Gillard: wrong, wrong, wrong

I had the misfortune of being in the car the other day listening to an hysterical Jon Faine ‘interview’ of Michael Smith and Mark Baker about the Gillard-AWU Slush Fund affair.  What a disgrace!  There is absolutely no doubt that  Faine is violating the ABC’s Editorial Policies - his attitudes are just sickening.  He was rude and interrupting and that was the best that can be said about his performance.

Because Faine was once upon a time a very junior lawyer, he has become the most insufferable know-it-all when it comes to what lawyers do and standards of professional and ethical conduct.  Take it from me, he knows nothing.  And the notion that a lawyer would lie or do something illegal just because a client requests it … excuse me.

It tells us everything about Faine’s background as a lawyer and NOTHING about mainstream legal practice.

I thought The Australian, via David Crowe and Joe Kelly, cut to the chase this morning with the key unaswered questions:

  • Why did Gillard not set up a file when establishing the slush fund, aka AWU Workplace Reform Association?  (Lack of attention to paperwork does not cut it; setting up files and clearing it with the other partners are critical to the operation of law firms.)
  • Was the AWU, a client of the firm, informed of the establishment of the fund?  If not, why not?
  • Why did Gillard not inform the AWU of the misuse of the slush fund once she suspected this was occurring?
  • Did Gillard misrepresent the true purpose of the AWU Workplace Reform Association to the WA Corporate Affairs Commission?  (Providing false information to government officials is potentially an offence.)
  • Why did Gillard not report matters to the police when she became aware of the fraud involved in the operation of the fund?

I think that Gillard’s use of the word wrongdoing is deliberate.

But surely she accepts that it was WRONG to be involved in the setting up of a slush fund, including using AWU in its name?  Surely she also accepts that it was WRONG to fail to open a file and to keep her fellow partners in the dark on this matter?  After all, the firm was to lose the AWU as a client.  If she did misrespresent the true purpose of the slush fund, which on her account was to help with the re-election of certain union officials, including her boyfriend, to the government authority, surely this was also WRONG.

How the import of these actions is now interpreted is a matter of personal opinion, but can anyone really deny that she was wrong, wrong, wrong.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

347 Responses to Gillard: wrong, wrong, wrong

  1. Scapula

    The important thing is to keep associating Gillard’s name with words like “criminal,” “fraud,” “slush fund,” “rort,” “theft,” “bagman,” “married ex-lover,” “secret payment,” “Bill the Greek,” “missing documents,” and “police.”

    An honest man, at last, who is not aftraid to state that its a political strategm. Well, keep it up then, if you want. But it just got a heck of a lot harder to sustain this right wing scam. Moreover, this has been my thesis all along and its the first time you have agreed with me.

  2. dover_beach

    Good to see the blow torch is still being applied to Gillard.

  3. Gab

    Don’t know, Tom. On one thread Scrappy vilifies Murdoch on another thread Scrappy declared he “likes” Murdoch. He’s not as good at lying as a certain red-headed slapper.

  4. Gab

    this right wing scam.

    As has been mentioned to you before, Scrappy, only union men and labor men have been telling the tale to reporters.

  5. C.L.

    …its a political strategem.

    With Fairfax and the ABC involved, obviously.

  6. mareeS

    I’d happily sit down with Ralph over a beer or three, just for the interesting tales to be told from previous days.

    And I wouldn’t take his sister’s testimony too seriously. Speaking from personal experience with judgmental sisters…

    As for brothels, so what?? Men do frequent those places, but while we’re at it, let’s get the inquisition/Royal Commission on to the kiddy fiddlers in the Labor and legal ranks, of whom I can tell a tale or two, presently and from years past.

  7. Cold-Hands

    Im sure the office was happy for all the business they could get, but when one set of clients come into conflict with another there’s an issue, but that’s got nothing to do with the lawyers involved whose only task is their respective clients.

    Gillard’s client was the AWU. Her undertaking work for Wilson was a clear conflict of interest and unprofessional behaviour, some would say unethical. Her failure to open a file was a deliberate attempt to mislead both her paying client and her firm. Spin as much as you like but there is no excuse that explains her failure of her obligations to the AWU.

  8. Scapula

    Small beer, old chum, and flat stale beer.

    And its your version of it, as well.

    Firms with conflicting clients, boring story!

  9. mareeS

    Scapula, people with conflicting clients are not a boring story. They are crooks.

  10. A Lurker

    Blewitt and Wilson were both in involved in the AWU-WRA scam.

    One of those men has gone to the Victorian police to give an official statement of what he knew, that same man also states that he is happy to give an official statement to the Western Australian police. If he has lied to the police, then he could be charged with perjury, with a maxiumum penalty of ten years imprisonment.

    The other man has told a journalist that the lawyer-at-time was innocent. I don’t know of any official consequences for lying to a journalist, I expect people do it all the time, especially people with a crooked and devious past.

    So dear readers, who out of the two men has the most to lose from lying, and thus the greatest incentive to tell the truth?

    And which of the two men will the Labor trolls here be heralding as the bastion of truth-telling?

  11. Leigh Lowe

    Faine and Gillard have at least one thing in common – a truncated legal career.
    I wonder why Faino’s career was abbreviated.
    I didn’t hear the interviews but the later talk-back was telling. Faine actually tried to dismiss a caller with “lawyers do dodgy things for dodgy clients all the time”.
    The caller smacked Faino down brilliantly by replying along the lines of “maybe …. but we don’t have tolerate people like that as our Prime Minister”

  12. Leigh Lowe

    The most disgraceful thing about Faine’s desperate performance this week was, after demanding to see “conclusive evidence of wrongdoing by Gillard”, takes a talk-back call from a rabid Emily’s List type who claims “evidence” of Abbott’s mysoginy (source …. Ann Summers no less) and goes on to join the dots to a couple of recent gruesome murders of women in Melbourne (Friday was “White Ribbon Day” against violence against women). Does Faino intervene and ask for evidence for this long-bow conclusion? Noooo. He happily let’s it run and in fact, only intervenes when his one conservative guest tries to dispute this outrageous slur.
    He is simply a turd.

  13. Tel

    She has recently claimed that she wasn’t involved in the conveyancing—and yet she didn’t deny that she was, in the S&G interview, when they asked her why she didn’t open a file on the conveyancing ‘on the system’. She just said she didn’t think to—confirming that she did do the conveyancing.

    That’s a very good point. Lawyers may give a certain amount of free advice that’s off the record, but they never, never do free conveyancing. Unheard of.

    So if there was a fee structure associated with the conveyancing then there must be a paper trail to match the fees, doubly so if the work was delegated internally to a para-legal because otherwise what would that para-legal have accounted their work against?

  14. dover_beach

    Faine has a habit of doing that, Leigh. It is an easy way appearing impartial while being partial.

  15. Tel

    OK, so a conveyancing file is on record, and does show that both Gillard and Blewitt knew what was going on:

    NICK STYANT-BROWNE:  Yeah, I haven’t released those documents, Leigh.  Those documents form part of a conveyancing file which are now matters of public record.  So they are from the conveyancing file which Mr Blewitt consented be released and made publicly available.  Now what those documents show is that there is no doubt Ms Gillard knew of the mortgage from Slater & Gordon in March of 1993.  And just to give you some examples, she personally arranged for the mortgage insurance for the Kerr Street property through the Commonwealth Bank and a letter was faxed to her on March 22 of 1993 from the Commonwealth Bank marked for her attention noting that the insurance had been renewed and further advising that the Slater & Gordon mortgage interest was noted on the policy of insurance.

  16. jupes

    So dear readers, who out of the two men has the most to lose from lying, and thus the greatest incentive to tell the truth?

    Wilson knows that if Gillard falls he will fall harder. He must discredit Blewett. The only hope he has is that Gillard gets off and everyone is so fed up with the whole affair that all investigations cease. It is probably past that point already.

  17. Leigh Lowe

    Correct Jupes.
    This is how I thought it would play out.
    Wilson is in deep shit if this gets opened up again, and may end up using his cooking skills to make porridge.
    He is rat-cunning enough to know that a denial of his personal culpability won’t cut it, but siding with Gillard is his best chance of killing this off.

  18. duncanm

    Tel.. the conveyancing file has been available for some time with Gillards fingerprints all over it.. go over to michaelsmithnews.com

  19. Septimus

    A late night for some good Cat folks, batting on into the wee small hours this morning. Bit of shouty-ness from the interlopers too.

  20. Mike of Marion

    Oh dear, Insiders with the repugnant left luvvie Mrs L Ramsay!!!!!

  21. Lew

    OK Bruce you’ve convinced me that she’s totally innocent,pure as the driven slush even,but what we really need to know is,was she a good root?

  22. duncanm

    SFB making up more shit:

    He also barely knew Gillard, I think he has said.

    Not according to Blewitt: “We were good friends througout that period..”
    http://www.2gb.com/article/ralph-blewitt-speaks

  23. m0nty

    It’s a complete circus now. Our fraudster’s word versus your fraudster’s word. This would be thrown out of court to the sound of judicial laughter. At least CL is willing to admit that there is no moral authority at work here, only partisan attack dog barking.

    The next twist has to be investigation of Blewitt’s past in Asia, and where his money comes from. The WA police would no doubt like to extradite him from Victoria.

  24. duncanm

    Some of you are very dedicated… dealing with Scrappy all night.. what with his embolding an’ all.

    Scrappy takes this as the killer get-out-of-gaol card:

    “Let me make this absolutely clear; apart from the initial legal advice Julia Gillard provided on the AWU Workplace Reform Association fund, she had nothing to do with any of it,” he told Fairfax Media.

    Take note of the first part: apart from the initial legal advice Julia Gillard provided on the AWU Workplace Reform Association fund

    As others have pointed out many times, this is (one of) the fundamental issues: The bogus (illegal) formation up of the AWU-WRA by one Julia Gillard.

  25. candy

    Wilson like the S&G lawyers was never going to say the Australian PM has committed fraud.

    It might bring down the government, they would make tremendous enemies in the Labor Party. And the impact on their lives/jobs and families, it’s not something to be sneezed at.

  26. dover_beach

    monty admits that Gillard is his and a fraudster. Progress.

  27. candy

    “The most disgraceful thing about Faine’s desperate performance this week was, after demanding to see “conclusive evidence of wrongdoing by Gillard”, ”

    Faine is one of the I Love Julia people whose minds are gone quite bent by it. Some sort of middle age crush thing going on.

  28. Skuter

    SteveC, you keep relying on this part of Gillard’s epic question and non-answer session:

    it was par for the course to routinely provide free advice to union officials and trade unions.

    If she was providing advice to Wilson about setting up the association (she allegedly actually helped him set up the association – that is, she went a step further), did she bother to check with anyone else he had the authority from the AWU to do so? If not, it is hard to say she was providing free advice to a ‘union official’. If she had done that simple check, this whole thing could have been avoided. At best she was negligent and incredibly incompetent as a solicitor. That trend of monumental incompetence his continued into her political career.

  29. m0nty

    monty admits that Gillard is his and a fraudster. Progress.

    No db, I was referring to Blewitt and Wilson. Which you knew, of course.

  30. JC

    It’s a complete circus now. Our fraudster’s word versus your fraudster’s word. This would be thrown out of court to the sound of judicial laughter.

    I’ll say. I’m bringing a packed lunch and popcorn for later in the microwave.

    Stock up on the Krispy’s Fat Boy.

  31. boy on a bike

    We worked closely with officials. We worked closely with trade unions. We would provide limited free advice to them.

    And presumably S&G had a written policy back then which covered this sort of activity. Every Christmas, the mobs I have worked for have sent out reminder emails stating:

    - the value of gifts that I can accept without declaring them (about $25 usually)
    - the value of gifts I can accept so long as I can declare them (up to $200 generally)
    - the value of gifts I cannot accept, even if I declare them (anything over 200 bucks)

    I’m sure most people who work in big corporate or government are used to being regularly bombarded with policy reminders.

    If the S&G policy stated that you could do thousands of dollars worth of work for nothing without opening a file and without letting the other partners know, then she has done nothing wrong (as far as the partnership was concerned).

    I’d like to see the S&G policies from back then. In all the records of interview etc, nothing is said about policies and whether she worked within the bounds of existing S&G policy or breached them.

    A journo simply needs to ask, “Were you aware of the S&G policies covering doing free work for clients and the opening of files, and did you adhere to these written policies or not? If not, is that why you left S&G?”

  32. cohenite

    Steve says:

    Why then does the AFR article say it was deposited in a bank branch in Perth?

    The cheque for the balance of the purchase monies came from Wilson’s crooked association; it appears that Blewitt was provided with these instructions.

    These instructions requested a bank cheque for the amount of $67,722.30 be either sent to S&G or deposited into the nominated account..

    As I said question marks must attach to that process whereby authority is delegated to Blewitt. A link to the AFR article would be appreciated.

    The author of the letter to Blewitt is interesting though; that is Olive Brosnahan; the same Ms Brosnahan who sent this office memo to Gillard. The memo was about detailed mortgage information and was dated 12th March 1993, and confirms Styant-Brown’s claim that Gillard was intimately aware of the mortgage and conveyance will before her statement that it was 1995.

  33. JC

    Skuter

    The Steves twin, SteveC is an asshat for suggesting she answered the question. The example the lying defrauding slapper gave was an account of introductory discussions- not the work she did for her associates in the fraud.

    He deserves a rabbit punch for trolling and attempting to reframe the discussion.

  34. Septimus

    embolding an’ all

    Yeh. Shouty-ness ;)

  35. candy

    “the next twist has to be investigation of Blewitt’s past in Asia, and where his money comes from.”

    Blewitt is shonky for sure, perhaps he was before he went to Vietnam.
    But he was in the 2RAR apparently and those guys came back a bit unhinged.

  36. JC

    ….and confirms Styant-Brown’s claim that Gillard was intimately aware of the mortgage and conveyance will before her statement that it was 1995.

    The firm extends a mortgage and the lying Slapper suggests she wasn’t aware of the documentation that went with it.

    Who the hell does she think she’s lying to. This is the Cat and we unearth every single leftwing lie.

  37. JC

    This is truly freaking amazing. The shit really does seem to rise to the top in the Liars Party.
    They all seem to have serious issues.

    Hawke… basically a drunk

    Keating… a head case with a chip on his shoulder that he didn’t go to university.

    The Fat dude… forget his name .. he was okay

    Latho… Complete headcase

    The little Turd…nasty passive aggressive beta male. Personality of a toilet door knob. Frail personality.

    The Lying Slapper… Commie, crook, misogynist, had a thing for married men, inveterate liar.

    The fat dude was the only one that appears half normal. This isn’t a good look.

  38. JC

    Oh, got to be fair. There was of course simon crean and he was mentally stable but insufferably boring.

    So the run rate is

    Four serious mental cases. A fat dude and a crushing bore but otherwise mentally stable. This isn’t good.

  39. Keith

    In what can only be taken as a response to Styant-Brown (though he was not specifically named), Gillard has labelled the latest revelations as smear and innuendo in an interview. It will interesting to watch Styant-Brown’s response, particularly what other cards (documents) he has to lay on the table.
    In case no one noticed, Gillard has just broken her own rules in addressing the fraud again. Didn’t she say the August press gallery session was the last time she would talk about this ?

  40. JC

    Styant-Browne is a really interesting player. I can only ascertain that his interest in all this is all about integrity. He appears to be so disgusted with the Lying Slapper’s behavior that he won’t let her get away with lying. He also doesn’t want his name associated with this stuff.

    He’s the one who seems to be really drawing blood. The entire edifice the slapper created that she left the firm S&G for a higher calling – politics….. well he caused that wall to come crashing down on the lying rodent.

    This is beautiful to watch in all it’s ugliness (quoting Oakeshitt)

  41. Septimus

    Didn’t she say the August press gallery session was the last time she would talk about this

    Just another lie. It’s what she does.

  42. Chris

    - the value of gifts that I can accept without declaring them (about $25 usually)
    - the value of gifts I can accept so long as I can declare them (up to $200 generally)
    - the value of gifts I cannot accept, even if I declare them (anything over 200 bucks)

    This is fairly common now, especially amongst government departments. But 20 years ago? Also even today exceptions are common amongst executives – eg invites to attend a sporting even in a corporate box don’t count. And smaller private organisations often have no such rules at all (eg its common for travel agencies to give kick back “free study holidays” to people who do bookings for others).

  43. Alice

    someone said
    “It’s a complete circus now. Our fraudster’s word versus your fraudster’s word.”

    At least its a change from our boatpeople policies versus your boatpeople policies.

  44. JC

    But 20 years ago?

    For a law office dealing with union clients? Ummmm Yea.

    And by the way APS staff were never allowed to accept gifts.

    Stop the bullshit, Chris.

    It’s enough now.

  45. Mick Gold Coast QLD

    JC at 9:42am (pretend time):

    Who the hell does she think she’s lying to. This is the Cat and we unearth every single leftwing lie.

    Love it!

    We are the Cat. We have are a very particular set of skills, skills we have acquired in a very testing blog. Skills that make us a nightmare for people like Fat Ugly Julia. We will look for you lying turds, we will find you, and we will still you.

  46. Keith

    20 years.

    Obeid was in NSW parliament for 20 years. Just a coincidence, I’m sure. ;-)

  47. candy

    It sounds like Styant-Browne is the only person J. Gillard hasn’t done a deal with (yet?)

  48. Cath

    I’m just waiting for them to start blaming the paralegal. The date of the $15,000 cheque cashed as $5000 cash and $15,000 cheque, when considered with the date of the alleged $5,000 cash deposit into Ms Gillard’s account is really interesting. Brucie doing a bit of the laundry? A million bucks apparently disappeared and the orphans and widows having to wait for their payouts? That he is still unprosecuted for anything – and walked away with a substantial payout into the bargain – is scandalous.

  49. Cath

    … but then I guess if you are protecting the PM you have to protect Wilson too.

  50. Keith

    JC,
    Styant-Browne is still working and is going to protect his rep no matter what. His overseas clients would be watching with interest.

    Adding to your list : Evatt, Calwell, Whitlam and Hayden. What a tradition of socialist fiends and union suckholes.

  51. Cath

    … and that should be $10,000 cheque at 10.22am

  52. Holden

    While all this is very interesting, I think anyone who takes John C Reilly as a lover IMHO should be forbidden to run for office.

  53. tiny dancer

    It does not matter about Wilson or Blewitt. She’s in trouble regardless of what they say. I see that Burke on Insidera says its all over because Wilson says so. Can we get some adults into the circus.

  54. Oblique

    It seems to be coming down to proof of JG’s direct involvement in:

    1. Setting up the AWU WRA
    2. Vouching for the bona fides of the AWU WRA to WA Corp Affairs Commissioner
    3. Preparing the Power of Attorney in favour of Wilson
    4. Conveyancing on the Kerr St property
    5. Facilitating the $150k mortgage for the Kerr St property

    Proof of all the above exists (documents, file notes etc) except for 2 (perhaps the slam dunk Julie B comes up with in Parl this week?). Denial by JG about her involvement, particularly the conveyancing, is not supported by the documents.

    That JG did not establish system files, nor notify the proper authorities when she discovered the fraud adds to her culpability. Her denial about knowing of the mortgage (blaming the paralegal Olive B) was blown out of the water by NSB on the 7:30 Report last week. Those who say there’s no proof or smoking gun, and deliberately obfuscate the facts as they exist, are being disingenuous.

    While JG represents the best option for the coalition going into an election year, such a tainted and tawdry past for our Prime Minister reflects badly on Australia’s reputation.

  55. MichaelC58

    Folk, folks,
    This whole misunderstanding can be easily solved. Macquarie Dictionary will on Monday redefine “doing nothing wrong” as meaning “not having been proven to have done anything criminal”.

    Thus, from next week, Australia will lead the world in new freedoms:

    1.Lawyers can sleep with and take advice from their clients’ employees, but only the good looking ones (cohenite, why are you fighting this?)

    2.Lawyers get to keep sundry notes in their cupboards, away from jealous eyes of other partners. Special inbuilt shredders will be remotely triggerable by phone (I dibs that patent!)

    3.Lawyers can witness signatures on heresy from another city. This will reduce travel and CO2 emissions, a clear win-win.

    4.The notion of ‘conflict of interest’ will be abolished. Now you will be able to represent so many more clients – which clearly has no conflict with your interest.

    5. Lawyers will operate on the principle that ‘What your client doesn’t know can’t hurt him’, so no need to charge him for phone calls informing him of fraud, for goodness sake, especially by your boyfriend, how embarrassing to your client.

    Of course, adultery, lying, breaking core election pledges, disloyalty, misrepresentation of CV’s regarding work in socialist newspapers and dismissals, non-racial vilification and complete incompetence by females have already been legitimised and in fact celebrated in Australia, thanks to our progressive PM. So folks, go forth and enjoy.

    SteveC, I presume that’s all good for you, because that’s how you presumably already operate.

  56. C.L.

    Labor’s John Black on Bolt this morning says the caucus is returning to Rudd. Interesting that Swan (of all people) held out an olive branch to Kevni yesterday.

  57. C.L.

    Speaking of deranged Labor leaders, Bob “Dred Scott Was Great” Carr BA (Hons), CWB says there is a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and that Charlie Sheen Julia is WINNING!

    Labor claims win from Wilson comments.

    FOREIGN minister Bob Carr has praised the Prime Minister’s “finely tuned sense of judgment and timing”, as she faces renewed questioning over the AWU scandal.

    Senator Carr backed Julia Gillard’s refusal to answer questions about her conduct as a solicitor at Slater & Gordon in the 1990s, during the creation of an AWU slush fund.

    “She’s a tough woman and she sees this, we all see it, as a right-wing indulgence in spinning a conspiracy theory – we’ll see where it goes,” he said.

    And this:

    “As a broad movement, when it comes to corruption resistance, (the labour movement) has come up pretty well.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  58. Tiny Dancer

    Tony Burke, minister for the environment and believing in fraud steers who are protecting themselves.

  59. SteveC

    truth at 12.47

    If you try very very hard not to see, then of course you won’t see.

    True, and equally if you really want to see things that aren’t there, then you will see them. I can recommend watching some Derren Brown for examples.

  60. Carpe Jugulum

    “She’s a tough woman and she sees this, we all see it, as a right-wing indulgence in spinning a conspiracy theory – we’ll see where it goes,” he said.

    I can only conclude that Senator carr is mentally unwell.

  61. SteveC

    Link to the AFR article I have been reeferring to.

  62. MichaelC58

    I forgot:

    7.Lawyers will be allowed to tell white lies for clients, especially to state government authorities – after all, what’s your client paying the big bucks for. Your right to lie will be held inviolable under professional-client privilege.

    8.Association with union thugs and criminals will be a pre-requisite for future PM’s. It is where celebrated qualities of steely ruthlessness, shamelessness, deal-making behind closed doors and ‘creative’ excuses for stuff-ups, so essential to Labor governance, are forged. The goody goody, nancy pansy Rhodes scholarships, competent governance, traditional family life and community volunteering of Tony Abbott won’t cut the mustard here, buddy.

  63. SteveC

    did she bother to check with anyone else he had the authority from the AWU to do so?

    Skuter, wasn’t he the state Secretary. I would think a State secretary would have that authority.

  64. Holden

    Remember the time when John Howard’s lover got him to drive his car to the bank as she and her bag man went in to make a $400,000 “withdrawal”. As he was sitting in the car, Shirley the Greek resprayed his car. He was driving the car for nothing, but as he wound down the window to receive a brown paper bag with $5000 in it he could hear Shirley the Greek yelling at the bank manager “Where is my money for the spray job” Despite having qualifications including a Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws, whilst a partner in a large law firm, all this seemed perfectly normal. The left would never have touched this story so I think we can all back off poor old Julia. Holden out

  65. Alfonso

    The POA finishes her.
    The rest is icing.

  66. DaveF

    Mr Blewitt’s ex-wife, who asked not to be named, also confirmed …[SNIP]. Asked if she trusted Mr Blewitt, she replied: “No further than I could throw him.

    Scapula
    25 Nov 12 at 2:24 am

    Ex wife is bitter towards ex husband. Hold the presses.

    Looks like the boyfriend is a bit deluded:

    “Today I was trying to put my 10 month old to sleep and reporters were constantly pressing the bell so I decided I had had a gutful and I spoke out so the media would stop,” he said.

    They won’t stop mate, its like that first leak you take at the pub. Once the seal is broken the dam breaks.

  67. Podsnap

    I take your point about the cheque Steve C.

    The incorrectness of the S & G ledger is convenient and suspicious – but I’m not an accounts guy so I’m not sure on that.

    The AFR story does appear to miss the elephant in the room – why is Blewitt putting up the money for Wilson ?

    The legal question is – is Gillard put to enquiry about this ? Lawyers can’t hide behind not knowing stuff if they had a duty to know.

    She says she knew nothing about the conveyance. Forget the file notes with her fingerprints all over them –

    She did the POA mid-conveyance. She WENT to the auction…..

    As Holden points out the argument about this is quite surreal.

  68. Tiny Dancer

    Whether the cheque was seen by the slapper is immaterial. Solicitor’s trust funds are meticulously kept. You can’t just put money in there and pretend. Where the money is from (the dodgy assn’s account) is recorded and receipted. Where it goes (to the purchaser) is recorded and receipted.
    Any non dodgy conveyancer, conveyancing supervisor, solicitor, solicitor of the boyfriend purchasing the property (said solicitor attending themauction) would hear alarms and sirens when that cheque hit the trust account. Questions would have been asked. Particularly when the cheque is from an account for the dodgy assn (set up by the same firm) provided for a private purchase.

    One explanation is she didn’t know. The other reasonable hypothesis is that not only did she know she aided and abetted. The latter sits far more comfortably than the contortions required to accept the former. Blewitt and Wilson are just distractions.

    Circumstantial cases are commonplace in the criminal justice system. They’re no stronger or weaker than direct evidence cases or cases where there is a mixture of evidence.

    At best she is negligent and incompetent. At worst she has been a party to the disposal of criminal proceeds which given her role with the dodgy assn, makes her a party to the whole lot.

    Most likely is the ALP or the electorate will roll her. Her handling of the matter has thus far been woeful.

    Secondly, don’t go to the Steves or scrap heap for advice on criminal matters.

  69. SteveC

    Surprisingly (to me!) I find myself in agreement with Chris Berg this morning on outsiders on Radio National, when he said “as most people believe there are mundane explanations for everything” and “the [so called] unanswered questions are meanigless”.
    There is no transcript, but you can listen here and the specific Chris Berg answer starts at 13:33

  70. SteveC

    or deposited into the nominated account.

    which appears to be what was done (and telegraphically transferred – the 90′s version of internet banking!).
    I’m curious what is the source of the copy of the cheque?

  71. truth

    Scapula…

    It’s ridiculous to say there’s nothing if you take Wilson out of the picture.

    Such a tactic would exonerate all manner of wrongdoers.

    There’s always something/someone that motivates them to do the wrong thing.

    You claim S&G’s dropping of the inquiry exonerates Gillard.

    Apart from the fact that it’s obvious from the interview and from Styant-Browne’s interview, that they wanted her to go, there’s the matter of what they might unfortunately for them uncover had they continued to delve into the matters and publicise them.

    What legal firm hoping to keep or attract law-abiding, reputable clients, would want it known that their law partners may or may not behave ethically and lawfully on whim, depending on whether it suited the law partner’s own personal relationships and situation?

    AWU was an existing client of S&G.

    Julia Gillard was secretive in drawing up the AWU Workplace Reform Association documents for her boyfriend under AWU’s name.

    S&G partners knew nothing about it—AWU knew nothing about it —for years—but she and her boyfriend did.

    If Gillard didn’t know her boyfriend was doing the wrong thing, then why did she feel it was important to keep his AWU Association a secret from AWU and S&G all that time—years?

    You may have standards such that you think it doesn’t matter to you or anyone else if things are done in your/their name, without your knowledge, and with deliberate steps having been taken [ no file on the system] to make sure you didn’t know.

    Well good luck with that.

    But most reasonable people and entities are not so sanguine—and would see such behaviour by a lawyer in a position of trust as completely unethical, and depending on how much was known by the lawyer about what was done under the entity’s name with her assistance—potentially unlawful.

  72. C.L.

    Hey, has Abbott ever received a secret $5000 windfall from a criminal?

  73. SteveC

    Skills that make us a nightmare for people like Fat Ugly Julia.

    Umm, no. This blog is just one of many (Michael Smith and Pickering come to mind) where right wing fantasists come up with never ending conspiracies that will “nail” Gillard, and others. I recall Gillard referred to this class of blogs as “nut jobs on the internet”:

    “It wouldn’t matter what I said, and it wouldn’t matter what documents were produced, and it wouldn’t matter what anybody else said – they will pursue this claim for motivations of their own which are malicious and not in any way associated with the facts,” she said.

    Analysis which is spot on, as this very thread attests. The story has been “nailed” so many times I think you could open a Bunnings hardware and make a fortune selling all the nails.

  74. duncanm

    It seems to be coming down to proof of JG’s direct involvement in:

    2. Vouching for the bona fides of the AWU WRA to WA Corp Affairs Commissioner

    Right.. but that’s one of the important boxes of paper the rats got to, or washed away in a flood, or .. nothing to see here.

  75. truth

    Scapula…

    It’s ridiculous to say there’s nothing if you take Wilson out of the picture.

    Such a tactic would exonerate all manner of wrongdoers.

    There’s always something/someone that motivates them to do the wrong thing.

    You claim S&G’s dropping of the inquiry exonerates Gillard.

    Apart from the fact that it’s obvious from the interview and from Styant-Browne’s interview, that they wanted her to go, there’s the matter of what they might unfortunately for them uncover had they continued to delve into the matters and publicise them.

    What legal firm hoping to keep or attract law-abiding, reputable clients, would want it known that their law partners may or may not behave ethically and lawfully on whim, depending on whether it suited the law partner’s own personal relationships and situation?

    AWU was an existing client of S&G.

    Julia Gillard was secretive in drawing up the AWU Workplace Reform Association documents for her boyfriend under AWU’s name.

    S&G partners knew nothing about it—AWU knew nothing about it —for years—but she and her boyfriend did.

    If Gillard didn’t know her boyfriend was doing the wrong thing, then why did she feel it was important to keep his AWU Association a secret from AWU and S&G all that time—years?

    You may have standards such that you think it doesn’t matter to you or anyone else if things are done in your/their name, without your knowledge, and with deliberate steps having been taken [ no file on the system] to make sure you didn’t know.

    Well good luck with that.

    But most reasonable people and entities are not so sanguine—and would see such behaviour by a lawyer in a position of trust as completely unethical, and depending on how much was known by the lawyer about what was done under the entity’s name with his/her assistance—potentially unlawful.

  76. Gab

    You’d think if you wanted to prove your innocence you’d get your hands quick smart on all the documents publicly available before “someone” secreted the evidence away to another secure “location”.

  77. cohenite

    From steve’s link about whether the cheque for $67 grand used to complete the purchase of Wilson’s shack was direct deposited into S&G’s trust account or sent to them:

    But the conveyancing file has revealed that a cheque for more than $67,000, made out on the slush fund’s account to the Slater & Gordon trust account was used as a deposit on the property. But Slater & Gordon’s internal ledger shows the same amount as having been paid by Blewitt as a “DDep” or direct deposit.

    This is unclear; was the cheque used as a direct deposit to the vendor for the property or was it direct deposited by Blewitt as he claims he did?

    Apart from this the date on the cheque is interesting; it is dated 18th March 1993 and signed by both Wilson and Blewitt; why was this done when Blewitt’s POA to Wilson was dated the 4th February 1993?

  78. Skuter

    SteveC, I would have thought a State Secretary would need a resolution passed by the executive to create an association and open bank accounts. Wasn’t that part of the AWU’s rules?

  79. SteveC

    Skuter – well it would need a resolution of the committee of the Association that was to be founded. As it was incorporated separately to the AWU the need for the AWU to “approve” it would be debatable. However, given that it was using the AWU name you would think that would be prudent.
    Either way it seems moot because the WA Commerce dept would not require a copy of the resolution to form the association.
    If I decided to create an Association tomorrow called the “Catallaxian Defence Fund” and invite my good friends Steve from Brisbane and m0nty to be members, I would not need the approval of anyone at Catallaxy Files to do so. And if I asked a lawyer to help me I would be surprised if they asked if I had the approval of “Catallaxy Files”.

  80. Gab

    “Catallaxian Defence Fund”

    no, this is wrong if you are comparing it to AWU and AWU-WRA in which case the correct example would be

    Catallaxy Files Defence Fund

  81. Tiny Dancer

    Wrong SteveC. If your girlfriend was your solicitor and you worked for “Catallaxy Files” and the assn was for a purpose other than that stated n the document the situation would be entirely different especially for her.

  82. SteveC

    cohenite, in regard to the two signatures, I’m guessing the association bank account required “two to sign”. And while technically Wilson could sign it for Blewitt, it would look a bit odd as he would have signed the same cheque twice. Likely they didn’t want to have a hassle with the cheque clearance.
    It’s astonishing of course that they used the association funds so blatantly! Writing and signing cheques to S&G trust fund from the association account. They didn’t go to much trouble to hide their tracks. Presumably they thought they couldn’t be caught. Who were the other members? I guess they must have all been in on it (current association rules require 6 members – I assume it was the same back in 93).

  83. SteveC

    Catallaxy Files Defence Fund

    Yes quite right. I might get that started tomorrow. The only snag could be the name conflict, but Catallaxy Files doesn’t seem to be registered, so I wouldn’t imagine it to be an issue.
    m0nty, sfb ?

  84. Tiny Dancer

    You don’t get the obvious

  85. Gab

    Interesting and somewhat familiar…

    Brasilia – Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, moving quickly to nip a new scandal in the bud, ordered the dismissal on Saturday of government officials allegedly involved in a bribery ring, including the country´s deputy attorney general. Federal police raided government offices in Brasilia and Sao Paulo on Friday and arrested six people for running an influence peddling ring that sold government approvals to businessmen in return for bribes.

  86. Carpe Jugulum

    This blog is just one of many (Michael Smith and Pickering come to mind) where right wing fantasists come up with never ending conspiracies that will “nail” Gillard, and others. I recall Gillard referred to this class of blogs as “nut jobs on the internet”:

    SteveC – The voices in your head, stop listening to them. They are wrong.

  87. Gab

    I can’t wait to see what hypothetical stevec comes up with next.

  88. Podsnap

    It’s astonishing of course that they used the association funds so blatantly! Writing and signing cheques to S&G trust fund from the association account. They didn’t go to much trouble to hide their tracks. Presumably they thought they couldn’t be caught.

    Yes they could have had some sort of payments for ‘work’ or ‘reports’ or the like to Wilson.

    People in an atmosphere of laxity and semi-criminality just do whatever. If everyone is doing the same thing then why shouldn’t I.

    You can see it in the sullen resentment in the face of any of these guys who get caught, like Thomson. Thomson’s internal monologue would be – “Everyone was doing it, so why can’t I ? I wasn’t even the worst. It’s so unfair, particularly as I am bound for a number of reasons from spilling the beans on the others”.

  89. Chris

    For a law office dealing with union clients? Ummmm Yea.

    And by the way APS staff were never allowed to accept gifts.

    Then S&G (and not just Gillard) were openly contradicting their own regulations because they’ve agreed that it was policy to give union leaders freebies because they were trying to attract more of that business.

    APS employees may never have been able to receive gifts, but state public servants used to be able to as long as the value wasn’t over a certain amount. And in the private sector it used to be very common. Even now, low value items such as pens, clothing, food, drink etc are commonplace in the private sector.

  90. Amortiser

    Skuter:
    SteveC is demonstrating his ignorance of the facts of this issue. The rules of the AWU which Gillard was duty bound to know required approval by resolution of the Union Executive for the opening of bank accounts. All power didn’t reside in the hands of the Secretary for obvious reasons. Gillard ignored these rules and acted regardless which allowed Blewitt and Wilson to complete the fraud which was already on foot.

    SteveC should acquaint himself with the Cambridge affidavit which sets out in minute detail the transgressions including the source of funds into and the expenditure of funds from the unauthorised accounts.

  91. SteveC

    Amortiser, the newly incorporated association opened a bank account, not the AWU. Granted, using the name AWU as part of the name of the new association could cause an issue with the AWU, but the new association was not part of the AWU. Hence it needing to be incorporated.
    If it was just another bank account, there would be no need to incorporate. An incorporated association is a separate legal entity.

  92. Podsnap

    Steve C

    Your comment just highlights the unreality of the situation.

    I work for a company called “Podsnap Inc”. I then go to a lawyer whose firm acts for “Podsnap Inc” and get them to incorporate an association called “Podsnap Inc Christmas Fund”.

    No doubt the rules of the company “Podsnap Inc” don’t apply to the association. But what the hell is the lawyer thinking ? The first question from the lawyer should obviously be “This Association relates to Podsnap Inc – right ? Then do you have authority from Podsnap Inc to set up this Association ?”.

  93. kae

    She’s cranky!

    Watch the body language… the darting eyes…

  94. Carpe Jugulum

    Kae – head over to the OT

Comments are closed.