https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-16/defamation-trial-clive-palmer-mark-mcgowan-enters-third-day/100830498

WA Premier Mark McGowan is being sued by Clive Palmer for defamation.

Can Mr McGowan argue that his employer - the WA government - is
vicariousy liable for any defamation, since any comments McGowan made
would have been while he was playing the role of Premier?

Max the Wog IDIOT wrote more insane bullshit :
=======================================
>
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-16/defamation-trial-clive-palmer-mark-mcgowan-enters-third-day/100830498
>
> WA Premier Mark McGowan is being sued by Clive Palmer for defamation.
>
> Can Mr McGowan argue that his employer

** The premier is not an employee.

- the WA government

** The PM is the leader of it - fuckwit.

....... Phil

On 16-Feb-22 12:30 pm, Max wrote:
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-16/defamation-trial-clive-palmer-mark-mcgowan-enters-third-day/100830498
>
>
> WA Premier Mark McGowan is being sued by Clive Palmer for defamation.
>
> Can Mr McGowan argue that his employer - the WA government - is
> vicariousy liable for any defamation, since any comments McGowan made
> would have been while he was playing the role of Premier?

The government does not really exist as an entity. Everything is done in
the name of the Queen, though in practice she leaves that to the
Governor whom she theoretically appointed.

So I don't think the idea of vicarious liability goes anywhere. Even if
McGowan could be regarded as an employee of the Queen, which is
questionable, she certainly has sovereign immunity.

Sylvia.

On 16/02/2022 1:00 pm, Phil Allison wrote:
> Max the Wog IDIOT wrote more insane bullshit :
> =======================================
>>
>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-16/defamation-trial-clive-palmer-mark-mcgowan-enters-third-day/100830498
>>
>> WA Premier Mark McGowan is being sued by Clive Palmer for defamation.
>>
>> Can Mr McGowan argue that his employer
>
> ** The premier is not an employee.
>

So he does not receive a salary from the government?

> - the WA government
>
> ** The PM is the leader of it - fuckwit.
>
>
>
> ...... Phil
>
>
>
>

On 16/02/2022 1:17 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 16-Feb-22 12:30 pm, Max wrote:
>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-16/defamation-trial-clive-palmer-mark-mcgowan-enters-third-day/100830498
>>
>>
>> WA Premier Mark McGowan is being sued by Clive Palmer for defamation.
>>
>> Can Mr McGowan argue that his employer - the WA government - is
>> vicariousy liable for any defamation, since any comments McGowan made
>> would have been while he was playing the role of Premier?
>
> The government does not really exist as an entity. Everything is done in
> the name of the Queen, though in practice she leaves that to the
> Governor whom she theoretically appointed.
>

The government can be an entity in legal cases. There are cases where
one party is the "State of Western Australia" etc.

> So I don't think the idea of vicarious liability goes anywhere. Even if
> McGowan could be regarded as an employee of the Queen, which is
> questionable, she certainly has sovereign immunity.
>
> Sylvia.

On 16-Feb-22 1:51 pm, Max wrote:
> On 16/02/2022 1:17 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 16-Feb-22 12:30 pm, Max wrote:
>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-16/defamation-trial-clive-palmer-mark-mcgowan-enters-third-day/100830498
>>>
>>>
>>> WA Premier Mark McGowan is being sued by Clive Palmer for defamation.
>>>
>>> Can Mr McGowan argue that his employer - the WA government - is
>>> vicariousy liable for any defamation, since any comments McGowan made
>>> would have been while he was playing the role of Premier?
>>
>> The government does not really exist as an entity. Everything is done
>> in the name of the Queen, though in practice she leaves that to the
>> Governor whom she theoretically appointed.
>>
>
> The government can be an entity in legal cases.  There are cases where
> one party is the "State of Western Australia" etc.

This is something of a legal fiction.

<http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/wa/consol_act/csa1947172/s5.html>

"the State of Western Australia" is just a place holder for the crown.

Sylvia

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-16/defamation-trial-clive-palmer-mark-mcgowan-enters-third-day/100830498

> WA Premier Mark McGowan is being sued by Clive Palmer for defamation.

Palmer sues everyone and looses EVERY TIME.

> Can Mr McGowan argue that his employer - the WA government

The WA govt isnt his employer.

> - is vicariousy liable for any defamation, since any comments McGowan
> made would have been while he was playing the role of Premier?

Nope, he isnt a subordinate of the govt. But yes, because he is
the PM, the WA govt would be paying any damages. But Palmer
will lose, so the whole thing is completely irrelevant and Palmer
wasnt defamed anyway, McGowan stated the fact about Palmer.

Its just more mindless Palmer bullshit.

On 16/02/2022 2:46 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 16-Feb-22 1:51 pm, Max wrote:
>> On 16/02/2022 1:17 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> On 16-Feb-22 12:30 pm, Max wrote:
>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-16/defamation-trial-clive-palmer-mark-mcgowan-enters-third-day/100830498
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WA Premier Mark McGowan is being sued by Clive Palmer for defamation.
>>>>
>>>> Can Mr McGowan argue that his employer - the WA government - is
>>>> vicariousy liable for any defamation, since any comments McGowan
>>>> made would have been while he was playing the role of Premier?
>>>
>>> The government does not really exist as an entity. Everything is done
>>> in the name of the Queen, though in practice she leaves that to the
>>> Governor whom she theoretically appointed.
>>>
>>
>> The government can be an entity in legal cases.  There are cases where
>> one party is the "State of Western Australia" etc.
>
> This is something of a legal fiction.
>
> <http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/wa/consol_act/csa1947172/s5.html>
>
>
> "the State of Western Australia" is just a place holder for the crown.
>

Isn't it then ridiculous that they changed it in WA so that the Crown is
now referred to as the "State" in court?

So a judge in a criminal trial will ask "What is the State's position on
this?".

Instead of "What is the Crown's position on this?", like it is in NSW
and Vic.

On 16/02/2022 2:48 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-16/defamation-trial-clive-palmer-mark-mcgowan-enters-third-day/100830498
>>
>
>> WA Premier Mark McGowan is being sued by Clive Palmer for defamation.
>
> Palmer sues everyone and looses EVERY TIME.
>
>> Can Mr McGowan argue that his employer - the WA government
>
> The WA govt isnt his employer.
>

The premier receives a salary from the WA govt. What is this salary for
then if it is not employment?

>> - is  vicariousy liable for any defamation, since any comments
>> McGowanmade would have been while he was playing the role of Premier?
>
> Nope, he isnt a subordinate of the govt. But yes, because he is
> the PM, the WA govt would be paying any damages. But Palmer
> will lose, so the whole thing is completely irrelevant and Palmer
> wasnt defamed anyway, McGowan stated the fact about Palmer.
>
> Its just more mindless Palmer bullshit.

Max wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
>
>>
> > The WA govt isnt his employer.
> >
> The premier receives a salary from the WA govt.

** Like all *elected* officials - he gets an "allowance" determined by a tribunal.

He is not answerable to anyone nor does he have to earn it.
Cos he ain't no fucking employee.

> > Nope, he isnt a subordinate of the govt. But yes, because he is
> > the PM, the WA govt would be paying any damages.

** Doubt that - he was not covered by "privilege" at the time/s.

Liability for defamation applies to the originating party and any parties who publish it.

...... Phil

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Phil Allison wrote
>> Max wrote

>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-16/defamation-trial-clive-palmer-mark-mcgowan-enters-third-day/100830498

>>> WA Premier Mark McGowan is being sued by Clive Palmer for defamation.

>>> Can Mr McGowan argue that his employer

>> The premier is not an employee.

> So he does not receive a salary from the government?

So does Liz from the UK govt. Doesnt mean she is an employee, stupid.

>>> - the WA government

>> The PM is the leader of it - fuckwit.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-16/defamation-trial-clive-palmer-mark-mcgowan-enters-third-day/100830498

>>> WA Premier Mark McGowan is being sued by Clive Palmer for defamation.

>> Palmer sues everyone and looses EVERY TIME.

>>> Can Mr McGowan argue that his employer - the WA government

>> The WA govt isnt his employer.

> The premier receives a salary from the WA govt.

So does the governor and Liz from the UK govt.

Doesnt make either of them employees.

> What is this salary for then if it is not employment?

For being an MP and Premier, stupid.

And thats irrelevant to vicarious liability anyway.

>>> - is vicariousy liable for any defamation, since any comments McGowan
>>> made would have been while he was playing the role of Premier?

>> Nope, he isnt a subordinate of the govt. But yes, because he is
>> the PM, the WA govt would be paying any damages. But Palmer
>> will lose, so the whole thing is completely irrelevant and Palmer
>> wasnt defamed anyway, McGowan stated the fact about Palmer.

>> Its just more mindless Palmer bullshit.

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Max wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>>> The WA govt isnt his employer.

>> The premier receives a salary from the WA govt.

> Like all *elected* officials - he gets an "allowance" determined by a
> tribunal.

> He is not answerable to anyone nor does he have to earn it.
> Cos he ain't no fucking employee.

>> > Nope, he isnt a subordinate of the govt. But yes, because he is
>> > the PM, the WA govt would be paying any damages.

> Doubt that

More fool you.

> he was not covered by "privilege" at the time/s.

Doesnt need to be.

> Liability for defamation applies to the originating party and any
> parties who publish it.

Separate matter entirely to who gets to pay, stupid.

And Palmer will lose, as he always does.

And even if he doesnt, the damages will be derisory anyway,

On 16/02/2022 4:17 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-16/defamation-trial-clive-palmer-mark-mcgowan-enters-third-day/100830498
>>>>
>
>>>> WA Premier Mark McGowan is being sued by Clive Palmer for defamation.
>
>>>  Palmer sues everyone and looses EVERY TIME.
>
>>>> Can Mr McGowan argue that his employer - the WA government
>
>>>  The WA govt isnt his employer.
>
>> The premier receives a salary from the WA govt.
>
> So does the governor and Liz from the UK govt.
>
> Doesnt make either of them employees.
>
>> What is this salary for then if it is not employment?
>
> For being an MP and Premier, stupid.
>
> And thats irrelevant to vicarious liability anyway.
>

What would be the basis for the government paying his damages then, if
he did lose?

>>>> - is  vicariousy liable for any defamation, since any comments
>>>> McGowan made would have been while he was playing the role of Premier?
>
>>>  Nope, he isnt a subordinate of the govt. But yes, because he is
>>> the PM, the WA govt would be paying any damages. But Palmer
>>> will lose, so the whole thing is completely irrelevant and Palmer
>>> wasnt defamed anyway, McGowan stated the fact about Palmer.
>
>>>  Its just more mindless Palmer bullshit.

Rod Speed wrote:
=================
> Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote
>
> > Liability for defamation applies to the originating party and any
> > parties who publish it.
>
> Separate matter entirely to who gets to pay,

** Liability - liable to PAY damages - you fucking LIAR.

...... Phil

On 16-Feb-22 3:17 pm, Max wrote:
> On 16/02/2022 2:46 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 16-Feb-22 1:51 pm, Max wrote:
>>> On 16/02/2022 1:17 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 16-Feb-22 12:30 pm, Max wrote:
>>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-16/defamation-trial-clive-palmer-mark-mcgowan-enters-third-day/100830498
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WA Premier Mark McGowan is being sued by Clive Palmer for defamation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can Mr McGowan argue that his employer - the WA government - is
>>>>> vicariousy liable for any defamation, since any comments McGowan
>>>>> made would have been while he was playing the role of Premier?
>>>>
>>>> The government does not really exist as an entity. Everything is
>>>> done in the name of the Queen, though in practice she leaves that to
>>>> the Governor whom she theoretically appointed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The government can be an entity in legal cases.  There are cases
>>> where one party is the "State of Western Australia" etc.
>>
>> This is something of a legal fiction.
>>
>> <http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/wa/consol_act/csa1947172/s5.html>
>>
>>
>> "the State of Western Australia" is just a place holder for the crown.
>>
>
> Isn't it then ridiculous that they changed it in WA so that the Crown is
> now referred to as the "State" in court?
>
> So a judge in a criminal trial will ask "What is the State's position on
> this?".
>
> Instead of "What is the Crown's position on this?", like it is in NSW
> and Vic.
>

NSW has a similar law. I expect the other states do too.

Sylvia.

Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-16/defamation-trial-clive-palmer-mark-mcgowan-enters-third-day/100830498

>>>>> WA Premier Mark McGowan is being sued by Clive Palmer for defamation.

>>>> Palmer sues everyone and looses EVERY TIME.

>>>>> Can Mr McGowan argue that his employer - the WA government

>>>> The WA govt isnt his employer.

>>> The premier receives a salary from the WA govt.

>> So does the governor and Liz from the UK govt.

>> Doesnt make either of them employees.

>>> What is this salary for then if it is not employment?

>> For being an MP and Premier, stupid.

>> And thats irrelevant to vicarious liability anyway.

> What would be the basis for the governmentpaying his damages then, if
> he did lose?

That he was just doing his job.

>>>>> - is vicariousy liable for any defamation, since any comments
>>>>> McGowan made would have been while he was playing the role of
>>>>> Premier?

>>>> Nope, he isnt a subordinate of the govt. But yes, because he is
>>>> the PM, the WA govt would be paying any damages. But Palmer
>>>> will lose, so the whole thing is completely irrelevant and Palmer
>>>> wasnt defamed anyway, McGowan stated the fact about Palmer.

>>>> Its just more mindless Palmer bullshit.

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Phil Allison <palli...@gmail.com> wrote

>>> Liability for defamation applies to the originating party and any
>>> parties who publish it.

>> Separate matter entirely to who gets to pay,

> Liability - liable to PAY damages

Just another of your pathetic little pig ignorant
drug crazed drunken dole bludger fantasys.

Rod Speed wrote:
> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote
>
>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-16/defamation-trial-clive-palmer-mark-mcgowan-enters-third-day/100830498
>>
>
>> WA Premier Mark McGowan is being sued by Clive Palmer for defamation.
>
> Palmer sues everyone and looses EVERY TIME.
>

Fatty McFuckhead's arguments so far don't seem very convincing. I expect
the judge will not only decide against him, but tell him he is wasting
the court's time with his bullshit.

Lewis Hamilton <hami@f1.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-16/defamation-trial-clive-palmer-mark-mcgowan-enters-third-day/100830498

>>> WA Premier Mark McGowan is being sued by Clive Palmer for defamation.

>> Palmer sues everyone and looses EVERY TIME.

> Fatty McFuckhead's arguments so far don't seem very convincing. I expect
> the judge will not only decide against him, but tell him he is wasting
> the court's time with his bullshit.

Yeah, thats the result he always gets.

Even if some fuckwit of a judge does decide
he has been defamed so that an appeal can
not succeed, it will be derisory damages.

Rodbot LYING Ex-Cop Psychopath wrote:

=========================================
>
> > What would be the basis for the government paying his damages then, if
> > he did lose?
>
> That he was just doing his job.

** What an ABSURD FUCKING LIE

Defaming people is NOT part of his " job " - FUCKWIT.

He is no-one's employee so no " vicariousness " exists.

........ Phil

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote

>> > What would be the basis for the government paying his damages then, if
>> > he did lose?

>> That he was just doing his job.

> What an ABSURD FUCKING LIE

We'll see...

> Defaming people

He didnt defame anyone, he stated the facts about Palmer.

> is NOT part of his " job "

You are wrong, as always.

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Lewis Hamilton <hami@f1.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>>> Max <max@val.morgan> wrote

>>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-16/defamation-trial-clive-palmer-mark-mcgowan-enters-third-day/100830498

>>>>> WA Premier Mark McGowan is being sued by Clive Palmer for defamation.

>>>> Palmer sues everyone and looses EVERY TIME.

>>> Fatty McFuckhead's arguments so far don't seem very convincing. I
>>> expect
>>> the judge will not only decide against him, but tell him he is wasting
>>> the court's time with his bullshit.

>> Yeah, thats the result he always gets.

>> Even if some fuckwit of a judge does decide
>> he has been defamed so that an appeal can
>> not succeed, it will be derisory damages.

> Then somebody who makes a lot of sense comes along

That has never happened with Palmer. That
fuckwit has never made any sense what so ever.

> and "voters" plug
> their ears going blah, blah, blah, to stop hearing what is said, to
> remain ignorant.

> But do keep reading your leftie media journo fuckwits!
> They are now most voters bible.

Most dont take any notice of any media with political issues.

> They are rubishing Clive Palmer for one.

And are quite right to do that, because he is
just as useless a fucking moron as Hanson.

> So probably on the right track and voters on the wrong one?

Not a chance.

> Bet Pauline Hanson can at least mow a lawn, which more than any other
> politician capable of!

Dont buy that and we dont have pollys to mow our lawns anyway.

> When farmers were in drought had to kill livestock she organized and
> drove with many, many trucks carrying convoys of hay
> <https://twitter.com/paulinehansonoz/status/835616684698447872>

Just another polly jumping on a bandwagon.

> Clive Palmer on Chinese, Nuclear subs and more!
> <https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/peter-gleeson-speaks-with-clive-palmer/video/053edecd15ac8f6136d0f909af31e58c>
> or https://t.ly/bqza
> “Where else would you want to berth?”

Just more mindless and irrelevant bullshit from Palmer.

He wont even manage to get a single MP elected, you watch.

> That’s Sydney Superyacht Marina manager Clemens Overdijk’s take on the
> spot mining billionaire Clive Palmer is paying an estimated $3000 a
> day to park his 56-metre boat, Australia, while participating in a
> Federal Court stoush with Western Australian Premier Mark McGowan.

> The mooring, at Campbells Cove, is right outside the Park Hyatt Hotel
> and offers unobstructed views to the Sydney Opera House.
> Mr Overdijk said the financial impact of Mr Palmer’s yacht was about
> $10,000 a day, including daily flower costs of $2000 and a further
> $5000 for food.

Where are the frog saboteurs when you need them ?

Rod Speedbot LYING PSYCHOPATH wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >> > What would be the basis for the government paying his damages then, if
> >> > he did lose?
>
> >> That he was just doing his job.
>
> > What an ABSURD FUCKING LIE
>
> > Defaming people
>
> He didnt defame anyone,

** Not the question - you illiterate MORON.

> is NOT part of his " job "

> You are wrong, as always.

** So *defaming* people IS part a premier's job ???

No ABSURD LIE is beyond the Speedbot psycho arsehole.

...... Phil

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote

>> >> > What would be the basis for the government paying his damages
>> then, if
>> >> > he did lose?
>>
>> >> That he was just doing his job.
>>
>> > What an ABSURD FUCKING LIE
>>
>> > Defaming people
>>
>> He didn't defame anyone,

> Not the question

Corse it is. If he didnt defame Palmer, there
can be no damages to be paid, fuckwit.

> > is NOT part of his " job "

>> You are wrong, as always.

> So *defaming* people

He didn't defame anyone,

> IS part a premier's job ???

Stating the facts about Palmer when he is suing the WA govt certainly is,
fuckwit.