Talk:Principality of Hutt River

Evidence of de facto recognition by Australian Government

" On 21 April 1970 Leonard George Casley served formal notice on the Premier and the Governor of Western Australia, the Acting Prime Minister, Sir John McEwen, and the Governor-General, Sir Paul Hasluck, that his land was to be the Hutt River Province and that he was to be its administrator. In a further application of bush law he changed the province to a principality and declared himself Prince Leonard and his wife Princess Shirley. He had successfully seceded from Australia.

Casley was reacting to what he regarded as an unfair wheat quota set by the Western Australian government. He turned his 18,500-acre property near Geraldton into a tourist mecca, printing his own stamps, passports and currency, and adopting all the trappings of a real principality."

Source: National Museum of Australia Website (an Australian Government Website) http://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/now_showing/eternity/separation/#row_10

118.208.8.149 (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

A parapgraph from the National Museum's website hardly constitutes evidence of a de facto recongnition by the Australian Government. Tigerman2005 (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

And my balcony is now an independent state. (Much to the chagrin of my neighbour on the first floor who has to show me his passport whenever he walks under it.) Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"Recognition" by Hong Kong 1982

I was in Hongkong in 1982 when the news broke in the local press, that Hutt River had appointed an ambassador to Hongkong, who had duly presented his credentials to the governor of the colony, and had them accepted! Of course, being a crown colony at the time, not a nation, Hongkong did not have or receive ambassadors, and in any case Hutt River was not a recognized nation. Red faces all round in Hongkong, and repudiations were the order of the day - and the media had a lot of fun! (See http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1301&dat=19820316&id=k_1jAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UucDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6978,5558496 ). I cannot access them now, but there was considerable space taken up over the affair for a few days in the South China Post (HK newspaper)! Ptilinopus (talk) 11:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

At the time the Governor of Hong-Kong was in no position to receive or accredit diplomats of any entity, except when acting in the name of the Queen. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Well obviously - as I indicated above - being a crown colony at the time. And not even when acting in the name of the Queen. Any diplomatic accreditation (and only at the consular level) would have been dealt with by the UK government, not the governor, in my understanding. Nevertheless, the above diplomatic faux pas did occur. Ptilinopus (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

How the Prince is addressed.

Someone needs to correct the style of address, as Prince Leonard is addressed as 'His Royal Highness' or personally, 'Your Royal Highness'.

The style of 'Majesty' is reserved only for kings, queens, emperors, & empresses. - (202.89.142.159 (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC))

That's what he wants to be called. If I ever met him I'd call him Len or Captain Nutbag. And the end of the day it doesn't matter what he wants to be called - his "titles" are self-generated with no recognition at an official level by any country (and I mean a UN member not a fellow nutter). Just because I issue a decree tomorrow saying my pool is a new country and that I am now Emperor Tigerman doesn't mean that it is something other people need to be aware of. Tigerman2005 (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

How about "Mr Casley"? That's all he would get from me. What is puzzling in the article is the bold statement that it "achieved" legal status - though unrecognised by Australia or any other nations. Where does the legal status exist if the rulers of the body of land which surrounds the "independent state" does not recognise it's status? Very strange state of affairs. Ref ^(chew)(do) 11:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the article, at least that part of it, tends to present the Casley line. The "2 years" seems to be a reference to the Statue of Limitations. Namely because the Federal Government didn't prosecute him within 2 years of making that declaration (responding as he puts it) then it's "legal". In reality it means (assuming the statute of limitations applies) that he can't be charged or sued. It doesn't not, of course, mean his action was legal. If I threw a brick through a shop window, and the authorities didn't charge me within the period, I can't be charged with the offence. It does NOT mean that smashing the window was legal! Casley asserts his "declaration of independence" became legal when they didn't act. What it really means that it may be too late for him to be charged with any offences related to his declaration. However if they try to assert Sovereignty over the "Principality of Hutt River", and he resists in a manner which would be illegal for the ordinary Australian property holder, he could still be charged. Hence they could find grounds for tax evasion, travelling under a false passport, illegal incorporation/registration of companies etc. Moreover there are certain categories where the statue of limitations doesn't apply. Also he didn't just say he was independent once in 1970, he is continuing to do so now. If Casley is breaking any Commonwealth law in doing so, he could be charged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Why "Royal", btw? The prince of Monaco or Liechtenstein isn't "Royal". —Tamfang (talk) 07:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I imagine it's 'Royal' be because Leonard Casley doesn't know what he is talking about ! That's just what he wants to be called. - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether his claim to succession is valid or not, he is normally (in the media) addressed as Prince Leonard, not Leonard Casley.Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I've removed a number of sentences that are contradicted by other sources, unverified, or lack appropriate verification. I've also altered some wording to make it clear that the whole thing (the HRP, the titles, etc) are the personal fantasy of Casley and his family. Sorry if fantasy seems like a put down but I can't otherwise describe it. Among the things I have changed:

Shirley hosting foreign dignitaries and heading up the Red Cross in HRP. This has gone unverified since last year. If someone can point to anyone of an official (current) nature visiting the place in an official capacity I'm all ears. I'm sure the Red Cross do not recognise the HRP branch, assuming it exists. It may appear harmless to claim this but the Red Cross is obviously a serious group who shouldn't have their name dragged into someone's fantasy.

Far from not having a position or intervening, the Aust Govt has consistently stated it does not recognise the HRP as a legal entity. It has done so through its website (Australia.gov) the ATO, and the Aust ambassador to the UAE. The "failure" of the Australian govt to act in a 2 year period means nothing although if someone can produce a legitimate source to say otherwise please do so. I could secede tomorrow but getting through 2 years doesn't mean a de facto recognition. I'd have thought the Aust govt could take any position it wants at any time on the legitimacy of nations.

Lonely Planet is not (IMHO) a legitimate source when discussing the legality of the Australian position on HRP.

I've changed the "Royal Family" section to "Casley Family" while leaving the bulk of the content. Making personal claims on titles doesn't make you a royal family. Having others recognise you are a royal family with actual titles does. I note that none of the Casleys scored an invite to the Willam/Kate wedding recently. The Australian government doesn't recognise the titles nor does anyone of substance beyond people playing along with the joke.

The occasional border person stamping a passport does not constitute any recognition of the HRP or its power to issue international travel documents. It may work in non-English speaking countries or you may strike a clueless border guard who doesn't know it is fake, or you may convinice an immigration official to stamp it along with a legitimate passport. However, try turning up to the USA or the UK with only a HRP passport and see far you get. For that matter try producing one when leaving Australia.

I hate to be a wet blanket but this matter has to be treated in a factual manner. The fact that the Aust govt no doubt thinks its less trouble to mostly ignore the Casleys is not some de facto or otherwise recognition of anything other than that they have better things to do. I'm more than happy to keep the BS claims that Casley has made on behalf of his family over the years since it is part of the HRP story. Tigerman2005 (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your edits use POV wording and include OR. The definition of fantasy is a situation that is not true or real, the province undeniably exists and functions as described.

• Shirley hosting foreign dignitaries and heading up the Red Cross in HRP is not disputed. The Hutt River province has hosted both foreign and domestic politicians and nowhere in the article does it say they were acting in an official capacity. Casley himself has been invited to visit "dignitaries" overseas and he has these invitations framed and on public display. The Hutt River Red Cross exists. Whether the Red Cross recognises the Hutt River Red Cross or not is irrelevant as they do not claim to be a branch of the Australian Red Cross but a "parallel organisation". Additional info; Hutt River has hosted fundraising for the Australian Red Cross. One of Hutt River's citizens is the International Coordinator for the British Red Cross.
• The article does not say the government does not have a position. It is clear on the governments’ position. A single mention in two sentences is not "consistently stated". You can secede all you like but the article is clear that the loopholes that allowed the Hutt River secession have been closed. The Australian Constitution effectively ties the government's hands, it can only act once the succession has been taken to arbitration by the WA government and they won’t do it in case Casley wins so the legality of the succession remains in limbo.
• Your opinion on Lonely Planet not being a legitimate source is OR.
• Whether the titles are recognised by the government is irrelevant. Government correspondence with Casley sometimes uses the titles which is what started the whole thing in the first place. They are used by the Casleys and are no different to the practice of people using "master" or "esquire" etc. A member of the British royal family has accepted a knighthood (I'm assuming it was Prince Phillip as he has corresponded with and met Casley but that's my OR) If the Casleys use titles, etiquette requires that you do as well.
• From what I've read, Casley and his wife travel on their Hutt River Passports.

I'll have a look around for more references when I get time. Wayne (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• You seem fired up by this, however you're a bit all over the place. My edits are not OR or POV. They seek to overcome those problems. Every edit I made relies on evidence or removes claims made without evidence. On the other hand your claims seem mainly based on what the Casleys have told you or trying to use 3rd party sources. It's fine to say Casley or his wife claim this or that so long as it is clear they are personal claims made by them. Trying to shoehorn some sort of official stance that favours these positions through weak sources or unsourced claims weakens the article.
• His claims are fantasy. I don't dispute there is a property that Casley calls Hutt River Province.
• If there is no dispute about Shirley hosting these people where is the evidence? Who are they? In what capacity where they there - as tourists or in an official capacity?
• Source evaluation is not OR - it is what decent writers do. You're seriously going to suggest Lonely Planet is an authority on legal issues? Come on now... It's common sense. You call it OR which it isn't - it is about getting appropriate references for what is in the article. It is a travel book.
• There was no loophole to secede - the AG does not recognise that it is not part of Australia. No UN member does either. A loophole suggests something was allowed - nothing was. The change in law was to stop other people pulling similar stunts and wasting everyone's time.
• There is no limbo either. The absence of action does not equate to a lack of certainty over the issue. Why would the WA government want to do anything? They have no real interest - state governments are service providers - there is no tax to collect. If Casley drives around with a HRP number plate that might be worth noting.
• Someone claiming to represent an organisation needs to provide some evidence they have the right to do so. Failing that, it needs to be made clear that her position is not recognised by the Red Cross. Someone claiming to be the head of something does not make it so. The article implies that she heads a division on a real organisation. She doesn't - she heads up something she invented. Nobody recognises her in that title apart from herself. Does it exist? In what form? What does it do? She can claim she's the head of the Hutt River Nobel Prize Committee as well but that's just as fanciful. The article makes no attempt to provide sources for Shirley's claims to head squat - it seems based on the personal research of people such as yourself who've spoken to them or based on a claim that a "citizen" (un-named, unsourced) has links to the Red Cross. The IRC website DOES NOT mention HRP as a member. Which means Shirley's claim means nothing.
• The article in various sections implies that the Australian Government as made a de facto recognition of HR when, as other parts of the article point out, they have consistently maintained a solid line that HRP as a legal entity is a fiction.
• Of course recognition of tiles matters - that's what gives them gravitas or some legal standing. Individuals inventing names for themselves is fine and I make no attempt to remove it from the article but the lack of recognition from the global political and royalist communities needs to be pointed out. Both Master and Esquire have actual meanings - people's misuse of them at times not withstanding. Where are these letters from the govt? More OR based on your conversations with the Casleys? Where is the evidence that Prince Phillip or any royal has "accepted" a knighthood? I'd be amazed if Prince Phillip claims or uses this title.
• I'd be stunned if Casley or anyone has travelled anywhere solely on a HRP. They have no legal right to issue a passport in the sense of international treaties/agreements. As I pointed out I'm sure the odd person gets a HRP stamped but I await evidence that any country has a legal position that it will recognise HRP as a legitimate passport.

As I said I don't want to ruin anyone's fun but claimed titles, positions etc need to be written as just that - claims made by individuals which are not legally recognised by anyone. Tigerman2005 (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read the article before you edit and you may be able to make a coherant arguement. It seems I have to waste my time stating the obvious.

• Lets get your edits out of the way. You did not add the ATO stance. You added the ATO repeating the government stance making it a duplication. The ATO's own stance is mentioned elsewhere in the article. Go to HRP and they will exchange your $ for theirs on a one for one basis. That I believe is called a currency exchange rate. There is no claim in the article that the ARC recognises the HRPRC.
• Casley sends invitations to "dignitaries and diplomatic representatives", many accept. Many "dignitaries and diplomatic representatives" also send invitations to Casley, one example I remember is the Governor of Kentucky hosting the Casleys and giving Leornard and Shirley honorary titles. It is irrelevant whether they do so in an official capacity or not as the article does not claim they do. What is relevant is that the visits take place. Casley keeps all the documents on display.
• That particular Lonely Planet book is not a travel guide. It is non-fiction and qualifies as a RS. It is not pretending to be an authority on legal issues, it is used as a ref for a single claim regarding Australian law. I have read the same claim in the newspaper but cant remember the date.
• See loophole. There is nothing in the definition that requires recognition by the AG let alone the UN.
• The absence of action does not equate to a lack of certainty over the issue. Read the article, the only uncertainty mentioned is that there is no guarantee that WA would win if they took Casley to arbitration. There is no mention that other government depts do not act through uncertainty. BTW... State governments collect tax as do local councils.
• I cant be bothered replying to this one. Ive already told you that the Hutt River Red Cross does not claim to be a branch of the Australian Red Cross. The Casleys are free to claim that they head whatever they like. They dont have to ask for your permission.
• Sigh....nowhere in the article does it claim that the Australian Government gives HRP de facto recognition. What it says is that the province has de facto autonomy. Two completely different things.
• Titles: The government wanted to prosecute the Casley's. They took the Royal titles to prevent it. The government dropped the case and changed the law to prevent others doing the same. Not changed to stop people giving themselves titles but changed to prevent titles from preventing prosecution. Because the constitution prevents retrospectivity, if the Casleys drop the titles they leave themselves open to prosecution.
• Leornard casley has traveled overseas frequently. He claims he only uses a HR passport. Wayne (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Look I'm happy to compromise on some of these things if you are but a few of them I still object to. Starting from the bottom,

• that's an unverified claim so I have an issue with including that. I'm saying that nobody leaves through Australian immigration without a recognised passport. I have no evidence but neither do you. Don't care what Casley claims.
• Your titles claim needs a verification. If there is something saying the Aust government did those things, go for it.
• Define "de facto" autonomy? What makes HRP "de facto" autonomous? If a crime was committed there I'd suspect the WA police and legal system would treat it like anywhere else. Forget the sighs too...
• THey can claim what they want but the article has to reflect it is a claim without substance. Just because someone claims to be something does not make it worthy of a mention on Wikipedia. I'll keep deleting the reference every time. It is not needed and is verifiably wrong to suggest Shirley's BS group is an official branch of the Australian or International Red Crosses. If you insist on going along with Shirley's delusions of grandeur at least word it "Shirley claims to be the..." or "Shirley is the self-declared head of the HR Red Cross which she claims is the official representative of the Australian Red Cross". Thinking about it more, it sounds like Shirley (if anything) is the head of the local sub-branch which puts her on par with the head of the Dapto branch. In which case I'd suggest it is trivial information.
• There's no guarantee they would lose too so why bother stating something that can't be verified one way or another? If someone has given a legal opinion I'm all ears. State governments/councils collect taxes/charges where they provide a service. Now I don't know if Lord Whatsy pays his rates but if he doesn't I'm thinking his garbage goes uncollected. The state govt doesn't directly tax people but the HRP crowd would have to pay the same charges everyone else does.
• The loophole (I know what it means) in this context refers to act of secession. I'm saying there was no secession just a one man saying he did. The article implies that HRP can claim independence based on this now closed loophole. I'm pointing out that nobody outside of the HRP actually believes they are independent. As I've said, if the article makes it clear these are claims by Casley then by all means refer to them but there is a suggestion that the Aust govt are unable to act against HRP because of some loophole. The constitution doesn't prohibit retrospective law at all. There is a general prohibition on retrospective criminal laws but this is derived from UN treaties and relates to prosecuting individuals for offences that were legal at the time. So no the Aust government couldn't prosecute Casley is his actions were legal at the time but there is absolutely nothing to stop the Aust government passing a law to ban any person claiming to have seceded from Australia at which point Casley could be charged then. I realise this is unlikely and speculative so obviously it doesn't belong in the article but the assumption you refer to are incorrect.
• If it doesn't claim to be a legal reference why use it to cite a legal reference? That makes no sense. If there is a law, cite the law. I'll take your point that this LP isn't a travel guide since I haven't seen it but they still aren't a recognised expert on legal and constitutional matters. Just because a book is non-fiction doesn't make it a RS all of a sudden. Cookbooks are NF but if Nigella passes commentary on something non-cooking I'll treat it at the level it deserves to be.
• Who are these many? You can't just say that without providing some evidence. Accept what? It is a simple matter - Has any office holding member of a foreign government ever gone to HRP in an official capacity? A number of people who don't claim to be heads of state have been made Honorary Kentucky colonels. It's not an official title nor a recognition of anything apart from being famous. Means nothing apart from garden variety trivia. Even the HR website suggests the certificates were mailed out. There is zero evidence to suggest the Governor officially hosted the Casleys or vice versa. Your recollections are not verifiable evidence of them hosting foreign dignitaries nor are letters on display at the Casleys house.
• No currency exchange (as a reasonable person would understand it) is where financial institutions will exchange currency based on an exchange rate rate. What Casley is doing is selling his currency to you - it is not currency exchange. Try and get your HRP cash transferred back into any other currency outside HRP. Banks won't do it, Forex won't do it. Me printing my own currency and swapping it with someone on a one-for-one basis isn't currency exchange anymore that this is.

I'm not trying to destroy the article or deny King Leo his right to live his dreams. All I am asking for is that claims made by him are referred to as such - that they are self generated. You've obviously been to HRP and were impressed by what was there. For all i know you might have acquired some HRP currency or purchased a citizenship or title. No problems but try and work through these issues without getting in a huff. As it is the article is pretty solid and well put together - it just needs relatively minor changes. Tigerman2005 (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your misinterpretaions of the article are getting tiresome. If you have a problem take it to the noticeboard.

• Casley has made this claim repeatedly on national television and no one, even when a politician is interviewed on the same program, has ever refuted him.
• I dont understand what you mean by this question. Be more specific.
• John Ryan uses the word de facto in his book and the dictionary definition supports it's use. Australian law provides statutes of limitation for actions taken by the federal government. Apparently in this case the limit was two years for the federal government but the law still allows the state government to take action. They have not done so and the federal government has not pressured them to take action. Therefore the province acts with de facto legality. There is no indication the province has ever acted outside the law so your mention of a crime seems to be based on your own OR.
• The language you use and the false claims you make proves your POV position. Despite your claims otherwise, Shirley does not just claim to be, but IS the head of the HR Red Cross. The HRRC makes no claim of affiliation with the ARC and does not claim to represent them in any way (although they have donated money collected by the HRRC to the ARC). She specifically says they are a parallel organisation.
• HRP pays no state or federal taxes (apart from import duties on goods from overseas). For example, HR postage stamps are accepted by AP for letters posted from within the province in the same way that U.S. postage stamps are accepted for letters posted from within the U.S.
• The article is clear that the province has only de facto and not actual legality. The federal government DID pass a law banning any person from seceding from Australia but it can not apply to claims made prior to the law being passed which is what is meant by retrospectivity. The federal government cant take action over the sucession but the state government still can but choose not to. Even if they do take action and win the case, Casley has not broken any laws so why do you keep saying he can be charged?
• The Nigella reference is a straw man, the book is a RS speaking in it's area of expertise and has not had it's claim disputed by anyone apart from you. If it was a travel guide it may not be a RS on legal or constitutional matters, but as a dedicated book it can be used as a reference for the claim.
• Not my recollections at all. The New York Times has an article making the same claims: many officials in Western Australia, some quite high up, and even nationally in Australia are happy to play out the myth of Hutt River’s sovereignty [by] attending [Hutt River] functions, returning correspondence [and] abandoning the claim for tax. Many newspaper articles refer to the claims so they can be mentioned in the article.
• Now you are just getting pedantic.

The article is clear on who is claiming what and what recognition is given to the claims. I've never been to the HRP or had anything to do with them but at least once a year the newspapers have an article about the province so the situation is well known here. It's possible that Australians understand the situation better than people from other countries. You appear to read more into the claims than is meant. Wayne (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth I am Australian so your point there is not valid. I understand the situation well enough. You seem to believe you own the article and make no effort to discuss the issue rationally. If you find it tiresome to get the article right I apologise. Tigerman2005 (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I discuss the article rationally but you do not seem to listen. What I find tiresome is having to answer the same claims repeatedly even after they have been explained to you. For example, despite the article not making any claim that the HR Red Cross is an official representative of the Australian Red Cross and despite you being told several times that the HRRC do not even claim to be affiliated, you keep repeating that they claim to be. Wayne (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As per your suggestion I'm seeking a 3rd opinion on this matter. You seem to believe that editing this page consists of you being the sole decision maker of what is fair and reasonable (e.g. "despite you being told...). My personal belief is that claims where the source provided is the person themselves is not sufficient. The article is full of citation needed tags that you've had some time to get a source for. I'll let someone else offer their viewpoint. Tigerman2005 (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. The Third Opinion request made in regard to this discussion has been removed due to the lack of any recent discussion or dispute about the issues in question (none in the last 5 months). If the discussion resumes and then comes to a standstill, a new request may be made at that time. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Reading the article, I have to echo the concerns expressed here - many things stated as fact (regarding law etc.) in the first section of the article are I assuming just claims made by Leonard Casley (and treated as claims, not fact, in a later section of the article, regarding "controversies"). At the very least, this makes the whole article inconsistent - things later treated as merely claims by Casley and as 'controversies' are started as simple fact at the beginning of the article. Similarly, the links given for the claims simply refer to various newspaper or magazine articles, no doubt soft "cat up a tree" or local weirdo pieces, not serious legal or historical works. I have read the Micronatons book by Lonely Planet and, while a perfectly entertaining work, is mostly light-hearted, not really exMning any serious legal or political questions. I don't believe Wkipedia is written in a similar manner, and should instead deal with this thing factually, rather than going along with the fun. - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I should also add that Wikipedia generally doesn't/shouldn't have 'criticism' sections. Rather, these things should be distributed throughout the article. I would suggest that many of the thins n the criticism and status section should be dealt wi withing the first section. - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Page Break

I'm from Perth, and have actually been to the "Hutt River Province". I have to side with Tigerman2005. Lonely Planet is a Travel Guide, and the Micronations book is an extension of this to these little "oddities". My understanding of the Australian Constitution is that it does not contain any provisions for secession. That's one of the reasons why WA's secession attempt in the 30's failed (Britain had legally surrendered the right to pass laws binding on Australia in 1931). To suggest that they only had 2 years to respond to some farmer declaring himself "independent" sounds highly dubious. It sounds like it's a reference to the Statute of Limitations. This would suggest that he cannot be charged with a crime, but says nothing about the actual claim of secession.

Regarding the other points. Firstly the Red Cross an INTERNATIONAL organisation. It is not enough to say they don't claim to be affiliated with the Australian Red Cross, as it makes it look like the International Red Cross recognise Hutt River, which it obviously does not. I guess the sad loss of "Princess" Shirley makes this moot, but there is a broader issue here. In WA, "Prince Leonard" and his toy country are regarded as a joke, but a harmless one. I remember in the '80's he went and toured Pearce Air Base, supposedly looking into expanding his Air Force (which consisted of a crop duster). So Wayne's talk about officials "playing along with the joke" is quite right, but that's all it is. There is no "semi-official" recognition or anything at all like that. As for the passport issue: we only have "Prince" Leonard's word for it. It is not a recognised passport in Australia, and Australian passport control would not allow him in or out of the country on it! Also the claim that he has worked for NASA as a "physicist/Mathematician" and had a star named in his honour seems to be based solely upon a verbal statement he made to George Negus's show. I find it quite dubious. Surely if there are is no independent validation of this it should be called a claim! I also question the interpretation of the 1495 act. The act does not say that any self-proclaimed royal is not guilty of treason, but that people who fight for such a person aren't. This Act was passed under Henry VII who faced various pretenders such as Perkin Warbeck, who claimed he was really Prince Richard, one of the "Princes in the Tower". Warbeck was executed for treason - surely indicating that just calling yourself a "prince" doesn't make you "not guilty" of treason! It most certainly does NOT say that interfering with such a person is guilty of Treason! No one was charged for arresting Perkin Warbeck! As the article makes clear, the Act was to protect those who fought under the Banner of Richard III. It "might" protect the "Prince's" family and "subjects" (but they'd have to prove "Prince Leonard" has true de facto Kingly powers), but not "Prince" Leonard himself.

I have no particular beef with "Prince Leonard", and can understand his anger at the WA Government in 1969, but I suspect the Governments have held back more for fear of negative publicity than anything else. Also "Wayne", if you read this, Tigerman2005 clearly said that if a serious crime were committed on the territory of "Hutt River Province" then the WA Police would intervene, regardless of the "Prince's" sovereign rights! NOT that some "crime" has been committed. It isn't "OR" as it isn't put into the article. But his point still stands. If someone was murdered on the "Prince's" land, the Northampton police would go in and investigate, gather evidence etc, as if it were their jurisdiction, which legally it is! The Province is private property. The only real "crime" (treason apart) would be tax evasion. As the Province sells it's wheat in Australia, they would certainly pay company tax at least on the profits, so I doubt very much they don't pay any tax other than import duties on goods from overseas. Remember that even if your a "non-resident" for tax purposes, you still have to pay tax on money earned in Australia, which is anything "Prince Leonard" chooses to sell outside of Hutt River Province. The only income that isn't taxable is the sale of souvenirs, food etc to the various tourists that go there, as all other income would derive from activities that take place on Australian soil. The "Prince" may make these legal claims, but they have never been tested in Court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The "Hutt River Province" declared independence based on a loophole. Their land was never officially claimed by England, the loophole has since been closed but as the Australian Constitution prevents retrospectivity, Hutt River still benefits from that loophole. WA's secession could not succeed because Perth was claimed by England, the only part of WA that was officially claimed. To quote from a University of Melbourne website: "the federal government hasn’t actively opposed the Principality due to a series of legal complications, partly to do with the fact that WA was never officially British proclaimed territory. The end result is that PHR has de facto legality". The claim that Casley worked for NASA as a physicist and mathematician and had a star named after him was not made by Prince Leonard. Go to the source and it is the interviewer who makes the claim, Casley merely replies that that was only one of his jobs during his life. Other sources also support that claim. Tigerman2005 was referring to some of the Casley's actions being crimes, there is no claim that if a murder was committed on his property that the police would not investigate. "Never been tested in Court" is the crux of the matter. The law code does not cover what is legal; it only defines what is illegal. A harmless joke it may be, but the state of Western Australia is the only entity legally entitled to challenge the legality of the Casley claim and they have declined to do so. They have not done so not out of fear of "negative publicity" but for three real reasons, Casley is not hurting anyone, it's good for tourism and there is a chance, albeit very small, that Casley could win the case. Here is an interesting website showing how legal loopholes have been used to effect de-facto legality in far more ridiculous ways than declaring Hutt River a Province. Wayne (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Wayne, the transcript shows "Prince" Leonard saying he worked as a physicist/mathematician for NASA. The interviewer, clearly just repeating the "Prince's" assertions, says he wrote "papers" for NASA and "Universities around the world". Even if that's true (is it?) it is hardly the same as claiming that he worked for NASA as a physicist/mathematician. As for the star... Dubious at best. Very few stars are named after people, and those that are bear the names of leading astronomers, usually the discoverer. I'm pretty sure "Prince" Leonard isn't one of them! It is far more usual for comets to be named for people, as well as craters etc. it certainly does not appear on the list of named stars! Where are these "other sources"? Any actually referencing NASA documentation? Or are they like the Negus puff piece, simply repeating Casley's assertion? The claim that Governor Stirling never "took possession" of the entirety of WA is, again, Casley's assertion. Your claimed Melbourne University source is just the Student newspaper recounting a visit to "the Prince" by the author of the article. The official "Principality" website posted a PDF of the proclamation of Governor Stirling. Stirling says he is establishing a settlement "in the territory of Western Australia" and that he was taking possession of the Territory - not the area of the settlement, but the territory which was referred to as Western Australia! Just because others repeat Casley's assertion does not give it legal weight, or make it true. As for it being "the reason" they never moved against him, what about all the other micro states that have been declared in Australia since these "loopholes" were closed? George Muirhead? Alex Brackstone? Paul Neuman? The "duke of Avram"? All these people, and others, have pulled Casley's stunt since the supposed loopholes were closed. Why were none of them jailed for it?

Regarding Tigerman's "crime" reference: he said this. "If a crime was committed there I'd suspect the WA police and legal system would treat it like anywhere else." Obviously he is not saying some of Casley's actions being crimes, simply that he's sure the police and judiciary wouldn't give his territory any special treatment if a crime were committed there. I also fail to see how the Commonwealth cannot act against him if they chose to be nasty. This 2 year stuff refers to the Statute of Limitations (this applies to the State as well as Canberra, although the period varies) but does not apply to serious crimes like murder, and surely treason. Furthermore they could try and get him on tax evasion, issuing false passports, etc. these things are happening NOW and definitely would not come under the a Statute of Limitations! The best legal position he has is that the GG's office referred to him as the "Administrator" of the Hutt River Province, which could be construed as legal validation of his pretensions.

If there is not valid supporting evidence of claims, like working for NASA as a physicist/mathematician, they should be stated as claims, and not presented as facts. Interviewers merely repeating the claims is not corroborating evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.126.85.66 (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the transcript clearly shows the interviewer was the first person to mention that Casley worked as a physicist/mathematician for NASA. Casley was prosecuted for tax evasion, and fined $4. He refused to pay and was arrested but the Supreme Court ordered that he be paid $200 compensation for false arrest, the $4 fine was cancelled and Casley was issued with a notice from the Taxation Dept stating he was exempted from taxation as a non citizen.
Your interpretation of the proclamation is incorrect, it does not say "in the Territory of Western Australia, it says "within the Territory of Western Australia" and this needs to be quoted in context. Bear in mind that the settling of WA was as a privately owned colony with the already existing government settlement dismantled. In 1827, Captain Stirling warned the Colonial Secretary, Sir George Murray, that the French were preparing to found a colony and that possession must be "taken of the country surveys commenced...by seizing a possession upon the western coast of this island near Swan River." This was seen as all that was needed to exclude the French as this was the only land in WA deemed suitable for a colony. Two days later, the founding of a colony in WA was cancelled on the grounds of economy and the Secretary of State offered WA to the East India Company who declined the offer, resulting in the idea of a colony at all being shelved. However, a personal friend of Captain Stirling was at this time appointed Under Secretary and he supported Stirlings colony and campaigned for it. The Colonial Secretary then ordered the Admiralty to send a ship to the coast of New Holland to take formal possession, "Under these circumstances I am of opinion that it would be inexpedient, on the score of expense, to occupy this part of the coast," with the direction that "formal possession in His Majesty's name" be taken of land in New Holland and "that the spot should be at or near the Swan River." On 10 March 1829, HMS Challenger under the command of Captain Fremantle arrived at the Swan River and took formal possession. In his proclamation, Governor Stirling did not say that he was taking possession of the Territory, the proclamation formally claimed that "His Majesty's Settlement should forthwith be formed within the Territory of Western Australia" and the "Establishment of His Majesty's Authority" be proclaimed "within the Territory aforesaid." His Majesty's Authority now applied "within the Territory aforesaid." This obviously referred to the previous mention of the "Settlement formed within the Territory." We can also read other official documents such as that of 30th Dec 1828 appointing Stirling as Lieutenant Governor which spell out his powers and authority. This document states "It had been resolved by His Majesty's Government to occupy the Port on the Western Coast of New Holland at the mouth of the River called "Swan River" with the adjacent territory for the purpose of forming a settlement there." On the 14 May, a Bill was presented to the English Parliament authorizing the passing of "such laws and ordinances as might be necessary" in "His Majesty's settlements in Western Australia on the western coast of New Holland." The language used in the proclamation and documents all appear to apply only to the Perth Settlement, not Western Australia in it's entirety. Additionally, the 1829 Imperial Act did not define the limits or boundaries of Western Australia. Regardless of what was intended it can legitimately, and legally, be argued that WA was not claimed. Wayne (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Wayne, first of all the only thing referred to as territory in the proclamation is the "territory of Western Australia". Stirling took possession of "the territory", not the "area of settlement". Nor does it define the limits of the settlement, except that it's within the "Territory of Western Australia". The proclamation may not "define" Western Australia, but it WAS defined by Matthew Flinders, who drew the official charts, as that part of the country west of the 129th meridian (it was NSW to the east). This isn't a "loophole" but a pathetic attempt at semantics, and only Casley really makes the claim. Even Aboriginal activists go to the absence of a formal treaty and formal declaration of war to support their claims of continuing Governance. Stirling said he was taking possession of the territory, not area of the colony, and the Parliamentary authority, to use your argument, did NOT specify what were the adjacent areas! It's a piss weak argument which Casley alone seems to make - him and a few others who go along with the joke! Casley's argument is based upon the proclamation itself, NOT private letters that Stirling wrote earlier. I know some people like to imagine letters Thomas Jefferson wrote are part of the US Constitution, but they aren't. The same goes with Stirling's letters. To put it more obviously to you, Stirling and his men had an expedition that led to the Battle of Pinjarah. To this day Pinjarah is not part of Perth. So you tell me where Stirling's authority ended! Stirling's proclamation, which Casley quotes, says this:

"Whereas his Majesty having been pleased to Command that a Settlement should be forthwith formed within the Territory of Western Australia and whereas with a view of affecting that Object an expedition having been prepared and sent forth and in accordance with his Majesty's pleasure the Direction of the Expedition and the Government of the proposed Settlement, having been confided to me, and whereas pursuance of the Premises Possession of the Territory having been taken and the Settlement therein being now actually effected."

I won't reproduce any more. But clearly whilst the Settlement is within the Territory taken possession of, it is not the entirety of it, the Territory being Western Australia. If there is any doubt, then look here: http://foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/wa5i_doc_1831.pdf

This is the commission which Stirling finally got in 1831 (he set sail whilst it was still being drafted, and they had to redraft it and send it on). It appoints Stirling Governor of Western Australia which is defined in the document as extending from Cape Londonderry at 13deg 45' south to West Cape Horn (Howe) 35deg 8' South and from Dirk Hartog Island in the West to 129deg east and including all adjacent offshore islands. Basically the whole of WA. Certainly it includes the so-called Hutt River Province, or Principality of Hutt River as he now calls it. So let's get away from this selective quoting and play on semantics: there's no loophole for Casley here! Also what are you talking about claiming the previous government settlement was "dismantled"? The only previous one was the settlement at what is now Albany that Major Lockyer established in 1826. That was never "dismantled" but formally came under Stirling's jurisdiction in 1831 when he finally received his commission I linked to above.

The TV puff piece clearly shows the interviewer's statement was a piece of narration - a voice over made after the interview! The "source" is clearly Casley. Do you have any others? Some of the other references mention some of Casley's "mathematics". All I can say is that they are a "unique" form of numerology. Do you have any real evidence Casley even has a Science degree? Any degree? Much less evidence of PhD, expertise in maths or physics, let alone that he actually "worked" (by implication was paid for what he did) for NASA? Casley can call himself these things, but unless you can verify that any of it is true, then present it as a claim, NOT a clear fact. Do you have any evidence of the claim having substance? These puff pieces don't count as the also call him a royal prince etc. merely repeating Casley's claims. The interviewer, BTW, said Casley had "written papers" for NASA and Universities. This is not quite the same as working for NASA as a "physicist/mathematician" as Casley claimed. Papers can mean anything: writing equations for orbital transfer; just sending a letter of congratulation for landing men on the Moon; or his theory of the magical biological number (which would have gone in the bin). Plus there is not a shred of evidence he's even done that!

I used to think it was part protest, part gimmick to get money from the tourists, but him claiming he's a mathematician and physicist who worked for NASA shows serious delusions of grandure, and detachment from reality. That claim has nothing to do the pretensions of his "principality", or keeping from being prosecuted (unless he's trying to prove he's crazy). Perhaps he now believes his own BS. The point is you should not state that he is a mathematician or a physicist, much less he worked for NASA unless there is a real source for this. Von Braun, Carl Sagan, etc who were really major parts of NASA and JPL don't have stars named after them, why think Casley does? Because he says so, and some idiot jouno doing a puff piece repeats it? If Casley said he'd won the Nobel Prize for physics and designed the Saturn V would you just publish it as fact? This a big problem with the article. It is Casley's opinion that Stirling's proclamation didn't cover his property - he may just as well say it doesn't cover him as it doesn't specifically mention Hutt River. But the NASA claim presented as fact on no real corroborating evidence is even worse.

As for your assertion about Casley being charged, arrested, released and compensated for wrongful arrest etc do you have any real evidence for this? It should be in the article if you do as it is surely more notable than him not getting his post! How did he get away with it? Did the court find he was paying his taxes? Surely this cuts across the claims he pays no taxes. Or did they find he didn't have to pay taxes? If so, why? Because he wasn't under Australian jurisdiction? Very significant I would have thought. So why not include it? The last bit you put, namely the ATO sending him a letter saying he was "exempt from taxation as a non-citizen" is rubbish. They may decide Casley has renounced his citizenship and become "stateless", remember they do NOT recognise Hutt River as a genuine country, but this would not exempt him from tax. There are plenty of Kiwis, Brits, Indians, even a few Yanks, working here who are not citizens of Australia, and they are all liable for taxation. Casley supposedly has a letter from the ATO on his wall declaring he is a non-resident for tax purposes. Something different.

I didn't have an issue with "Prince" Leonard, but he seems to be living in a fantasy world where he really believes his own BS. I don't know why you are so keen to take it all at face value - even making it sound as if a minor travel anecdote in the student newspaper is an official (i.e. Academically backed) Melbourne University publication supporting his ridiculous assertions about WA not formally having authority over his little patch of land. Clearly not supported either by Stirling's proclamation, or his official appointment when it showed up. What next? That it didn't mention Hutt River explicitly so it doesn't really include Hutt River? This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia article, not a "goodonya mate" backing for an entertaining loon. If Casley's claims, be it for Britain never officially claiming his neck of the woods, or being a physicist/mathematician working for NASA can't be properly substantiated, then they should be presented as claims he has made, and not facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.126.85.66 (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The original settlement was "dismantled", it was a convict settlement and the Colonial Office specifically ordered that the soldiers and convicts be removed from Western Australia. The settlement remained because American sealers still lived there after the British left. Much of your post is WP:OR, if a reliable source makes a claim that he worked for NASA and it is not refuted, we can repeat the claim, here is another source. If it is Casley making the claim then it is presented as a claim. The National Museum of Australia has an exhibit for Hutt river where it is stated, quote: "[Casley] had successfully seceded from Australia." The fact remains that the Province does have autonomy that the government chooses to ignore, legal or not is irrelevant as ambiguity does exist that can be exploited.
"pathetic attempt at semantics," "so-called," "believes his own BS," "serious delusions of grandure" and "an entertaining loon." Your language reveals your agenda. Wayne (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Wayne, I'm not going to argue with you about the nature Major Lockyer's expedition or the continuity of settlement at Albany - it is not relevant to the issue. I have given you a link to Stirling's commission which clearly puts the entire state under his jurisdiction. Casley seems to be the one pushing the claim that WA in its entirety was not claimed. The article not only says he wrote papers for NASA (highly doubtful) but that he's a mathematician and physicist and then mentions NASA as proof of his credentials. The linked NY Times article is the only source that says much about "Prince" Leonard's background and it doesn't mention any NASA link - odd given it's an American publication and you would have thought they'd like the supposed American connection. The do, however, say that he was born in Kalgoorlie, that he left school at 14 (common enough) and that after working in a variety of jobs took a job with a shipping company where he taught himself accountancy and picked up some of his "bush lawyer" skills. No degree in science much less maths or physics. No publications in genuine scientific journals, and certainly no PhD. I can guarantee you NASA would not have employed him as a mathematician or physicist, or approached him to write papers on anything that could be described as mathematics or physics. He worked for a shipping company. He might possibly have had involvement in importing equipment for NASA's ground stations in Muchae or Canarvon. Perhaps he had his building hat on and was involved with the construction. But only Casley calls himself a mathematician or a physicist. The Reporter in the Negus puff piece just says he wrote papers and The Age just calls him a "former NASA employee". I'm quite sure Casley is the source they're quoting. But Casley is certainly the only one who calls himself a mathematician or physicist. Incidentally the NY Times article also says he admits to paying annual "gifts" to the local government. Sounds a lot like rates to me whatever he chooses to call it. Perhaps he gives "foreign aid" to the State and Federal Governments too. Sounds like his "autonomy" is quite limited!

Now as to your other assertions. Firstly, I haven't actually edited "your" article, so OR doesn't count. I don't see I did any either. Anyone can see his claim of a biological number system is much more like numerology than the mathematics NASA employs. As for the reference to Stirling's commission. Well it's freely available and is widely cited as the document which formally gave Stirling legal authority across the State. I am not suggesting you put it in the article, but am showing that Casley's contention that Britain never claimed the whole state is just that, a contention based upon playing with semantics and combining it with wishful thinking. The I commission actually does define Stirling's jurisdiction, and it is the whole state. So Casley's claim should be presented as a claim, not an established fact. The same goes with him calling himself a NASA mathematician or physicist. There is zero evidence to support these claims, and every reason to think they're simple delusions of grandure: he left school at 14; never worked in any other scientific or technical institution; it is laughable to claim he was plucked from a shipping company office to work as a mathematician/physicist by NASA, who does this work in the US anyway, or via established academic institutions. Please say that "Prince Leonard" claims to have worked as a mathematician/physicist. There are 2 sources used in the article that say he worked for a shipping company, why isn't this mentioned? Is it because it doesn't sound as impressive as NASA scientist? No mention of him making an annual "gift" to the local government - is that because it might make him look a little less autonomous? Also why not include his run in with the ATO if you can reference it? It is even more notable than the Australia Post issue. "Prince" Leonard would have to pay for sending things via Australia Post, whether he puts his own stamps on it or not - if you post something here from the US or UK Australia Post gets paid for its part of the delivery. But the the ATO case may be evidence of him not being subject to a federal tax. It is very notable and should surely be in the article if you can source it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.126.85.74 (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Casley's claims are presented as claims so I'm unsure as to what you are referring to. In regards to Britain never claiming the whole state, the article says: "According to Casley..." and "Hutt River Province claims..." which is definitely not presenting the claim as fact. If you have a source explaining how Hutt River works with Australia Post use it, I can't find one. In regards to NASA we can use what the sources claim, I don't think we even have one for Casley making the claim. Wayne (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. You say Casley is a former Mathematician and physicist who wrote papers for NASA. Yet we only have Casley's assertion that he's a mathematician or physicist (he has no qualifications or experience to back up the assertion). The article is also a bit unclear that it is simply Casley's assertion that WA was not claimed in its entirety by Britain. It should be made quite clear that these are Casley's assertions, not ones supported by any official opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.126.85.74 (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If you read the transcript of the Negus show, the interviewer/narrator says Casley has "written papers for NASA and a number of universities", it then cuts to Casley saying he "I've been the builder of flats, owning flats and that, uh, exporter of fresh fruit and vegetables to Singapore, an accountant, a copper miner, a, uh...a physicist...a mathematician/physicist, um...and, of course, now, uh...running a country. Also, I did go away to the war, and I did fight for your country, you know?"

The claim to being a mathematician/physicist is solely Casley's. Neither Brendan Hutchens nor The Age call him this. The NY Times article says he left school at 14 and worked for a shipping company. No degree much less PhD. I am aware of people who are self taught etc but to work for NASA in that capacity they'd have to have a long history in the field - something Casley obviously lacks. The article is tagged as giving undue weight and being unbalanced. Presenting Casley's assertions as being a Mathematician/Physicist who worked for NASA in that capacity as fact rather than a claim is plainly ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What in this statement suggests the claim is an official opinion?

"According to Casley, to overturn this de facto recognition, the West Australian Governor's office would have to submit the secession to arbitration, something which the Hutt River Province claims is not done due to legal uncertainty over the result, related to the fact that Western Australia in its entirety was never officially proclaimed as British Territory."

We don't actually have Casley's assertion that he worked for NASA, in the interview it is the interviewer making the assertion while in the other article it is a news report making the claim. Why does Casley need qualifications? I dropped out of high school yet taught a TAFE class for a year and tutor University students. I am currently tutoring a student for his honors degree. I am also a self taught plasterer (not qualified) yet in 1978 I personally designed and sculptured the fluted triple archway in the foyer of the Elder Conservatorium at the Adelaide University (first picture in third row of this photo gallery). I am also not an engineer yet I was hired by a company in 1992 to not only design a gas pump but to design and build an apparatus for pressure testing containers, both of which passed certification by Australian Standards. Am I not allowed to make these claims because I'm not qualified? Wayne (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

So here we go. Firstly Wayne, I said that there are people without qualifications who have been employed in such capacity, but they have long histories in the field. Casley does not. NASA is an AMERICAN organization. Why would they pluck an obscure West Australian who works in a shipping company, and had previously worked as builder, and allegedly as a miner in his own mine, to work for them as a "mathematician/physicist"? Did he work with the Weapons Research establishment in Woomera? Not a hint of it. Did he do an Einstein (who was degree qualified by the way) and publish ground breaking papers in established scientific journals which made the scientific establishment sit up and take notice? Not a hint of it! The easy option is actually to get a degree and PhD - it's much harder road to be self taught and work your way up that way in the world of physics.

I note that you say you're "not an engineer, yet". Why not call yourself one? There is a world of a difference between saying you did some plastering for the University of Adelaide despite not having your formal ticket, or that someone asked you to design a "gas pump" (vacuum pump or compressor?) and a pressure test rig, but to be the same as Casley, you'd have to say that you were working as a plasterer, and then you got a letter from Exxon or Shell asking you to design a brand new subsea compressor and separator rig for their deepwater operations! Do you see the difference? Also things like plastering, and to a less extent, engineering, are based upon actual application and experience. You become a tradesman by learning off of people , and experience under their supervision. You can learn at least some of engineering by trial and error, general mechanical knowledge and following the official Standards (they exist as design guides as well as for certification). Even in today's highly "credentialised" world, it is a well worn path to engineering to work as a TA or equivalent and then get accredited, particularly in mechanical and electrical engineering. The opportunities to do this in physics and mathematics are far more limited. NASA, I'll say it again, is the AMERICAN Space and Aeronautical Agency. Casley is unqualified, and does not have the equivalent experience. He does not claim to have worked in Woomera; he did not conduct early rocketry experiments (which is where many of the Germans who worked for NASA had their origins). He does not have a background in guidance systems, radar, radio communications etc. The only thing that may, possibly, have been of interest to NASA is his war service in the RAAF, but there would have been thousands and thousands of American veterans with similar experience, negating a need to search out Casley. You claim to have developed a gas pump and pressure test rig (but don't claim to be an engineer). Casley doesn't say what he worked on or developed, but gives himself a title (actually titles) and claims to have worked for NASA. Can you see a difference here? I'll put it another way. When that company approached you to design the pump, could you point to years of working with such systems, and similar devices to show your knowledge? Could you also have pointed to a large body of plastering work prior to that work with the University of Adelaide? Like I said, Casley clearly cannot point to any of this. It defies belief that NASA would hire him in that position with a total lack of qualifications or equivalent experience. It is also Casley who calls himself a "mathematician/physicist". Once again, in the transcript of the Negus show, the interviewer/narrator Hutchens, merely says he "wrote papers" for NASA and "universities around the world" (clearly just repeating Casley's claim). It then cuts to Casley calling himself a mathematician/physicist, in the list of "jobs" and "careers" he's had, ending with "of course now running a country". So come on Wayne, this mathematician/physicist thing, and using NASA as some sort of "proof" is just a claim. You didn't say he worked for a shipping company, why? Is it because it isn't as impressive as making him out to be a NASA scientist?

As for the other comment about WA as a whole not being claimed. As written, it says that Casley claims the State Government is reluctant to move against him for fear of losing, but it sounds like his claim that WA as a whole not being claimed by Britain is true. It sounds like the Claim is that the State Government is fearful to move, not that the State as a Whole not being claimed is itself a claim made by Casley.

I don't have a big problem with Casley as such, but do have an issue with his assertions being presented simply at face value, particularly when they are doubtful, dubious, and unsupported except by a few journos playing along with the gag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Wayne, these issues are serious ones. There is nothing to support the contention that Casley worked for NASA as a mathematician/physicist or "wrote papers" for them in that official capacity. He lacks the formal qualifications, or equivalent work history. It defies logic that NASA would pluck out an obscure WA based shipping company employee or farmer to do such work without any other evidence of his expertise! To use your earlier analogy, whilst it's one thing for you to do plastering without having a formal plasterers' ticket, I would want something a little more solid if you claimed NASA got you to work out how to apply the tiling to the Space Shuttle! Casley is not an American, and there is ZERO evidence he spent any significant time there prior to becoming "Prince" Leonard.

The other issue is that the comment about WA not being formally claimed by Britain as a whole is merely Casley's contention. The text does not make it clear that this claim is only made by Casley himself. The text says that Casley claims the Government is hesitant to move against him, but it sounds like the lack of a claim to the whole of WA is generally recognized, instead of being merely the assertion of one interested party. As stands the article is weighted too far in favour of backing Casley's assertions, or representing them as fact. Are you interested in having the negative tags removed from this article or not? I'd rather not interfere with "your" article, but if you're not going to respond, someone else is going to have to take the responsibility for improvement.

I would also say the comment about the EU not saying anything about "diplomatic passports" seems gratuitous. Including HRP passports on the list of "fantasy passports" indicates the EU has deemed that the Principality of Hutt River is not able is issue passports. This would surely include diplomatic passports. Either they think HRP can issue valid passports or not. So why have that last sentence? To maintain the veracity of Casley's claim he only travels on HRP Passports? I would also suggest the prosecution for tax evasion, Casley's arrest and release etc should be in the article, if you can reference them. These surely are notable events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Wayne, I didn't want to edit "your" page, but as you weren't willing to deal with some of the more egregious points someone had to. Casley is free to claim things, but unsubstantiated claims are just that. A paper or current affairs show puff piece repeating his claims is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.127.170.144 (talk) 12:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not my article so you are free to make any change you like as long it complies with Wikipedia policies. If they do not they will be reverted. A newspaper article or a current affairs show may well be a puff piece or it may not, you need a source stating they are not reliable sources or it is WP:OR on your part to reject them as unreliable. Wayne (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Greetings The International Star Registry will register a star in a person's name. According to the official Hutt River Principality, honours and titles can never be purchased 59.167.70.165 (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Rolf59.167.70.165 (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thx. Apparently the International Star Registry can name stars that are un-named by the AIU. I checked and there are three stars named after the Casley family. Wayne (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Wayne and Rolf, the International Star Registry is a private company that SELLS (i.e. you pay them for it) Star Naming rights! It has NO CONNECTION to NASA, and their names have no official recognition. You may as well just name stars you see and not pay anyone at all - the name would be no less valid than what ISR sells. In fact the IAU has specifically warned against these scammers. What is more, there are other companies that "sell" stars. But these companies do NOT work off of a common database. Hence it is possible for a single star to have many "names" as each company has "Sold" the right to name it. These companies are a scam, and the fact that Casley has "bought" 3 stars certainly does not add weight to his claims. You can go and pay your $54 US and "name" a star - these companies do it for the money! The whole point about mentioning he has a "star named in his honour" was to show what a great "mathematician/physicist" he was and how NASA has honoured him by naming a star after him. When in reality Casley has just gone and paid a scammer for something which has no official status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.78.193 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Afterwriting, do you really require a reference to say that International Star Registry is a private company that sells star names? I has to be made clear that these star names mean nothing more than someone, presumably Casley, has PAID for them! Without this, it may seem as if his "achievements in science" have been honoured by a star name. Either this is mentioned, or all mention of the star names should be removed as it is misleading otherwise. Personally I think the fact that Casley buys names off of a scammer, and then crows about them to puff up his importance reveals much about the man.

Adelaide Advertiser reference

Many of the cites given claiming that letters were sent by people such as Paul Hasluck refer to an article with no link to the original. Google searches only bring up sites about HRP (i.e. nothing from the Advertiser itself). I'm not saying the article doesn't exist but it weakens its worth as a source if nobody can verify the original document? The article relies heavily on this source to cite claims made on the reasons for non-intervention by the government. Tigerman2005 (talk) 03:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The worth of a source is only weakened if nobody can verify the original document. The article can be viewed and verified by anyone who visits the newspapers offices where the originals are on public display. You dont even need to ask anyone for them, they are filed openly in the lobby on the ground floor so a member of the public just needs to walk in the front door, go to the date required and open it. There has been more than one article making those claims but as they are not online you need to have come across them in person. Wayne (talk) 06:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, there is no onus for wikipedia articles to only refer to sources that are online. As many good sources are *not* freely available online, this would mean Wikipeida articles were written without reference to many good sources. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

" the oldest micronation in Australia"

Oh my! How many are there? --BjKa (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There are around 70 micro-nations around the world. Thirty of these are in Australia. Most are farm properties and there are four in Gatton alone, the Principalities of Range View, Argyll, Cochrane and Woodlands. Interesting examples are The Republic of A1, it is a school in Victoria where the students declared independence as a school project. The Grand Duchy of Avram run by a politician who was prosecuted for running his own bank, the government spent $22 million on the prosecution and lost. The Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands was declared on a large number of uninhabited islands in the Great Barrier Reef to protest the lack of recognition of same-sex marriages, the official currency is the Euro, they make money from selling their postage stamps and Gloria Gaynor wrote their nation anthem. The Principality of Wy is a single house in Sydney which was declared after a 17 year dispute with the local council for refusing permission for the owners to build a driveway. Wayne (talk) 06:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)