. He does pay excise and customs duties as goods have to pass through WA to reach him but, while accepting the export component as legal he is disputing having to pay duties for imports. He says that the duties on imports is the only government tax he pays. Wayne (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Wayne, the rules about OR are about posting things in the article - which I am not proposing to do! As for assertions: Casley said he was a mathematician/physicist who worked for NASA and had a star named in his honour. Turns out this "star name" is a name bought off of that scam called the International Star Registry who sells star names to anyone gullible enough to fork out for them. You or I may as well set up a site selling the right to name rocks in Antarctica! The fact that Casley is clearly using such a bogus organisation to bolster his claims about being this "mathematician/physicist " working for NASA puts huge question marks over his credibility, and of course the fact checking of such sources as that Negus show and The Age article. If the EU does not recognise Hutt River passports, what is the chance some nameless Commonwealth Government official from a department that didn't even exist at the time and who's area of jurisdiction didn't cover it when it did exist says they're legal? As for Casley not being charged for forging... Well you said he got away with it due to "loopholes" that have since been closed. But there have been quite a few others who followed in his wake, presumably after these "loopholes" were closed. Why have none of them been charged? The Department of Territories only existed for 2 1/2 years in the '80's and it had no jurisdiction in the matter anyway. The attorney generals department or DEFAT would have been the relevant authorities Federally, Hutt River is part of WA which was never an Australian Territory. You may as well cite Colonial Office documents about the SNP! As for Casley's assertion that import duties are the only tax he pays, it's pretty obvious he pays council rates, even if he calls them "gifts". So how reliable are his assertions? He may, possibly, have his company registered in a place like the Cayman Islands. I know people who've done that. But it doesn't back up his claims of sovereignty or independence if he does. No one recognises Hutt River as a place to legitimately register companies, Hong Kong did it by mistake but backed off. My take is that Casley says a lot, but without real evidence, and by that I mean something independent from him, it has to be taken with a big dose of scepticism. We're talking about a man who calls himself a Prince despite no legitimate nation recognising him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.127.127.225 (talk) 13:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Again you are making unsupported assumptions based on WP:OR so I'll only reply to information mentioned in the article. Casley making "gifts" in lieu of council rates does not mean he is paying council rates, especially as he does not abide by council laws. For example, the Shire of Northampton took him to court for constructing buildings without getting council approval and lost. Interestingly, the council later submitted the HRP for listing on the WA government heritage register (which was accepted) so this may have had something to do with a legal compromise (another loophole?). Casley's company is not registered overseas, it is registered in the HRP as are several foreign companies. Being recognized by other nations is irrelevant to Casley calling himself a Prince. The article is clear that he uses titles purely for legal reasons. WP:OR also applies to the Talk page as well or Talk becomes no more than a forum which is basically what your posts are doing. Please comment on content you dispute. I'm more than willing to support legitimate concerns. Wayne (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Wayne, I do not "desire" to turn this into a forum. I do not advocate having Casley thrown into Prison, or Graylands, or having his property resumed. Nor am I arguing for a legal injunction to have Casley stop referring to himself as "Prince" or anything else. Casley has a political position - one which is not recognised by any other legitimate authority in the World! We do not "know for a fact" that he does not pay taxes. There is a scan that purports to be from the ATO in Penrith saying he's been "deemed to be a non-resident" for tax purposes, where he is stated to have zero income. Since he sells his wildflowers and wheat in Perth, that is income generated on Australian territory, and would be subject to Australian tax. Also, please justify this statement of yours, 'Casley making "gifts" in lieu of council rates does not mean he is paying council rates, especially as he does not abide by council laws'. So he pays them the money "in lieu of rates" but he isn't paying rates? Really? So why does he do it? As for the Council losing this case - was the decision based upon Casley's "independence", or would it apply to others who live in the Council of Northampton? As for the "article making it clear that he uses the titles purely for legal reasons" why then does he hand out knighthoods and peerages? He may have started using the 1495 law (incidentally at best this would have protected his family and other followers from prosecution, not he himself) for that reason, but there's a bit more to it now I would have thought. Casley makes many assertions. Some may well have substance, others are doubtful, and others still are an expression of hubris. But his claims should be treated with caution. Remember the "star named in his honour" supposedly because of his work for NASA? Turns out it was bought off of that scam International Star Registry. Yet it was put out there by Negus's show as proof of Casley's scientific credentials. No doubt Casley made it sound that he'd had a star named in his honour to puff up his claims of being a physicist. This is why I suggest that Casley's claims have to be taken with a grain of salt unless it can really be substantiated. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a platform for Casley's fantasies. As for my "OR". Don't you do any fact checking to determine if a source is reliable? The so called "Department of Territories" unsigned letter is almost certainly a hoax, and it was widely discussed on this talk page (see archives) and dismissed as an obvious forgery. My "OR" was merely to test the validity. The Hutt River Website acts as if it were written in the 70's (they place it between documents dated '75 and '76), but there was no Department of Territories then, and Hutt River was outside their portfolio anyway. It would be the AGs office or Department of Foreign Affairs, or maybe Defence, that would have written such a document.
For specifics. You changed "local government" (which is what the NY Times piece called it) to "local Western Australian government". This makes it sound that he is making "gifts" to the State Government in Perth. This needs to be reworded to make it clear it's the local council he makes these "gifts" to - as we don't have a reference for him making "gifts" to Perth. There are three references quoted to support the statement that Casley doesn't pay tax. One was that Reason Magazine article - which actually stated that in 2012 there was a demand from the ATO for Taxes. The second was the Bloomberg article which only says that he's has a plaque supposedly reproducing his 2008 tax return, and the only part mentioned is the "you have been deemed a non-resident for tax purposes" line. The third was the ABC Landline item which says this: "But according to Leonard Casley, any income earned at Hutt River is tax free and he produces personal returns from the Australian Tax Office as proof. They list his income as zero." So it doesn't say it's a fact that Casley doesn't pay tax, they say that "according to Casley" he doesn't pay tax. They then go on to say this, "However, constitutional law expert, Professor George Williams from the University of NSW, says Hutt River's "citizens" would still be liable.
"No Australian is exempt from paying tax whether they've created their own province. It's clear the law applies equally to everyone and in this case if someone has not paid tax the likely answer they simply don't have any income that is liable. If they do have income and they've failed to pay tax like everyone else they would face penalties, including the possibility of jail," says Professor Williams.
He says it's not illegal for any Australian to call their own property whatever they like, even a principality, as long as they don't break any laws.
"It's certainly a curiosity. It begs for amusement for some people but as a matter of law it is very clear. You cannot decide to secede from the Australian nation by setting up your own province," he says.
"I think the authorities are quite wise to let people do what they want in this situation. So long as they continue to obey the rules and the law they should be able to take whatever path they like.""
So we have references which only say that it's a claim by Casley, yet you state it is an established fact that Casley doesn't pay tax. This goes further than the references do. Anyone can mark an x in the yes box for "are you a non-resident for taxation purposes", which presumably Casley has done. Nor does this personal return (I'm assuming it's genuine) say whether or not the company pays company tax. He certainly seems to be paying his rates. It needs to be said that Casley claims to not pay tax by virtue of his "independence" and displays documents purporting to support this, but that the ATO won't comment. It should not be stated as an established fact that he doesn't pay. Not with the references that are used anyway.
The final issue is the one about Casley being removed from the electoral roll. Only a single source states that - and even that source says that Casley claims to have been removed. The supporting evidence is the failure of the Hutt River people to receive these mythical voting ID cards. This should read that Casley says he is no longer on the electoral roll. I could get hold of it and check, but would that be OR? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It is not stated as a fact that no tax is paid. The article says:"The province displays ATO documents supporting that no tax is paid..." which is all we have regarding the issue. It is WP:UNDUE what Professor George Williams thinks as other academics believe the opposite. If he has proof then we can include him.
It would be OR so we can't use your research. However, if you check the Australian National Archives I believe you'll find that Casley was removed from the electoral roll in May 1980. Prior to that date, the records list Casley as not voting since 1972, being referred to the "R/S AEO" (whoever that is) and "cleared" (whatever that means) after each election.
I also found hundreds of other documents in the archives, the Department of Foreign Affairs list him as "Prince Leonard of Hutt River Province." The Department of Defense list him as "Casley LG known as Prince Leonard Hutt River." The Department of Immigration lists him as a citizen of "Hutt River Province" (dated 1974). Interestingly, there are a number of documents regarding the prosecution of Casley for minting his own currency and a document from the Federal police of an investigation into a prosecution of Casley for breaches of the currency act, the interesting part is the finding...Hutt river Province is "not covered" under the act. A Cabinet document dated 2 August 1977 follows saying that a prosecution can't proceed under the current legislation. Another government document states that Hutt River "fictitious" titles will be recognized "without query" on money orders received by the Province, by this they do not mean personal titles, they are referring to money transfers to government departments of Hutt River such as to "the Treasury Department of Hutt River" etc. There are a significant number of documents showing that the government tried hard to prevent government departments from using titles and the Province name in correspondence but this must have been unsuccessful as the same documents were reissued often over the years and Australia Post seemed to be the only department that tried to follow the request. The Provinces dispute with Australia Post seems quite bitter as they stamped mail "not known at this address" when titles were used, "return to sender" for insufficient postage when Hutt River stamps were used and apparently they even went as far as burning Hutt River mail several times. I'm not saying we should include these primary documents but they definitely show that government departments do use the titles, that the government tried to prevent a secession with little success and that Casley did have the law on his side at times which negates many of the arguments you are using. Unfortunately, hundreds of government documents regarding the Province are classified and most dated after 1975 are not available to view so what they say regarding legality we can't know. Wayne (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

These documents are a wealth of information, one letter indicates that the Province takes in $700,000 a year from tourism "tax free", and that doesn't include it's sale of stamps or currency. Regarding the legality of Casley's actions. A letter from the Department of Foreign Affairs listing the following activities: minting of Principality currency, the establishment of consulates in "Vienna, Prague, several South American countries, Luxembourg, at least two Canadian Provinces, Sydney and Canberra", the issue of postage stamps "valid in Australia and overseas", the issue of visas and passports and an attempt to set up a register of shipping under the Hutt River flag. The letter ends with "preliminary legal advice is to the effect that" [regarding the above] "Casley has [not] contravened any Australian laws." I also found a rather amusing two paragraph long letter from the Prime Ministers department regarding the legality of the HRP. As "there has never been a Hutt River Province...it's existence cannot be terminated." Following a letter from Interpol to the Department of Foreign Affairs regarding use of HRP passports, a letter from the Crown Solicitors Department to the Department of Foreign Affairs regarding the use of HRP diplomatic passports overseas (1976); there is no evidence "to express any concluded view on the question of whether the document is a false document...bearing in mind previous dealings with Casley I have some doubt whether an investigation...would disclose sufficient evidence to justify the institution of any proceedings." The letter ends with legal advice...that the only way to deal with HRP passports would be to pass specific legislation prohibiting them. Then there is this sentence; "I have been supplied with considerable proof that these passports have been used and accepted by overseas governments, and am assured that to date not one occasion has arisen where the validity of the document has been questioned." It then questions the HRP passport being valid overseas but not able to be used to re-enter Australia as the Australian government refuses to issue a re-entry visa. The answer to this letter was simply that Australian government "policy" doesn't recognize the passports but that Casley has violated no laws. there are several letters from the Prime ministers Department saying they would look at making amendments when the act came up for review but I can't find anything saying the amendments were made. A year later, a letter from the DFAT legal and treaties department to the Consular and Immigration Department states "the government has to date avoided such an approach, no doubt having it's political acceptability in mind." As you can see, there appears to be a lot of ambiguity over the legal aspects. Wayne (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wayne, first of all thank you for cleaning up the fact that Casley has admitted giving gifts to the council rather than the State Government (he may make "gifts" to them as well, but we don't have anyone else saying so). As for the rest...
What are you on about Professor George Williams being "OR"? Also who are these "academics" who think the opposite? Williams is a legal academic, his opinions would fit the concept of "persuasive precedent" you were speaking of earlier. In any case I commented on this to point out that the references used to support the claim that Casley and his Principality pay no tax are actually much weaker in support of this claim than the text of the article. They all say that Casley contends he doesn't pay tax, and displays some paperwork to support it, but the ABC used a legal academic to counter the claims, or at least put some context which lessens the impact. My contention was that it should be not presented as a fact (YOU, btw, when you altered the text said it was a "fact" Casley pays no tax). Williams's opinion is, in any case, valid. He has much greater knowledge of Australian law than the guy who wrote that little piece in the Lonely Planet Guide to Micronations, or various journalists or travel writers who are quoted elsewhere. Nor is his opinion violating the OR guidelines. He isn't putting his opinions on here, and it is reported in precisely the same source which is considered reliable enough to back Casley's contentions. Besides, you think it's fine for Casley's legal arguments to be posted. Why are they more valid than those of Williams?
As for these documents you cite. Did you actually go to Canberra and search the archives looking for them? Or are they merely the documents Casley puts up on his website? Also if Casley's passports are valid, why did the EU issue the directive that they were fantasy passports which should be rejected? The Reason Magazine claims that Casley was still getting demands from the ATO as recently as 2012 - so I doubt that he was removed from the roll in 1980 (although I do believe that he hasn't voted). You cannot remove your name from the roll once you're on it. I DO believe that Casley's "currency" violates no laws. He isn't counterfitting as his coins are clearly not trying to impersonate Australian currency, or Sterling, Greenbacks, Yen, or any other recognized currency. He can certainly use his own "tokens" in his own shop - my primary school canteen used to use the same system. You'd order your lunch first thing in the morning, and get a disc representing your order, and you'd swap it for the actual order at lunchtime. As for stamps, well so long as he pays Australia Post for the postage (you don't think they do it for nothing do you?) he can get away with it - it's what offices do with franking machines all the time. However if I put a Hutt River stamp on a letter and tried to post it in a local Perth post box, I think I'd get a bill, or the letter wouldn't be sent.
Regarding Casley's tourist income. Firstly, how would the Federal Government know what his income was? An estimate surely. I also doubt he gets anything like that now. The references used point out that numbers are well down on the mid-'70's peak. His souvenir shop isn't staffed anymore and runs on a honour system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Re George Williams, I have read two academic papers supporting HRP independence. One was a thesis paper while the other was written by a constitutional lawyer. Both were actually in agreement that as long as Casley doesn't allow immigration he will keep his independence. One cited the Vatican as an example of an independent state that doesn't permit immigration. Casley's views are more relevant than Williams and the two I mentioned because Casley's views have de facto verification, ie Williams views are his alone while Casley has the response to his actions in support. Re the documents, the ones I quoted are all from the National archives in Canberra. Re Reason magazine, Casley said he did get one tax request in 2012 but has heard nothing since he replied with a letter outlaying why he is exempt. Re currency, there are several overseas banks who will exchange HRP currency, one is in Hong Kong. Anything has value as long as it can be redeemed and Casley honours his currency. Re stamps, as far as I know Australia Post treats HRP mail the same as they treat mail from any other country. You can't post mail in Perth with an English stamp but you can if posted in England. Probably 90% of the thousands of documents concerning HRP in the National Archive are AP documents regarding HRP stamps, unfortunately nothing later than 1977 is available for viewing so I don't know the current specifics. Re tourists, there were 70K per year in the 1970s compared to 40K per year currently however, the demographics have changed, where most were Australians, today the majority are visitors from overseas so probably the income would be roughly similar if you factor in the Provinces exports. Wayne (talk) 06:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
OK Wayne. I don't quite get the justification over this "that as long as Casley doesn't allow immigration he will keep his independence". What does "immigration" have to do with it? He's made 10's of thousands of people "Citizens" who were most certainly not born in Hutt River, and many of whom weren't born in Australia either. So I would suggest that nullifies a claim on that basis don't you think? Also Vatican City nominally became an "independent state" in 1929 when it's status was recognised by the Italian Government. It is the recognition, not the fact it doesn't allow immigration, that gives Vatican City its basis for being an independent state. Casley has no such recognition from Australia or WA. Please name these overseas banks that exchange Casley's currency, I'm all ears. I note you didn't make that claim when you were arguing with Tigerman2005 a while back. Not quite sure what your point is about the stamps. I pointed out they were only "valid" in "Hutt River" and that he'd get billed by Australia Post when they make their collections - that's how he got away with it in that court case, as he was paying for the post. Regarding the Royal Mail Stamp - if I posted a letter to Australia solely with a regular letter stamp, it would not get delivered. I would have to buy another, more expensive one, to post it to Australia to cover the cost of transporting it half way around the world and Australia Post's share of the cost. Do you get it? Stamps are not some symbol of national independence. They are a means of paying for a postal service. Casley would have gotten away with it not because the court recognized his "independence" as is insinuated, but because he pays for his postal service. If he wasn't paying, the court would have found against him. You obviously don't post letters "within" the "Principality". It's a wheat farm for heavens sake! Whoever "posts" the letter would most likely have to "deliver" it as well! Hence it is only postage outside Casley's little territory that counts, and I'm sure you won't tell me that AP does it for nothing! The sources quoted in the article as "authoritive" say that in the '70's Casley used to get up to 5 full sized tourist coaches per day, but now it's down to no more than a couple of mini-buses. That sounds a bit more than 43% reduction. They also say that the OS tourists tend to be more interested in keeping their money for food and drink than buying Casley's souvenirs. There isn't even enough of them to have someone man the shop - they say it's a strictly honour based system these days! Also Casley's exports don't count. Even if Casley doesn't have to pay tax on income raised in Hutt River itself (questionable), his exports are not sold in Hutt River, but in Perth. That would most certainly be taxable income, and the company would be liable.
In any case, what about my issue that the article is far less equivocal on the claim that income earned in the "Principality" is not subject taxation. It says this, "thus income earned within the province is exempt from Australian taxation". This is not an established fact, but a contention. For all we know Casley simply puts a cross in the box "are you a non-resident for taxation purposes", and the ATO responds in kind. The references used for this only say that Casley says he doesn't pay tax. They do not state it as a fact, and indeed one of them actually said Casley was getting demands from the ATO at least as recently as 2012! BTW what do you mean about Casley's views having more weight than Williams (who's a legal scholar) as he has "de facto verification"? No nation on earth has recognised Casley's independence. About the only thing that Casley has going for him is that he isn't in jail. Is that your point? Williams's "opinion" was that if Casley isn't paying income tax, and getting away with it, it would be because Casley isn't earning taxable income. Remember his son runs the farm these days. Also the fact you say nothing later than 1977 is available to read on the subject of Hutt River adds further weight to the notion that the so-called "Department of Territories" memo is a hoax, since there was no Department of Territories in the 1970's (and Casley's actions were outside of their portfolio anyway even when they did exist). I am NOT proposing that Williams's opinions be inserted into the article. Nor am I proposing we say that Casley is lying through his teeth about his taxation affairs (although I suspect he is being misleading - he quite clearly is still paying council rates, even if it calls it "gifts"). I am simply trying to point out that the article is far more definite on the tax status than all 3 of the references used to justify this are, and it should be softened to bring it in line with the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Wayne, I've amended the article to reduce the degree to which Casley's assertions about tax are stated as established fact and the fact at least one of the sources quoted actually says Casley has been getting tax demands as recently as 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.127.170.152 (talk) 11:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Wayne, you got me to look at the National Archives that were available online. There were several references to a number of court cases, including mentions in The West Australian (which I will use as references) to court cases where Casley was summoned due to his failure to register on the roll. From these it transpires that although Casley had the property at Hutt River, he continued to "live" in his old house in Como until 1974, and consequentially had this listed as his residence on the roll. In 1974 he notified the electoral commission that he'd "moved" and was no longer living in Como. So he was removed from the roll for that district. He then DIDN'T enroll in Northampton. In 1977 he was summonsed for his failure to enroll, but got off on a technicality. The technicality was that the act said that a British Subject had to enroll after 21 days of residence. But the summons was written to say exactly "21 days", so he got off on a technicality. The second one was in 1979 when Casley was summonsed to the Court of Petty Sessions. On that occasion the presiding Magistrate found in his favour reportedly as although Casley had admitted to being a citizen in the past, it is possible to lose your citizenship as it is possible to gain it, and the prosecution hadn't proven that Casley was still a citizen. Again, a technicality, although I suspect that Casley was lucky to have a somewhat sympathetic magistrate, and a slack prosecution.

Incidentally I also saw those old clippings over Casley's prosecution for tax charges you mentioned above, and I can see why you don't include them. The $4 fine wasn't for tax evasion as such, but for not supplying the ATO with full details. His argument over the arrest was that he was "intending" to pay the fine when he went to the Northampton Police Station (in the paper he claimed he "didn't intend to not take money with him when he went to town"), and that his son came along and paid the fine, and that, subsequently, the night he spent in prison was illegal depravation of liberty and wrongful arrest as the fine had been paid. None of this supports the notion that Casley doesn't have to pay tax, or is somehow a special tax case by fact of his "secession". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I only checked government documents in the National Archives as they hold more weight than newspaper reports. However, your research has supported the claims. The court couldn't prove that Casley was an Australian citizen so couldn't force him to enroll. Technicality it may be but it still supports the ambiguity of the law that lets Casley get away with succession. Wayne (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Wayne, you probably won't respond, but I have to object to your hidden note. The archives did NOT say Casley's passports were "legal documents" but didn't meet the definition of forgeries as the didn't pretend to be any recognised passport. You can go into a shop and buy a passport for the "land of inebriation" and such things. As they don't pretend to be US or British or Singapore passports they technically aren't forgeries, but they are hardly official documents.. Why do you persist in giving Casley more status than he has? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.127.170.152 (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The documents in the National archives are clear that the passports can be, and have been, legally used if foreign countries issue a visa to the holder. Wayne (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Wayne, if a visa is issued, it's the visa, not the passport, that is the legal document. Also they are not recognized by Australian authorities. What does he do when he leaves or enters the country? He cannot go directly from the "Principality of Hutt River" - they only had a dirt airstrip and a crop duster. It's landlocked too, so no chance of sailing off into the sunset. He'd have to go via an Australian port (or airport) of embarkation, and pass through Australian passport control. Do you think Canberra has affixed a visa to his passport? Even if he were able, say, to have a US visa put on his passport (highly unlikely), that would give him leave to enter the US. It wouldn't give him leave to enter Australia. Clearly Casley is most likely to be using more than his "Hutt River" passport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

May be he is? May be he actually doesn't regularly travel overseas? We don't know - but it has been shown that people do use the HRP passports to travel overseas with, it would seem quite a few people. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II addresses Prince Leonard as Prince Leonard.

Greetings

The official website of the Principality of Hutt River recently displayed a communication from the Queen on the occasion of the 46th. anniversary of the Principality of Hutt River. The Queen adressed this letter to "Prince Leonard" and wished him well after referring to an accident Price Leonard had suffered.

TKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.20 (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Montevideo Convention

The applicable international law is the Montevideo Convention (1933) that established recognition for several South American countries.

Article 1 

   The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.


Article 2 

   The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law.


Article 3 

   The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.
   The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law. 

The Principality of Hutt River complies with international law, including the other sections of the Montevideo protocols.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.42 (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Sovereign

I invite @Zriha: to give any evidence they have of their position here. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for invite, please read historic archives - http://www.principality-hutt-river.org/gov/PHR_Historic_Archives.htm . This is not a page for political discussions, Principality of Hutt River is sovereign state, it is not recognize by Australia, but it is sovereign. Or maybe we can use the same language as in Kosovo - "is a disputed territory and partially recognised state" or maybe from AUSTEO document - "The Principality is a legal entity" - http://www.principality-hutt-river.org/Principality%20Downloads/Historic%20Documents/AUSTEO%20SECRET%20Document.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zriha (talk • contribs) 13:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Please indicate what sovereign states recognize this entity as a sovereign state- or any other criteria such as being a UN member(it isn't). This is not a political discussion, it is a discussion to get to a neutral point of view that can be cited with reliable sources. The article already states that this entity considers itself a sovereign state, which seems to be an accurate description of its position. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Please also review how Wikpedia defines what a sovereign state is. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Kosovo is recognized by a few other sovereign states. The sources you have given above are all Primary sources which are only applicable in certain circumstances, and generally need independent reliable sources to support them(that is, sources not associated with the subject). 331dot (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, as I can see, Wikipedia is more than reliable source, because, apparently knows better than us in the Principality, but that is common these days. So I gave you an document, that is independent, form Australian Government, and still it is not enough. Well, maybe it is good enough that Principality is still here, from 1970. if it weren't legal, Australian police will deal with Principality, years ago. Then you have this year, an letter from HM Queen, “I am to convey Her Majesty’s good wishes to you and to all concerned for a most enjoyable and successful celebration on 23rd and 24th of April to mark the forty-sixth anniversary of the Principality of Hutt River.” - Successful celebration for forty-sixth anniversary of the Principality of Hutt River, a letter from Australian monarch, even if it is not recognized by Australian Government, their foreign policy is the same as Serbian to the Republic of Kosovo. So I don't see any problems as, the name micronation is not legal and not truthful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zriha (talk • contribs) 13:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As I indicated, I have no political interest in this, as I live in the United States. My only interest is in articles having reliable sources to support the claims made. Being considered a "legal entity" doesn't make this entity a sovereign state, it just means that Australian authorities can deal with it. The Queen sending this entity a letter(which you don't seem to link to) means little, unless she somehow no longer considers it part of Australia(which needs a source)
As I indicated, Kosovo is recognized by roughly half of the countries in the world; you have not demonstrated recognition by even one country. If you have reliable sources that indicate recognition by another country(such as exchanging ambassadors) feel free to offer it.
I suggest that you review neutral point of view. I get that you feel your territory is a sovereign state, and if you want to revolt against Australia that is your business- but this page needs independent reliable sources to support its claims which must be written in a neutral manner, not necessarily the manner in which this entity might want them written.
If you dispute the term 'micronation' you will have to take it up with the many reliable sources that use that term, which is why it is used here on Wikipedia. If you think you can make a case against using the term, please visit Talk:Micronation to do so. 331dot (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Principality of Hutt River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Queen is not Head of State of Australia.

Australia has numerous Australian Heads of State.

The Head of State of each State is the State Governor. The Head of State of the Commonwealth of Australia is the Governor-General.

For example, the website of Sir David Hurley proclaims him to be the Head of State of NSW.

TKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.96.20 (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Don't be so sure. See Australian head of state dispute It seems to depend on the exact definition one prefers of the English term "head of state", which is not used in the constitution or in any law, and thus has no legal definition. -- 76.15.128.206 (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
David Hurley has not been knighted. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 09:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

~~ Thanks you for the correction. Yes, David Hurley has not been knighted (unlike myself.) I wish to add that Dame Quentin Bryce, former Governor-General of Australia, and mother-in-law of the Federal leader of the opposition, Bill Shorten, was introduced to the Queen as the 'Head of State of Australia'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.110.180 (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"Prince Leonard"

Regardless of what Leonard Casley or some Australian media have done, it is clearly not acceptable on Wikipedia to refer to Casley as "Prince Leonard" except in mentioning his own use of the self-declared "title" and in direct quotations. In all other cases it is required that he is only referred to by his actual name. Yahboo (talk) 04:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Personally I'm undecided on the matter, but MOS:IDENTITY, MOS:MULTIPLENAMES and MOS:NICKNAME suggest that it is acceptable to refer to him by the name that both he and the media primarily use(d), even if it was not his legal name. Mitch Ames (talk) 05:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
That would be true in usual circumstances, but I seem to recall that there is also something in the MOS which states that self-styled royal titles by people who are only claiming to be royality without being properly recognised as such should not be used. Yahboo (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Can you cite the specific MOS page/section? I've just done a quick search and I can't find it. Mitch Ames (talk) 06:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I've just done a search of MOS, and like Mitch Ames - and as far as I can see, there is no specific exclusion for Royal names in this context. The default is usually to refer to him as "Prince Leonard", and that's what most articles that interview him or discuss him do, including Local Government ministers. By referring to him as Leonard instated of "Prince Leonard" there is a concern here that Wikipedia is making some statement about him; I think we should follow standard practice in this regard. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Mind you, on the basis that "that's how most media call(ed) him", we'd be referring to Bob Geldof as "Sir Bob Geldof". But we here in Wikipedia are wise enough not to do that. Of course, Geldof has never claimed this title for himself, it's solely the work of the ignorant media; and I think he's long past given up correcting them when they persist in referring to him as Sir Bob. Just thinking aloud here. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Principality_of_Hutt_River/Archive_3&oldid=1091609101"