Hacker News Reader

> These clauses strongly clashed with the law stating that “Her Majesty is liable in Tort as a master to a servant”

I searched the quoted phrase (with quotation marks) on Kagi, DDG and Google and found literally no results other than this website. Which is actually quite impressive.

View on HN

Not only that, it's the opposite of the actual law, known as "sovereign immunity".

These people may have been raving loons.

That's not correct. In the UK there's the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, and in Canada the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, and Australia this also seems to be the general case, but I didn't immediately find a statutory authority.

> https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/traditional-rights-and-f...

There is no right to secede or otherwise unilaterally decide what the remedy for this claim is, but the idea that a tort was committed and the authorities were liable seems like the least crazy idea here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com