<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Protimos</title>
	<atom:link href="http://protimos.org/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://protimos.org</link>
	<description>Lawyers against poverty</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2015 15:40:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.7.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Hello world!</title>
		<link>http://protimos.org/hello-world/</link>
		<comments>http://protimos.org/hello-world/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:07:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[jack]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://protimos.org/?p=1</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://protimos.org/hello-world/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Aboriginal Tribes take legal action against Government</title>
		<link>http://protimos.org/aboriginal-tribes-take-legal-action-against-government/</link>
		<comments>http://protimos.org/aboriginal-tribes-take-legal-action-against-government/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 14:31:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Isobel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Australia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indigenous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tribes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.protimos.org/?p=1228</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Under the auspices of the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010, the Australian Government proposes to create a nuclear waste dump in Muckaty Station, a remote Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory. Although the Bill has been approved in the &#8230; <a href="http://protimos.org/aboriginal-tribes-take-legal-action-against-government/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Under the auspices of the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010, the Australian Government proposes to create a nuclear waste dump in Muckaty Station, a remote Aboriginal community in the Northern Territory.  Although the Bill has been approved in the Senate, legal proceedings are still pending regarding the legality of the use of the site to store radioactive material.  Tribesmen allege that the historic owners of the lands in the vicinity of the dump do not support the creation of the dump, contradicting government assertions that the Ngapa indigneous community supports the plan.</p>
<p>The Aboriginal claim is supported by various environmental groups, with Senator Scott Ludlam of the Green Party arguing that, given the area’s high propensity for flooding and earthquakes, the proposed dump sit constitutes a danger to the public health.   Under relevant legislation, the Federal Government will be obligated to provide compensation to native peoples whose lands are affected by the creation of the facility.  However, this has not satisfied the government of The Northern Territory, who argue their constitutional weakness (not being a full state) is being exploited by the Federal Government.  For those affected, financial compensation is unlike to redress the harm inflicted.</p>
<p>By John Greany</p>
<p>Read: Phil Mercer, BBC.co.uk, (3rd March 2010), ‘Australia debates unclear waste’. Available <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/language/wordsinthenews/2010/03/100303_witn_aborigine.shtml">here</a><br />
Oliver Milman, guardian.co.uk, (13th March 2012), ‘Australia passes controversial nuclear waste bill’. Available <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/13/australia-nuclear-waste-aboriginal">here</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://protimos.org/aboriginal-tribes-take-legal-action-against-government/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Native American Tribe Suing Major Brewing Companies</title>
		<link>http://protimos.org/legal-news-fe/</link>
		<comments>http://protimos.org/legal-news-fe/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:51:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Isobel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alcohol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[native american]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.protimos.org/?p=1206</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Native American tribe is suing five major brewing companies in the District Court of Nebraska. Although alcohol is illegal on the Pine Ridge Indian reservation, one in four children born to the resident Oglala Sioux tribe suffers from alcohol &#8230; <a href="http://protimos.org/legal-news-fe/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A Native American tribe is suing five major brewing companies in the District Court of Nebraska. Although alcohol is illegal on the Pine Ridge Indian reservation, one in four children born to the resident Oglala Sioux tribe suffers from alcohol related foetal conditions. The tribe alleges that the brewers have circumvented the long standing alcohol ban by supplying beer to Whiteclay, a town with a population of eleven people on the reservation’s border.</p>
<p>It is alleged that the brewers, including Molson Coors brewing company and SAB Miller, were aware that the drink would be smuggled into the reservation. According to Tom White, the lawyer acting for the tribe, “the defendants have failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure their products are distributed and sold in obedience to the laws of the State of Nebraska and the Oglala Sioux Tribe&#8230;..you cannot sell 4.9 million cans of beer and wash your hands like Pontius Pilate”.</p>
<p>By John Greany</p>
<p>Read: Grant Schulte. (2011). Tribe suing beer companies for alcohol problems. Available: <a title="Tribe suing beer companies for alcohol problems" href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ALCOHOL_LAWSUIT_RESERVATION?SITE=KTVK&amp;SECTION=HOME&amp;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">Tribe suing beer companies for alcohol problems.</a> Last accessed 15 February 2011.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://protimos.org/legal-news-fe/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>McKenzie V Minister for Lands, Kimberly, Australia</title>
		<link>http://protimos.org/legal-news-jan/</link>
		<comments>http://protimos.org/legal-news-jan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:52:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Isobel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Australia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[land]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.protimos.org/?p=1193</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Western Australia has held that three notices issued by the Minister for Lands for the purpose of acquiring interest of an area known as James Price point are invalid. This was determined on the basis of &#8230; <a href="http://protimos.org/legal-news-jan/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Supreme Court of Western Australia has held that three notices issued by the Minister for Lands for the purpose of acquiring interest of an area known as James Price point are invalid. This was determined on the basis of the Minister&#8217;s failure to provide a description of the land required. The Court also determined that the plaintiffs, Mr Neil McKenzie and Mr Phillip Roe, have a sufficient interest in the validity of these notices to attract the jurisdiction of the court. It is unclear whether this decision will prevent the Western Australian government and Woodside Petroleum&#8217;s plans to establish a liquefied natural gas hub in this area.</p>
<p>By Geordie Fung</p>
<p>Read: <a rel="attachment wp-att-1194" href="http://www.protimos.org/2012/01/legal-news-jan/mckenzie-v-minister-for-lands-2/">McKenzie v Minister for Lands, December 6th 2011</a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://protimos.org/legal-news-jan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Civil Society Group Pursues Freedom of Information Request to Nigerian Federal High Court</title>
		<link>http://protimos.org/legal-news-5thjan2012/</link>
		<comments>http://protimos.org/legal-news-5thjan2012/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 16:34:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Isobel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corruption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.protimos.org/?p=1186</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Social Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) in Nigeria has filed a suit against the federal government concerning expenditure of recovered stolen funds.  A freedom of information request was filed on 26th September in order to gain access to &#8230; <a href="http://protimos.org/legal-news-5thjan2012/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Social Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) in Nigeria has filed a suit against the federal government concerning expenditure of recovered stolen funds.  A freedom of information request was filed on 26<sup>th</sup> September in order to gain access to information held by government agencies or officials. The request seeks to establish the quantity of the recovered funds that have been spent, and the details of the projects that have been implemented.</p>
<p>SERAP is an NGO founded in 2004 designed to promote human rights through accountability and transparency in the public and private sectors. Corruption is systemic in Nigeria, which disenfranchises citizens and exaggerates inequalities that reduce potential for development. Nigeria returned to civilian government in 1999, after decades under military rule. However, corruption has remained prevalent, and recent national elections have been subject to international condemnation for allegations of violence and voter fraud.</p>
<p>By Matt Little</p>
<p>Read: <a href="http://serap-nigeria.org/">Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) Nigeria</a> (2011)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://protimos.org/legal-news-5thjan2012/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Chevron Continues Legal Challenges against Ecuadorians Seeking Compensation</title>
		<link>http://protimos.org/legal-news-9thdec2011/</link>
		<comments>http://protimos.org/legal-news-9thdec2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Dec 2011 15:46:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Isobel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[developing countries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oil]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.protimos.org/?p=1161</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Oil giant Chevron has asked federal judges to seize the assets of Ecuadorian groups involved in a legal battle over compensation for environmental damages in sections of the Amazon rainforest. A court in Ecuador originally ruled that Chevron had to &#8230; <a href="http://protimos.org/legal-news-9thdec2011/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oil giant Chevron has asked federal judges to seize the assets of Ecuadorian groups involved in a legal battle over compensation for environmental damages in sections of the Amazon rainforest. A court in Ecuador originally ruled that Chevron had to pay $18.2 billion for pollution caused by Texaco during the 1970s and 1980s. Chevron took on the case after the two merged in 2001. The energy company had an appeal against the Ecuadorian decision overturned in September 2011, and maintains that the Ecuadorians have violated anti-racketeering laws.</p>
<p>Protesters claimed that oil spills damaged crops, killed livestock and led to an increase in cancer cases in the local area. The Ecuadorian campaigners intend for the case to be used as a precedent, encouraging companies to working in developing countries to implement the same anti-pollution standards as in the industrialised world. The Ecuadorian ruling is still subject to appeal by Chevron’s lawyers, and the case is ongoing.</p>
<p>By Matt Little</p>
<p>Read: <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/02/41916.htm  ">Chevron Takes Offensive Again After Appellate Defeat. Adam Klasfeld (2011) </a></p>
<p>Read: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/feb/14/chevron-contaminate-ecuador ">Chevron fined $8bn over Amazon &#8216;contamination&#8217;. Dominic Rushe and Rory Carroll (2011)</a></p>
<p>Read: <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/12/02/Attachment%20Brief%2011.29.11.pdf ">CHEVRON’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF ATTACHMENT AND OTHER RELIEF</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://protimos.org/legal-news-9thdec2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Court Rules Consent Not Required for Belo Monte Dam Construction</title>
		<link>http://protimos.org/legal-news-7thdec11/</link>
		<comments>http://protimos.org/legal-news-7thdec11/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 11:42:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Isobel]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[indigenous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.protimos.org/?p=1154</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On the 9th November, a federal court in Brasilia ruled that construction on the Belo Monte dam could continue without the need for free, prior and informed consent from indigenous groups that will be adversely affected by the project. The &#8230; <a href="http://protimos.org/legal-news-7thdec11/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On the 9th November, a federal court in Brasilia ruled that construction on the Belo Monte dam could continue without the need for free, prior and informed consent from indigenous groups that will be adversely affected by the project. The court determined that consent was not required because the dam’s infrastructure would not be situated on local tribes’ land. In a two-to-one decision, deciding Judge Maria do Carmo Cardoso stated that consultations did not have to occur before the commencement of the project, and that it would not become legally binding. The judge decided that the project’s environmental impact studies would sufficiently address indigenous peoples’ concerns.</p>
<p>The dam, if constructed, would become the third largest in the world, flooding approximately 40,000 hectares of rainforest. With an estimated cost of $11 billion, the dam is designed to produce 11,000 megawatts of electricity, representing more than 10% of Brazil’s current capacity. Legal challenges to the dam have been ongoing for decades, and opponents intend to bring the current issue before the national Supreme Court.</p>
<p>By Matt Little</p>
<p>Read: <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gvuxZfyZs0sBsBi8FyWEVisO2I7A?docId=CNG.209ec9a2ad059c4ffb6b615044e67c53.b51">Brazil court refuses to stop work on Amazon dam. Agence France-Presse (2011)</a></p>
<p>Read: <a href="http://news.mongabay.com/2011/1109-belo_monte_no_fpic.html ">SHARE: print Indigenous do not have right to free, prior and informed consultation on Amazon dam, rules Brazilian court. Monga Bay (2011)</a></p>
<p>Read: <a href="http://www.constructiondigital.com/under_construction/brazilian-dam-gets-court-approval">Brazilian Dam Gets Court Approval. Jon Walton (2011)</a></p>
<p>Read: <a href="http://news.mongabay.com/2011/1109-belo_monte_no_fpic.html ">SHARE: print Indigenous do not have right to free, prior and informed consultation on Amazon dam, rules Brazilian court. Monga Bay (2011)</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://protimos.org/legal-news-7thdec11/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Act Questions Sovereignty of Australian Government</title>
		<link>http://protimos.org/act-questions-sovereignty-of-australian-government/</link>
		<comments>http://protimos.org/act-questions-sovereignty-of-australian-government/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:04:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Australia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sovereignty]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.protimos.org/?p=977</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to Article 7 of the 1875 Pacific Islander’s Act, Australian Governments have no sovereignty over the country. The act, drawn up under the authority of Queen Victoria, has been used by Aboriginal activist and lawyer-in-training Michael Anderson, as well &#8230; <a href="http://protimos.org/act-questions-sovereignty-of-australian-government/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to Article 7 of the 1875 Pacific Islander’s Act, Australian Governments have no sovereignty over the country. The act, drawn up under the authority of Queen Victoria, has been used by Aboriginal activist and lawyer-in-training Michael Anderson, as well as others, to argue that the Aboriginal people should be allowed to assert their dominion over their nation and that an end should be put to the colonial governance of Australia.</p>
<p>According to Mr. Anderson, the land grants provided by Queen Victoria at the time were more extensive than it was first thought. The sovereignty of Aboriginal nations and people was recognised in the act as well as the authority of the Aboriginal chiefs. However, Mr. Anderson states that the order was ignored by the colonial governments.</p>
<p>The jurisdiction of the Australian government is already being disputed in court cases involving indigenous people. Moreover, activists are now asking Queen Elizabeth II to respect the legislation set out by the 1875 Act and to decolonise Australia.</p>
<p>By Ivonna Beches</p>
<p>Read the <a rel="attachment wp-att-978" href="http://www.protimos.org/2011/10/act-questions-sovereignty-of-australian-government/10-pacific-islanders-protection-amendment-act-18751/"></a><a rel="attachment wp-att-979" href="http://www.protimos.org/2011/10/act-questions-sovereignty-of-australian-government/pacific-islanders-protection-amendment-act-1875/"><span style="color: #b4644b;">Pacific Islanders Protection Amendment Act, 1875</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://protimos.org/act-questions-sovereignty-of-australian-government/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Construction of Belo Monte Dam declared illegal</title>
		<link>http://protimos.org/967/</link>
		<comments>http://protimos.org/967/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 16:06:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.protimos.org/?p=967</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Federal Brazilian Judge, Selene Maria de Almeida, has ruled that the 2005 decree that authorised the building of the Belo Monte Dam in Brazil is illegal. The decision was taken on the basis of an alleged lack of consultation between &#8230; <a href="http://protimos.org/967/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Federal Brazilian Judge, Selene Maria de Almeida, has ruled that the 2005 decree that authorised the building of the Belo Monte Dam in Brazil is illegal. The decision was taken on the basis of an alleged lack of consultation between the Brazilian Congress and the indigenous communities that would be affected as a result of the construction of the dam over the Xingu River. Furthermore, the judge pointed out that right to consultation is guaranteed under article 231 of the Brazilian Constitution. The vote is one stage of the long-awaited decision to be taken by a federal circuit court on a 2006 lawsuit filed by the Federal Public Prosecutors’ Office.</p>
<p>It was concluded that the construction of the dam could have a destructive effect on the ability of the indigenous people in the region to navigate freely, catch fish and raise crops. Moreover, it is likely that during the low water season, the dam will only produce 1000 MW of power although its installed capacity is 11,233 MW.</p>
<p>The court hearing was temporarily interrupted by Judge Sebastiao Fagundes de Deus who requested more time to review the law suit’s documentation, but a final judicial vote is expected to be taken within weeks.</p>
<p>By Ivonna Beches</p>
<p>Read the judgement: <a rel="attachment wp-att-969" href="http://www.protimos.org/2011/10/967/ementa-julgamento-bm-2/"><span style="color: #b1674d;">Ementa Julgamento BM</span></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://protimos.org/967/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>French Government Seize Supercar Assets</title>
		<link>http://protimos.org/french-government-seize-supercar-assets/</link>
		<comments>http://protimos.org/french-government-seize-supercar-assets/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:13:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal news]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.protimos.org/?p=945</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eleven supercars belonging to the President of Equatorial Guinea were seized by the French Government following a 2010 Supreme Court ruling allowing investigations into the acquisition of luxury assets by three African heads of state.  Transparency International France and SHERPA &#8230; <a href="http://protimos.org/french-government-seize-supercar-assets/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eleven supercars belonging to the President of Equatorial Guinea were seized by the French Government following a 2010 Supreme Court ruling allowing investigations into the acquisition of luxury assets by three African heads of state.  Transparency International France and SHERPA brought the case before the Supreme Court to pursue allegations of money laundering, and illegitimate use of state funds, by the leaders of Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon.</p>
<p>Two investigating magistrates were appointed to the case to investigate purchases made by the leaders, and their families, which were allegedly in excess of their legal financial capabilities.  The investigation looked at properties, bank accounts, and cars purchased in France by relatives of the Presidents.  The French Public Prosecutor has refused to extend the mandate of the investigation, requested by the investigating judges, to include purchases of expensive cars made by the leaders’ sons in 2009 and 2010.  TI France and SHERPA have filed a complaint to bypass the Public Prosecutor’s attempt to block the case.</p>
<p><a rel="attachment wp-att-946" href="http://www.protimos.org/2011/10/french-government-seize-supercar-assets/transparency-international-france-supreme-court-decision-nov-9th-2010/"><span style="color: #a4785b;">Transparency International France Supreme Court Decision Nov 9th 2010</span></a></p>
<p>By Matt Little</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://protimos.org/french-government-seize-supercar-assets/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
