You want allegations

I just caught a little bit of Roxy on Meet the Press – yes, I know, groan – telling us that there are no actual allegations against the Prime Minister, so we should all shut up.

Oh really?  Here are just two:

  1. Party to fraud.  The PM was involved in the establishment of the AWU Workplace Reform Association, which she acknowledged to be a slush fund for the re-election of some AWU officials, including her boyfriend.  The AWU, a client of the firm, was not informed about the association. Former national secretary of the AWU now describes the fund as ” inappropriate” and “out of bounds”.   (And since when has it been OK, ethically speaking, to be involved in setting up slush funds?)
  2. Providing false information to government officials.  By providing information to the Western Australian Corporate Affairs Commission to assuage their doubts about the bona fides of the association, particularly the fact that AWU was in its title, she is potentially guility of this misdemeanour as well.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

201 Responses to You want allegations

  1. Brett

    You are too kind. The list of potential offences is long. Not the least, falsely attesting the execution of a power of attorney that was used in a real estate transaction. Making a false instrument is a criminal offence.

    And BTW: according to Labor / Fairfax we cannot accept the word of Blewitt because he is an admitted fraudster. If that is true, why then is the word of Wilson, the architect and chief perpetrator of the fraud, of an any greater weight or value; isn’t he a fraudster as well. And if he is, why should we uncritically accept his version, given to clear his former lover, particularly when the questions that arise from the documents now in the public domain raise very real questions about Gillard’s involvement and knowledge.

  2. C.L.

    She set up a slush fund for a criminal.

    Hello?

  3. Carpe Jugulum

    I’ll take a punt on malfeasance – wrongdoing or improper or dishonest conduct, especially by a person who holds public office or a position of trust.

  4. Gab

    Blewitt is a crook therefore he must be lying.

    Wilson is a crook and gillard’s former boyfriend therefore he must be telling the truth.

    :roll:

  5. Mike of Marion

    Please desist Judith – Our beloved AG is a lawyer from Emily’s List!!!!!

  6. Jimmtmacfernan

    Why dont youse conservatives leave our jooLIAR alone ? Yez cant prove nuthin see. Abbot should be announcin Policies ! Well weve got none ,i mean batchlers of yarts can only think so much an even though they got degrees that takes a lot outta ya ,doin a eight week course in four years is interlekchoully challenjin , so give out some policies so wee poofy macturdman can steal them for jooLIAR an keepour snouts in the troff!

  7. Richard Stacpoole

    What about the allegations on Julia Gillard not been present to witness the power of attorney between Blewitt and Wilson?
    And witnessing a backdated power of attorney to allegedly avoid double taxation on the Melbourne property?
    And then there is the Goldfield allegations in WA.

  8. Here are just two:

    What makes you think your opinions count for anything?
    You are not a Journalist’s bootlace, and you wouldn’t be mistaken for an economist except by the delusionists who routinely post here.

  9. Brett

    There is also accessorial liability (both before and after the fact) for the fraud. Even of the documents now available Gillard facilitated the transfer and use of money now known to be obtained by fraud or deception.

    The breaches of the WA equivalent of the Oaths Act concerning the execution of the power of attorney.

    The false statements to the WA authorities concerning the incorporation of the association.

    The list just goes on and on.

    And if any other legal practitioner did these things they would be subject to investigation / disciplinary proceedings at the hand of the body responsible to disciplining lawyers in Victoria. Even if the person was no longer practicing the authorities would be moving to have that person struck off the role because they are no longer a fit and proper person.

    It seems that the simple reality is that some people will tolerate any form of conduct if it means that their preferred political party remains in power. In the conflict between honesty/ integrity, and even outright breaches of the law, and political interest, political interest wins every time with some people. Anything will be excused if it means that Labor might go down. If ever you needed proof that Australia has become an openly corrupt society now you have it, in all its glory, brought to you by that great democratic institution called the Australian Labor Party. And we have even begun to discuss the revelations at the ICAC hearings in NSW.

    What an utter disgrace.

  10. Carpe Jugulum

    Numbers seems to have his panties in a twist today.

  11. Brett

    Numbers seems to have his panties in a twist today.

    Cutting off the oxygen to his brain.

  12. Harold

    Faine wouldn’t allow this to be published… Richard Nixon was never charged!

  13. Gab

    You are not a Journalist’s bootlace, and you wouldn’t be mistaken for an economist except by the delusionists who routinely post here.

    Ah yes, when no argument can be made, resort to insults.

  14. Lew

    Oh numbers you just committed a misogyny.

  15. Podsnap

    John Black a former ALP senator was on Bolt this morning bagging Gillard.

    This is what needs to happen. Broaden the line of enquiry to all the AWU rorts, and bring in as many ex-AWU, ALP guys as you can.

    I think Blewitt will be a pretty unimpressive public face of this. Bring in Kernohan – the guy is gold.

    If they broaden this out – Gillard is gone.

  16. James of the Glens

    Numbers does seem very worried. Mmm. Even resorting to his juvenile “..language uninviting, of the gutter children fighting”.

    Gillard, Wilson and now the implicated Roxon are terrified that the hard copy documentary evidence is not going to go away, no matter what any of these paragons of truth say.
    You’re too late, Julia.

  17. candy

    “I think Blewitt will be a pretty unimpressive public face of this. ”

    He’s a poor old bugger that’s for sure. He was in 2RAR Vietnam so he’s been through the mill, still shonky though. At least he admits it, if that counts for anything, whereas the Wilson fellow hasn’t as far as I can work out.

  18. Pingback: keep talking, Bruce … and Julia | pindanpost

  19. John Mc

    Lay off numbers, you guys. Sometime last century he was in ‘Nam, man!

  20. Podsnap

    candy – yes sorry, I wasn’t meaning to bag him. He has shown a lot of guts to come forward. He says he never benefited from Wilson’s scams – and I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on that until I hear different.

    I have heard him talk, and he just seems a pretty simple guy who wouldn’t go well on camera or when quizzed by shrieking little bitches like Faine. No great sin – I doubt I would either.

  21. Richard

    The power of attorney was the subject of a formal compliant to Victorian Police by Michael Smith in October.

    Repeating “there’s no allegations” is one of the ALP spin lines, like China is moving to reduce CO2 emission. It’s believe if repeated often enough it becomes true.

  22. thefrollickingmole

    An accusation?

    try this one.

    Did you go to WA at Wilsons invitation to allay fears the funds for the Kalgoorlie widows fund wouldnt be misused?

    Were those funds misused?

    Did you seek assurances the money set aside by miners for a burial fund wouldnt be misused?

    Who was billed for the costs of that?
    Slater and Gordon or privately reimbursed by Mr Wilson?
    Were you reimbursed/billing from the union or the slush fund?

  23. 81Alpha

    You are not a Journalist’s bootlace,

    And you’re not a soldier’s arsehole……
    actually on second thoughts.

  24. SteveC

    That’s a good start Judith. Although “party to fraud” doesn’t sound like an offence. “Conspiracy to defraud” would be more like it.
    So now why don’t you have a go at running that in the Oz, which are often happy to publish your opinion pieces. I’m afraid this blog is just another “nut jobs on the internet” source in the PM’s mind so I don’t expect you will get a response.

  25. Leo G

    A variant of the innocent until proven guilty fallacy?
    By “no actual allegations” Nicola Roxon appears to mean allegations which have been substantiated by a judicial process and which consequently have ceased to be allegations.

  26. Keith

    Journalists wear boots. I’ve learned something today.

  27. candy

    “candy – yes sorry, I wasn’t meaning to bag him.”

    I didn’t think so, Podsnap, just agreeing he’s ‘mincemeat’ for particular journalists, but he seems ready to face the music, unlike Wilson.

  28. Bruce

    Slater and Gordon or privately reimbursed by Mr Wilson? Were you reimbursed/billing from the union or the slush fund?

    Especially a certain $5,000 that a Mr Wilson ordered to be put into a Ms Gillard’s bank account, and how it relates to this Act of Parliament.

  29. Bruce

    Also how the $5,000 was recorded in Ms Gillard’s tax return of that year. Particularly since it didn’t go through S&G.

  30. Gab

    Wilson is such an impeccable character, despite his admitted fraudulent dealings, that if ever I’m up before His Honour I hope I can get as reliable and trustworthy witness as Wilson to help prove my innocence.

    Blewitt on the other hand, is not to be believed, as Labor’s Carr, Roxon and Burke tells us so it must be so.

  31. I’m afraid this blog is just another “nut jobs on the internet”

    You said it….

  32. Carpe Jugulum

    It appears numbers continues to have his frilly tennis knickers in a knot.

  33. Splatacrobat

    Insiders today the all agreed that if Blewitt’s Sister says he’s dodgy then therefore he is and no one should take his testimony seriously. Wilson speaks out that his former bedroll is completely innocent and the Insiders team all accept Wilson’s statement like he is the paragon of virtue and integrity.

    Wilson’s talk is cheap when he has not fronted a court yet. His sudden weighing in might have been promted by a visit from Mcsporan and told to provide cover or he could find himself sleeping with the fishes.

  34. Gab

    or he could find himself sleeping with the fishes.

    Maybe, but more likely Wilson will be buying himself a new house in the not too distant future, for his current wife and kid. Short order cooks get paid quite handsomely these days.

  35. Gab

    …but this time around S&G won’t be doing the conveyancing.

  36. candy

    And Blewitt, the Vietnam vet, will be under attack by the Labor Party something shocking.

  37. Splatacrobat

    Sounds like numbers has had another one of his sleepless nights. Sweating flashbacks reliving the nightmare of trying to peel slanty eyes out of half a ton of spuds.

    THE HORROR!

  38. The issue here appears to be that a complaint hasn’t been lodged with the appropriate Lawyers statutory body, and/or, no reply has yet been offered.
    Is that correct, or I’m just mistaken?
    Because I don’t remember a complaint being made.

  39. Pickles

    Me neither Winston. And the Vic LSC has the hide to send out emails with their motto ” R.P.A -Regulation Prosecution Action”.

  40. Podsnap

    With the current trend of locally made docudramas (Howzat, Underbelly, Michael Hutchence is to be made) about spicy bits of Australian history – it strikes me that this whole thing would make cracking viewing.

    I wold set it up from perhaps Smith’s viewpoint. His sacking – his time in wilderness after that. A great scene would be with him and Blewitt , two middle age men who barely know each other sharing a small hotel room in Melbourne and the old Vietnam vet getting a call from the soldiers in Afghanistan, cheering him on.

    But of course Smith is no Woodward or Bernstein – a brave investigative reporter doing his job despite the cost.

    Not at all – a nutjob apparently. Fascist certainly. Class traitor and racist too, I don’t doubt.

  41. dd

    You said it….

    Except that he didn’t, ‘Numbers’… he finished the sentence with “in the PM’s mind.” You deleted that bit of the quote.

    Unlike you, SteveC knows better. Dismissing internet based commentators because they are on the internet is elitist, reactionary, anti-technology and frankly a bit snobby.

  42. Viva

    I don’t think there is any comparison between the credibility of Blewitt and Wilson.

    Blewitt has retured as a man on a mission to tell all to the authorities – with documentary evidence – and purge his soul.

    Wilson is skulking somewhere with no evidence, no willingness to come forward and confess and has in all liklihood been heavily leaned to come out from under his rock to defend the PM.

  43. fey

    Julia said she had not opened a file but one was found in her office while she was away. Where is it now?

  44. cohenite

    It’s peculiar why Blewitt gave a POA to Wilson in the first place; and subsequent events are strange; for instance, the date on the cheque for $67,000 to complete the purchase of Wilson’s property 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? I suppose the POA was a specific one to purchase the property in Victoria but you don’t need a POA to do that just an agency agreement accepted by the Vendor.

  45. val majkus

    Winston above refers to a ‘complaint not having been laid’
    you can find a complaint here
    http://lawyerocracyontrial.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/legal-regulator-set-to-investigate-juliagillard-lawyer-misconduct-allegations/#comments

    Monday 27 August 2012 6:00 am – General Media Release

    Victorian Legal Regulator set to Investigate Lawyer Misconduct Allegations about Prime Minister Julia Gillard

    A leading authority on Constitutional Law and History, Civil Political and Human Rights, and Legal Ethics, whistleblower, journalist and lawyer James Johnson has filed a formal complaint with the Victorian legal regulator, the Legal Services Commissioner, to trigger an investigation of media allegations of professional misconduct by Australian Prime Minister, lawyer, Julia Gillard.

    “I am greatly disturbed about the widespread media reports containing allegations of unprofessional conduct / professional misconduct by the current Prime Minister of Australia Julia Eileen Gillard during the course of her employment in the 1990s as a senior solicitor – possibly even a salaried partner – with ASX Listed corporation and law firm Slater and Gordon.” Mr Johnson said.

    I can’t see a date on the complaint but the press release is dated 29 August and this was before the release of the bulk of documentary material on the net so the complaint in main is based on newspaper reports

    there’s a link to the complaint at the link above

  46. Megan

    I don’t for a second credit Wilson with any credibility but his statement that “She knew nothing” is, in itself, not credible since it flies in the face of existing evidence and of the limited admissions that Joools has made thus far.

    So less believable than ol’ Ralph.

  47. Podsnap

    cohenite

    The property was always to be purchased by Blewitt by way of his attorney Wilson. During the conveyance the agent demanded a copy of the actual POA.

    At that point the POA was generated, but was backdated so that it was in existence before the conveyance started.

    Naughty, naughty.

    Why did Blewitt give Wilson a POA ? Because all the property was to be in Blewitt’s name – in effect it was Wilson’s and Wilson wanted the power to do whatever he wanted with respect to the property. Why was the property purchased in Blewitt’s name ? A number of theories – to keep it away from Wilson’s wife in family law proceedings, so Wilson could live there but still get ‘away from home’ allowances (I’ve no idea on the latter one – just heard the theory)

  48. Fleeced

    Wilson is a crook and gillard’s former boyfriend therefore he must be telling the truth.

    The “former boyfriend” tag bothers me… He was married with kids. If I understand correctly, this wasn’t like Emerson, where he left his wife and kids.

  49. val majkus

    cohenite the other issue with the POA is IMO it did not extend to the taking out of a mortgage
    the power of attorney is here
    http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2012/10/the-awu-scandal-more-on-the-power-of-attorney.html
    it authorises Wilson to do anything that I may lawfully authorise an attorney to do in relation to the purchase of property’

    Blewitt says he never knew he had a mortgage on the Kerr Street property
    you can see the loan offer here signed by Wilson
    http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2012/10/the-awu-scandal-slater-and-gordon-help-wilsonblewitt-out-with-a-mortgage.html

  50. Thanks Val, do you know if there has been a report back from the Regulator?
    (Sorry, I could just go to the link, I think, but I’m already over my allocation of download over the satellite link. And at 20c a Mb it gets expensive.)

  51. val majkus

    Winston haven’t heard anything but doubt it – think there would be another press release at that link

    I agree 20c a MB is expensive

  52. cohenite

    val and Podsnap; Blewitt was either very gullible or there is still some undercurrent that is being missed; I suspect the former which may partially explain why he is back now.

    To deal with Real Property the POA would have had to be registered which would allow the establishment of a mortgage; but was the mortgage in Blewitt’s or Wilson’s name, or both?

    In respect of the POA these pertinent questions were raised on Smith’s blog:

    I am perplexed by the Power of Attorney signed by Blewitt. A PoA, if made in Western Australian under WA Law, MUST be registered in WA. To be registered in WA the PoA must be signed by the applicant and that signature verified by the signature of an INDEPENDENT witness. But the PoA was witnessed
    by Julia Gillard, who acted on behalf of Blewitt and so is not a witness permitted in WA. But the property purchased was in Victoria in which case the PoA must comply with Victorian Law. In Victoria the witness is not usually necessary, but the PoA must state that the power of attorney is made in pursuance of Section 107(1) of the Instruments Act (Vic) 1958- Blewitt’s PoA does not. A PoA made in Victoria does not have to be registered. But Blewitt’s PoA was made in Western Australia and to be accepted in Victoria must comply with WA Law (which it doesn’t). Was the PoA registered in Western Australia? Apparently not. Has anyone checked?

  53. jupes

    And you’re not a soldier’s arsehole……

    Numbers, if he is who he claims, spent 10 months of his life in Vietnam. Yet this very small period defines him (in his mind anyway).

    Blewitt spend at least the same amount of time in Vietnam. Yet he is defined as a “bagman”.

    Numbers obviously has led a very inconsequential life since his very short time in the army.

  54. val majkus

    cohenite my understanding in relation to the Victorian legislation at the relevant time POA’s did not have to be registered
    this is different to the NSW legislation where (so far as I recall) the transfer when presented at the LTO had to be accompanied by any relevant POA

    So far as the signing of the POA is concerned my understanding is that the governing law of POA’s is that of the state in which it is to be utilised (in this case Victoria) and in that state at the relevant time POA’s did not even have to be witnessed
    (I’ll try to find the case for you)

  55. jupes

    You want allegations

    3. Misleading Parliament. In answer to a question from Julie Bishop, Gillard stated that the reason she didn’t inform the police or the AWU about the slush fund was because an enquiry was already underway.

    That’s bullshit.

  56. val majkus

    jupes, you’re right, bullshit

  57. val majkus

    oh well off to the gym for me!

  58. Podsnap

    I agree with Val on the NSW legislation, and to me it is common sense that the POA must be valid for the jurisdiction where it is to be used.

    I’d hate for the POA allegation to get sidetracked on all this conflict of laws stuff.

    Fact is Gillard is alleged to have backdated and falsely witnessed the POA. The fact that there may be no requirement for a witness is irrelevant to the dishonesty of that act.

    How is she to fight the Blewitt witness allegation ? He says she wasn’t there, she can say either – 1. strongly “I was there”, 2. weakly, “I can’t recall the specifics, I met him many times at that time and a lot of documents were signed”.

    2. is not good enough, but may be the most she is prepared to say if she falsely witnessed.

    This may be why Wilson is finally emerging – maybe Gillard uses him to deny the Blewitt allegation – Wilson says “I never got Blewitt to sign it in Perth, he’s lying”.

  59. val majkus

    oh before I go the other relevant issue with the POA is it a false document within the meaning of 83A of the Crimes Act (Vict)
    I’ll check to see what you think when I get back

    and Podsnap to be consistent all Ms Gillard could say is ‘I don’t recall … these events occurred over 17 ….” well you know how the sentence goes

  60. Numbers, if he is who he claims, spent 10 months of his life in Vietnam. Yet this very small period defines him (in his mind anyway).

    Hilarious.
    Nowhere in this post have I said anything about Vietnam, But once again, the bleaters who post here get their knickers in a knot.
    First I’m a fraud (still haven’t heard from ANZMI, and the twerp who threatened me, BTW), then I “define myself”, now my life is inconsequential…..
    Hell hath no fury like a “Libertarian” miffed.
    Get a life.

  61. Bunyip

    According to the Yabby’s exit interview, friends of Bruce would arrive at her home when she was out, gut her bathroom and build “woggy” fences — all without her knowledge and most definitely not, or so she insisted, at her request.

    Now it may not be an offence to have such friends, but it certainly offends the intelligence to imagine they did their renovating unbidden and free of charge.

  62. 81Alpha

    Too much bromide in the tea eh General Duties?

  63. SteveC

    re James Johnson
    “James is a prominent Australian constitutional lawyer, human rights campaigner, innnovative thinker and whistleblower, noted for powerful oratory and written skills, which he puts to good use in the law courts, as a media commentator and as a playwrite and author.”
    If he doesn’t say so himself! He’s also an “independent candidate for the seat of Lalor”

  64. Gab

    friends of Bruce would arrive at her home when she was out, gut her bathroom and build “woggy” fences — all without her knowledge and most definitely not, or so she insisted, at her request.

    A friend of Wilson’s also deposited $5000 of Wilson’s money into the account of the red-headed one, unbeknown to her. Indeed, she has been most blessed to have such extraordinary friends. Still the case today.

  65. Leigh Lowe

    The accusation is that Blewitt is a fraudster, crook and visits prostitutes!
    WTF?
    Hello!
    He has ADMITTED he was a minor party to fraud ….. the real question is who were the major players, beneficiaries and facilitators of the fraud, and do any of them hold high office.
    As for visiting prostitutes, the ALP’s recently discovered distaste for this practice is illuminating.
    In Blewitt’s defence we can safely say that at least he used his own money.

  66. Keith

    I arranged a couple of POAs in Victoria back in the late eighties. They definitely needed to be witnessed then. The solicitor concerned made that all too clear to me at the time. Can’t see why the requirement would have been removed between then, and when JEG “witnessed” Blewitt’s in ’93.

  67. Keith

    The accusation is that Blewitt is a fraudster, crook and visits prostitutes!

    Equally applicable to Thommo of brothelgate fame, but Gillard has “full confidence” in him.

  68. So have I got this right?

    Judith Sloan has today directly accused the PM of being a party to fraud? In the criminally liable sense?

    And Sinclair runs this blog?

    Brave; very brave.

  69. Keith

    If he doesn’t say so himself! He’s also an “independent candidate for the seat of Lalor”

    And he breathes too. Shocking isn’t it.
    But really SteveC, is it really that shocking to you to encounter people more intelligent than yourself?
    Must happen 99% of the time for you.

    And now sfb of the remaining 1% shows up to threaten, stasi informant style.

  70. John Mc

    Brave; very brave.

    And you accuse us of being bush lawyers, ShitFor.

  71. Up The Workers!

    When Australia’s esteemed A.L.P. Attorney General talks about liars and crooks, you should pay attention, because she knows what she is talking about.

    After all, she helped elect one as her Parliamentary leader, and another as a former National President of her party.

    She and Tony Burke are now quoting a known liar, crook and embezzler (Bruce Wilson) as an unimpeachable authority on the “honesty” of her party leader.

    As Attorney General, is SHE going to force Bruce Wilson to pay back the million dollars or more stolen from members of the A.W.U., or because he used to be Juliar’s boyfriend, does she think that Bruce is entitled to keep it?

    Would she have the same view if the same amount was thieved by a former girlfriend of Tony Abbott?

  72. rafiki

    Based on what we know so far, Judith Sloan does not understand the key issues. These are the questions – allegations by some – that she has committed a criminal offence. Comments above and the detail on Michael Smith’s blog indicate what these issues are (eg, re the POA). By contrast, Judith’s second allegation – viz. that “providing information to the Western Australian Corporate Affairs Commission to assuage their doubts about the bona fides of the association, particularly the fact that AWU was in its title, [means that] she is potentially guility (sic) of this misdemeanour as well” is nonsense and easily swatted away. How does merely ‘providing information’ in this way amount to (an unspecified) ‘misdemeanor’?

    I hope that the Coalition strategists have a better focussed perspective. And that they do not move too quickly. To use Keating’s words, she needs to be done slowly to draw this out and make life more difficult for a replacement.

  73. Podsnap

    Steve from Brisbane -

    maybe Gillard will get some of her heavies to ring up Sinclair and order him to delete the post, and sack her from the blog.

    Then maybe she can have her heavies ring the bosses of all the commenters and have them sacked.

    Remember when the left at least preached principles mate ?

    Now you don’t even bother with the facade.

  74. candy

    If they did her bathroom, someone must have given them a key to her house to go in and do renovations, they wouldn’t have broken in to renovate her home?

    odd friends Ms Gillard has

  75. Agree with you wholeheartedly, Rafiki. Especially the last bit. This needs to be a long campaign so that Labors name continues to be identified with its corrupt roots.

  76. Podsnap

    Agree with you generally Rafiki, but not this -

    By contrast, Judith’s second allegation – viz. that “providing information to the Western Australian Corporate Affairs Commission to assuage their doubts about the bona fides of the association, particularly the fact that AWU was in its title, [means that] she is potentially guility (sic) of this misdemeanour as well” is nonsense and easily swatted away. How does merely ‘providing information’ in this way amount to (an unspecified) ‘misdemeanor’?

    The second allegation is significant. If she told the WACAC that the Association was other than a slush fund then she lied. Lawyers can’t lie for clients. No way.

    And if she told WA CAC that it was a slush fund then there is no way that the Association would have been registered.

    A significant allegation – which if proven would mean her head. Remember the setting up of the Association is the key to laundering the stolen money.

    Problem is the letter to WA CAC disappeared from the WA CAC file. And no good going to S & G as the fat arsed crow never kept a file.

  77. Up The Workers!

    In relation to the $5,000.00 which Bruce Wilson allegedly deposited into Juliar’s bank account, has the A.T.O. investigated that, or because she is the A.L.P. Prime Minister, does she not have to pay tax on her income?

    The Commonwealth Auditor General and/or the Australian Federal Police need to investigate the upper ranks of the A.T.O. for possible corruption and nepotism.

    Why is it that the A.T.O. will chase a salary and wage earner to the end of the earth over $20 of undeclared income, but senior members of the A.L.P. and union hierarchy can steal, thieve and embezzle millions and the A.T.O. plays blind, deaf, dumb and stupid.

    Are ALL Australian citizens now permitted to cheat on their taxes, or is that a privilege only extended by the A.T.O. to senior members of the A.L.P.?

  78. MichaelC58

    So, our Australian Labor prime minister’s credibility is so low, that Bob Carr asks us to rely on a union crook like Bruce Wilson to vouch for her integrity.
    How low has Australia sunk?

  79. Sinclair Davidson

    The Commonwealth Auditor General and/or the Australian Federal Police need to investigate the upper ranks of the A.T.O. for possible corruption and nepotism.

    Why is it that the A.T.O. will chase a salary and wage earner to the end of the earth over $20 of undeclared income, but senior members of the A.L.P. and union hierarchy can steal, thieve and embezzle millions and the A.T.O. plays blind, deaf, dumb and stupid.

    A tad hysterical don’t you think? Of all the criticisms I have of the ATO personal corruption is not one of them – I suspect this would be very, very rare.

  80. C.L.

    Brave; very brave

    Mmyes, I’m sure Julia Gillard would love nothing more than to sue a blog and bring about a court case where she’s required to tell the truth under threat of imprisonment. With her married criminal ‘boyfriend,’ Shorten, Bill the Greek and the whole dramatis personae dragged before the cameras and the barristers daily.

    Because, as we all know, she’s famous for her truthfulness.

  81. Up The Workers!

    MichaelC58,

    Bob Carr probably doesn’t know anybody more honest and honourable than Bruce Wilson.

    Personally, I thought that Wilson was lowering himself to speak as a referee for Juliar’s honesty.

    After all, when she clearly promised: “There will be no Carbon Tax under the Government I lead”, all 23 million Australians knew as much as they needed to know about her honesty and integrity.

  82. Why is it that the A.T.O. will chase a salary and wage earner to the end of the earth over $20 of undeclared income, but senior members of the A.L.P. and union hierarchy can steal, thieve and embezzle millions and the A.T.O. plays blind, deaf, dumb and stupid.

    I guess that’s fair enough, Sinclair – as you say the general mob of workers in any organisation just want to do their job and go home at the end of the day.
    But I feel the latter part stands by itself.

  83. m0nty

    maybe Gillard will get some of her heavies to ring up Sinclair and order him to delete the post, and sack her from the blog.

    Catallaxy isn’t worth a pinch of shite, it’s beneath polite society so no one cares what is said here. That’s the only defence Judith has.

    “Party to fraud”, what crime exactly does that refer to? As for the false information charge, that requires proving intention which, as we have seen from weeks of fruitless prosecution of the case through the media, is impossible in this case due to all evidence being circumstantial or he-said-she-said.

    Stick to economics Judith, don’t fall into the trap of becoming a bush lawyer.

  84. Gab

    Catallaxy isn’t worth a pinch of shite, it’s beneath polite society so no one cares what is said here.

    Ah yes, the sneer and snarl and insults so typical of monty’s visits here. But please, let no one insult him because as monty himself said:

    Constant insults are tiresome.

    m0nty

    17 Nov 12 at 8:36 pm

  85. C.L.

    Catallaxy isn’t worth a pinch of shite…

    Which is why Monty spends almost his entire day – each and every day – online at Catallaxy, apparently excluding even time out for meals and baths.

    Stick to economics Judith, don’t fall into the trap of becoming a bush lawyer.

    Wrongologist Monty examined the Slipper case, in all its legal complexities, and declared here that Fr Pete would inevitably return to the Speaker’s chair.

  86. m0nty

    Why is it that the A.T.O. will chase a salary and wage earner to the end of the earth over $20 of undeclared income, but senior members of the A.L.P. and union hierarchy can steal, thieve and embezzle millions and the A.T.O. plays blind, deaf, dumb and stupid.

    Why is it that the media has done very little since the police dropped it to investigate the AWB scandal involving $350 million in money funnelled to a dictator guilty of war crimes, yet it is all over a twenty year old case that the police dropped centring on the building of a crappy brick fence that wasn’t even wanted anyway?

  87. m0nty

    Which is why Monty spends almost his entire day – each and every day – online at Catallaxy, apparently excluding even time out for meals and baths.

    LOL, coming from you that is an utter joke. What did you spend your Saturday night and Sunday doing, CL? Posting here. I was out enjoying life with friends and family. Evidently you can’t say the same.

  88. Gab

    Monty now says:

    Hey, tu quoque!

  89. cohenite

    Podsnap and val; I have read the Victorian Instruments Act and S. 106 is plain; there is no requirement for a witness to a specific POA such as Blewitt signed [unless you argue the POA had to conform to WA standards]; BUT, if you look at the POA Gillard did witness it.

    That testifying traps Gillard if she did not witness Blewitt executing the POA, or if it was backdated.

    This was something she did not have to do [based on Victorian requirements] and it is probably the most serious issue [ignoring whether she knew of Wilson's alleged fruadulent activities].

  90. Podsnap

    As for the false information charge, that requires proving intention which, as we have seen from weeks of fruitless prosecution of the case through the media, is impossible in this case due to all evidence being circumstantial or he-said-she-said.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong.

    Lawyers can’t bullshit for clients. We know she thought it was a slush fund. So if she said something else then she lied.

    They disappeared the letter – that is the problem not ‘proving intention’ or ‘he said/she said’.

  91. val majkus

    BTW I don’t know if you’ve all read Ian Cambridge’s Affidavit but here’ a paper which is based upon the information in that affidavit; the paper is by Dr John Lourens, it’s only 7 pages and very worth while reading to bring you up to speed on some of the elements of the AWU scandal
    http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2012/10/synopsis-of-the-awu-scandal-john-lourens.html

  92. m0nty

    Monty now says:

    Hey, tu quoque!

    No Gab, I’m pointing out a double standard. Tu quoque would be if the media had spent months and months pursuing Abbott over the punch incident, rather than the short week that nonsense went for.

  93. Podsnap

    cohenite – definitely the most serious issue. This is the sort of thing lawyers get done on because it’s a black and white evidentiary thing, not like all these other complex scams she was involved in.

    As I said up the thread – doesn’t matter if she had to witness it or not (maybe for a criminal charge – but we don’t need that) – she purported to do it. That’s enough. You get disbarred for that sort of thing.

  94. m0nty

    Lawyers can’t bullshit for clients.

    Lawyers are professional bullshitters for clients!

  95. Podsnap

    Bullshit you idiot.

    I’ve got 20 years on the job, and you have ?

  96. val majkus

    Cohenite the AWU slushgate inc. is serious IMO
    particularly in light of S & G exit transcript where Gillard said it was her understanding it was a ‘slush fund’

    There have been newspaper reports (I think by the Herald’s Mark Baker) of a letter having been written to the Commissioner to assuage concerns he had raised, there are rumors that Julie Bishop has a copy of that letter

    that would set the stage for an interesting week

  97. JC

    I’ve got 20 years on the job, and you have ?

    3rd rate journalism, a failed company which he managed to wreck in a boom and a kiddies site dealing with footy stats…. plus eating, lots and lots of eating.

  98. JC

    Bullshit you idiot.

    Even newbies can’t stand fat boy.

  99. rafiki

    Podsnap: two quick points (and thanks for your response)

    1. I cavilled with Judith’s blog on the basis that she did not specify just what information Gillard provided. The general point here is that the questions and allegations need to be so specific that they cannot be dismissed. It is clear that Gillard is answering a general allegation – eg that she knew about the mortgage – by selecting & dealing with one piece of supporting evidence – eg that the CBA sent her a letter – and ignoring other pieces, and then claiming that she has dealt with the issue.

    2. Re the creation of the association, Gillard has given an explanation, and however implausible it seems, it might be enough to create a reasonable doubt about her guilt.

    It will be hard to make a criminal charge stick (assuming one is ever made). People who plan a fraud usually take steps to cover their tracks. Blewitt’s statement might be enough to skewer on a charge re the POA but for one (and I am not across all of the information on the public record) I don’t see much else at present.

    But there is a political dimension too, and C.L. made the point that stories that associate Gillard’s name with “former fraudster boyfriend”, “bagman”, and the like will damage her. This may not be fair, but to ask the Coalition – or the media she has threatened – to desist from such tactics is to ask them to fight with one hand tied behind them.

  100. cohenite

    there are rumors that Julie Bishop has a copy of that letter

    If Bishop has the letter which Gillard is purported to have sent vouchsafing the AWU slush fund that, in combination with Gillard’s admission that she was aware it was a slush fund and not the benign, altruistic purpose on the application, would mean mens rea has been established.

  101. m0nty

    I’ve got 20 years on the job, and you have ?

    20 more years of productive contribution to society.

  102. John Mc

    No one believe that Monty. Doing what?

  103. m0nty

    Anything is more productive than being a lawyer.

  104. John Mc

    JC, so Monty actually has a failed business? I am impressed (as much as you can be), I would have said some sort of tax eater bureaucrat for sure. Maybe the ATO or Department of Climate Change.

  105. Podsnap

    Rafiki – I agree with all you’ve said. As you say the misrep on the Association will go nowhere unless the letter can be produced and that doesn’t look like happening.

  106. Podsnap

    OK Monty we can all have our little opinions on the merit or not of the law – but you do need to stop pretending to be a bush lawyer on a blog.

  107. val majkus

    Podsnap, the misrep on the Association is contained in the Application itself
    AN EXPLANATORY post here with a link to the application itself
    http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2012/08/the-wa-associations-incorporation-act.html

  108. Tiny Dancer

    mOron, how’s Kimberley? Busted her yet or do you talk to her, show her some respect, treat her like a lady?

  109. Keith

    The best way to hide files, is to include them inside another file. That way, should the search get a little intense for the public servants involved, they can truthfully say that they had nothing to do with destruction of relevant records. If the file is subsequently found, it just looks like a stuff up. To be fair to public servants, this happens in large companies too.

  110. rafiki

    I would not normally respond to Monty, but I have something to say about one of his assertions that some of you may find of interest. He asserts that proving an particular allegation “is impossible in this case due to all evidence being circumstantial or he-said-she-said”. There are two errors here.

    1. Evidence to prove an element of a criminal charge is circumstantial the proof depends on two or more pieces of evidence (the primary facts) being taken together as the proof of the existence of the element. This is the case in nearly every instance (and some scholars and judges suggest there is no direct v. circumstantial dichotomy – I will give a reference is someone asks). There are cases where the a single piece of evidence (eg evidence of a confession) is claimed to have great weight, and such cases might be said to be based on direct evidence. Even accepting this, a largely ‘direct’ evidence case is often very weak (eg, where it is based on identification evidence), and a circumstantial case is often very strong.

    It is more obviously nonsensical to say that a ‘he-said-she-said’ case must fail. In such cases, evidence about the credibility of the witnesses might be critical, and on this score Gillard might suffer as much as Blewitt (fo0r example).

  111. rafiki

    Bugger. It should read “if the proof”.

  112. Podsnap

    Right val – wow – I either never knew that or forgot it.

    Right Keith. I once found a file dropped behind a filing cabinet, and guess what – there was a negligence issue.

  113. Podsnap

    Rafiki

    Exactly. A lot of bush lawyers say “Well this is just circumstantial evidence” as though that disposes of an allegation.

    Nothing of the sort.

  114. Leigh Lowe

    If Gillard has been defamed let her sue.
    The main defence to such action is to prove the truth of the statements about her.
    I would love to cross-examine her under oath.

  115. val majkus

    this case is document rich
    it’s not all circumstantial evidence

  116. Brett

    Lawyers are professional bullshitters for clients!

    I know you spout fountains of effluent but that is breathtakingly puerile, even for someone as idiotic as you.

    Circumstantial evidence is simply a class of evidence, and it is perfectly capable of proving the necessary facts. Almost every case has circumstantial evidence and some have no other kind. Oral evidence is often circumstantial.

  117. Oh come on

    LOL, coming from you that is an utter joke. What did you spend your Saturday night and Sunday doing, CL? Posting here. I was out enjoying life with friends and family. Evidently you can’t say the same.

    I am not able to comment on the goings on regarding CL’s social life any more authoritatively than you are, however I will note the clear difference between you and him – CL does indeed spend a considerable amount of time posting on this blog, but he doesn’t pour buckets of shit over it whilst doing so. Whereas you, on the other hand, do pour buckets of shit over this blog on frequent occasions, yet you can’t seem to leave the place alone, for even a short space of time.

    Which makes you a rather sad (and not to mention confused) individual.

  118. JC

    20 more years of productive contribution to society.

    Anything is more productive than being a lawyer

    Fart boy, you lost millions and millions of investors money in that failed venture. If we did an accounting now, you would owe shoceity rather than the other way round. Shociety being the measure you chose, not me as I consider that form of measurement to be crap.

    So even by your own standards your contribution is horrendous, fat boy.

    Next up… you’re always judging who is and isn’t worthwhile. You realize that’s a very fascist concept you oversized Benito. Go eat a couple of dozen hot dogs as it’s dinner time.

  119. JC

    lol fat boy, not fart boy, although in your context either works just as well.

  120. val majkus

    worth looking at again what is required to prove fraud under WA legislation
    http://www.australiancriminallawyers.com.au/web/page/WA_Fraud_s.409_of_the_Criminal_Code
    Any person who, with intent to defraud, by deceit or any fraudulent means:

    (1) Obtains property from any person;
    (2) Induces any person to deliver property to another person;
    (3) Gains a benefit (pecuniary or otherwise) for any person;
    (4) Causes a detriment (pecuniary or otherwise) to any person;
    (5) Induces any person to do any act that the person in lawfully entitled to abstain from doing; or
    (6) Induces any person to abstain from doing any act which they are lawfully entitled to do,
    is guilty of a crime.
    AND
    (1) That the one of the matters listed in s.409 above has taken place (eg. obtained property or gained a benefit);
    (2) That the accused had an intent to defraud; and
    (3) That the consequence alleged was brought about by the by the accused’s use of deceit or other fraudulent means.

  121. Carpe Jugulum

    Fart Boy works better. :)

  122. SteveC

    maybe Gillard will get some of her heavies to ring up Sinclair and order him to delete the post, and sack her from the blog.

    I suspect not, because, as I suggested above “I’m afraid this blog is just another “nut jobs on the internet” source in the PM’s mind “
    which is why I suggested Judith may want to run the same allegation in the Oz, the response to which would be interesting.

  123. SteveC

    They disappeared the letter

    .
    Who’s “they” podsnap?

  124. Louis Hissink

    There’s movement at the station, according to Professor Bunyip, something about rumours of another case of primeministercide.

  125. Podsnap

    Steve C

    I suspect not as well – I was using the device of ‘hyperbole’.

    Do you want this country to be like Singapore Steve – where the government sues into bankruptcy anyone who questions them ?

    Who is ‘they’ ? Gillard disappeared the letter by ensuring it never got on a file. S & G assisted with that by not reconstructing the file when they disappeared her. As far as the WA CAC goes….. Well I want to hear a bit more from them as to how long files are kept, what is the state of contemporary documents etc

    When I get that then I might revise my definition of ‘they’.

  126. Such a pity, Louis.
    I wanted to see the perpwalk from the PMs office….
    Will she lose a shoe this time?
    What would you give to be the arresting officer?
    I doubt you’d ever have to buy a drink this side of the Pearly Gates.

  127. cohenite

    val; for Gillard to be caught by the section I would think the association and Wilson would have to be charged with fraud first and then Gillard’s complicity, if any, would flow from that.

    In addition if Wilson’s fraud wa established then the offence of misprison would emerge.

    I mean, Wilson’s tinker bell exemption from any charges is the elephant in the room here.

  128. val majkus

    getting back to the POA I mentioned s 83A of the Vict Crimes Act before
    http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s83a.html

    relevant sections
    83A. Falsification of documents

    (1) A person must not make a false document with the intention that he or she,
    or another person, shall use it to induce another person to accept it as
    genuine, and by reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to that
    other person’s, or to another person’s prejudice.

    6) For the purpose of this section, a document is false if it purports-
    (g) to have been made or altered on a date on which, or at a place at
    which, or otherwise in circumstances in which, it was not in fact made
    or altered;
    (8) For the purposes of this section, an act or omission is to a person’s
    prejudice if, and only if, it is one that, if it occurs-

    (a) will result-
    (ii) to obtain a financial advantage from the first-mentioned person
    otherwise than by way of remuneration; or

    and an interesting case
    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/5.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query='83A'%20NEAR%20'Crimes%20Act

    para 8 In these circumstances, the answer to the question whether the applicant was guilty of the offence of having forged the guarantee turns upon the answer to a question which can be posed in abstract terms. That question is whether a person who adds his or her signature to a valid and effective instrument of guarantee which has been executed by the guarantor out of his or her presence is guilty of forging the guarantee if the effect of his or her signature is that the instrument of guarantee then asserts that the guarantor had executed it in his or her presence. In my view, in a case such as the present where the signature or presence of an attesting witness was not necessary for validity, that question should be answered in the negative. It is true that it can be argued that the addition of the witness’ signature in such a case is to alter the guarantee so that it purports to be what it is not, namely, a guarantee executed in the presence of an attesting witness. However, in a context where the presumption of innocence militates against conviction of a serious crime on the basis of ambiguities and subtleties, See, e.g., Tuck and Sons v. Priester (1887) 19 QBD 629, at p 638; Scott v. Cawsey [1907] HCA 80; (1907) 5 CLR 132, at pp 144-145, 154-157; R. v. Adams [1935] HCA 62; (1935) 53 CLR 563, at pp 567-568; Beckwith v. The Queen [1976] HCA 55; (1976) 135 CLR 569, at p 576; Waugh v. Kippen [1986] HCA 12; (1986) 160 CLR 156, at p 164; Murphy v. Farmer [1988] HCA 31; (1988) 165 CLR 19, at pp 28-29, the preferable view seems to me to be that the addition of the signature by the witness in such a case does not produce the consequence that the document relevantly purports to be what it is not. In such a case, the document purports to be what it is, namely, a valid and binding guarantee. By the addition of the signature, the witness does not impart a false character to the document but merely causes “an instrument which purports to be what it really is”, see Ex parte Charles Windsor (1865) 10 Cox CC, at p 123, to contain a false statement. As has been seen, that is not sufficient to constitute the offence of forgery of the relevant instrument. It could, of course, constitute other criminal conduct, see, e.g., Crimes Act 1958 (Vict.), s. 83A (introduced in 1988), and give rise to civil liability for any consequential loss sustained by others.

  129. Carpe Jugulum

    What would you give to be the arresting officer?

    $10K and, i would get a haircut.

  130. val majkus

    cohenite you might be right

    but seems Blewitt is not denying his part in fraud
    and even Wilson has come out yesterday talking about ‘the fraud’

    and this

    Australian Bar Review, vol 5 No 1 March 1989 page 1 refers to conspiracy to defraud and aiding and abetting a breach of the law as the two areas of the criminal law which potentially apply to professional advice.

    His Honour McHugh J said (in part) “…when the lawyer goes beyond advice and draws documents for the purpose of enabling a client to achieve an objective, it is, I think, almost impossible to contend that the adviser does not aid the commission of any offence which results

    there’s been a lot of reference to it on the net the past few days, it’s a paper so not obtainable on the net sorry because I’d like to read it

    and for legal enthusiasts some more papers on how far lawyers can and can’t go for clients
    http://www.lawsociety.com.au/idc/groups/public/documents/internetcontent/026322.pdf

    you might enjoy this one too
    http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publications/previous%20series/proceedings/1-27/~/media/publications/proceedings/10/wells.pdf

    and this paper also refers to it
    http://www.supremecourt.vic.gov.au/resources/3074de4f-1f55-46b9-9976-f7dbce4cfef5/illuminating%2Btax%2Bavoidance%2B_sa%2Btax%2Binstitute%2Bapril%2B2011_.pdf

  131. val majkus

    cohenite I got stuck in spam trying to answer your comment; hopefully someone will extricate me

    must be something to do with the no of links

  132. Come on CJ, you’d do that just for the free drinks for the rest of your life!
    Well, I would anyway.

  133. Leo G

    “This was something she did not have to do [based on Victorian requirements]… – Cohenite

    But there is something she had to do, namely to ensure that the POA had the effect of the form of Schedule 12 of the Victorian Instruments Act. To be effective according to the Victorian legislation the POA needed to unambiguously identify the pursuant law, at the very least by indicating under which State laws it was prepared.
    The POA states: “THIS SPECIFIC POWER OF ATTORNEY is made … in the State of Western Australia.”
    Why did Gillard not include the recommended form advice to assert that the legal instrument was created under Victorian law: “in pursuance of section 107 (1) of the Instruments Act 1958″?
    Why did she obscure the identity of the state under whose law the instrument was created?
    It appears she wanted to give the impression that the instrument complied with the law of Western Australia where the POA was created but would be accepted when applied in Victoria.

  134. jupes

    Nowhere in this post have I said anything about Vietnam…

    Have a look at your handle you idiot. It’s your army number. You want to be known by your army number. You were only in the army for less than 3% of your miserable life.

    It’s not me who needs to get a life.

  135. This number was given to me – I didn’t ask for it.
    If using it upsets a bunch of naively delusional Libertarians, that’s their problem.

  136. cohenite

    val; nice bit of research; to summarise; Gillard’s witnessing signature does not detract from the legality, or otherwise, of the POA. That is, if she signed non-contemperaneously from Blewitt, not having witnessed his execution, the POA is still extant.

    I don’t think Blewitt will be suing anyone on an inducement and consequent loss basis.

    The remaining issue is the date of the POA and whether that was manipulated after Blewitt signed it to fit in with the purchase of the home with any ramifications for possible double stamp duty being avoided.

  137. Tiny Dancer

    Numbers. Spud peeling while the men were out fighting, then back here to bullshit children and now here being the fake hero. Now wounded hero. Go away dribbler

  138. @Tiny Dancer
    Your tag is supremely offensive to Elton John.
    You should change it immediately….

  139. Infidel tiger

    This number was given to me – I didn’t ask for it.

    I’m curious as to why you don’t call yourself dickhead? You didn’t ask for that name either but surely it’s more relevant?

  140. val majkus

    cohenite yes, there’s been some comments about double stamp duty if no POA existed at the date of the auction as certainly appears (circumstantially) to be the case otherwise why would it not have appeared at the auction and been handed to the agent on that date
    be that as it may – if one accepts Blewitt’s word that it was signed at a later date the result IMO is that there was no sale at auction
    so no double stamp duty
    ultimately the POA has achieved its purpose and beyond its purpose because it was used to obtain a mortgage which Blewitt says he never knew about

  141. Coming from someone who is enough of a wanker to use the tag Infidel Tiger, I’ll take that as a compliment.

  142. val majkus

    and cohenite my other issue with the POA is that IMV (and this is related to the signing or otherwise in the presence of each other) if Blewitt’s word is accepted that he and Gillard were not present at the same time then it’s a false document within s 83A of the Crimes Act (Vict)

  143. Tiny Dancer

    I am entirely unsurprised that you would consider Elton’s feelings.

  144. Megan

    Nowhere in this post have I said anything about Vietnam

    You have…right there. And, as everyone here knows, that was inevitable.

    Too stupid to ignore an obvious baiting. Must have made a great soldier.

  145. val majkus

    If Blewitt was Wilson’s bagman then what was Gillard

  146. Gab

    I think the “chivalrous” Wilson deserves a dedication.

  147. cohenite

    What indeed was Gillard if she wasn’t what she is now.

    val, I think you should condense your remarks on this thread and send them to Bishop; I’ve found them to be helpful and I’m sure she would to.

  148. @James of the Glen
    How’s that referral to ANZMI coming along?

  149. jupes

    “chivalrous” Wilson

    Dunno about that.

    If she goes down, he will go down a lot harder. It’s in his interest for this to go away.

  150. val majkus

    thanks cohenite
    now if someone could only extricate my reply to cohenite from spam
    promise I’ll never include three (could have been four) links again

  151. Gab

    Maximum of three links, Val. But sometimes the link can also be the problem by the spam filter.

  152. val majkus

    I might actually send a precis to Sen Brandis to look over before sending it to Julie Bishop

  153. Mk50 of Brisbane

    Numbers:

    This number was given to me – I didn’t ask for it.
    If using it upsets a bunch of naively delusional Libertarians, that’s their problem.

    It does not ‘upset’ them, numbers, they just think that it’s pretty silly to so define yourself in relation to an event you apparently disliked so intensely.

    My view (and I’m an Imperialist, not a Libertarian) is that it’s kind of pathetic. You’ll notice no other ADF vet doing so. That said, we don’t use prior service to purchase ‘cred’ in environs left-wing circle-jerkish.

  154. “circle-jerkish” – what an entirely apt description of the bulk of the above postings.

  155. val majkus

    Gab I wasn’t rejected, my comment just disappeared after it had been accepted which makes me think it was the spam filter
    It’s happened to me on Warwick Hughes blog and some hours later my comment has appeared! I think Warwick has a spam filter and comments are caught there and I suspect the same happened to me here today

  156. Sinclair Davidson

    Gentlepeople – let’s not turn this into yet another discussion of 1735099′s war effort.

  157. Sinclair Davidson

    val – I just fished your comment out of the spam filter.

  158. Tiny Dancer

    Go and peel some spuds.

  159. GregJ

    Such a pity, Louis.
    I wanted to see the perpwalk from the PMs office…

    My fantasy is a little more florid:

    I wanted to see the screeching lying harpy publicly arrested during question time, and frogmarched out of parliament in handcuffs.

  160. val majkus

    Sinc could you extricate a comment by me on this thread from your spam filter … please please

    I didn’t refer to 1735099 at all

  161. val majkus

    oh yes, it’s up there at 6.50 pm – thanks Sinc

  162. Gab

    my comment just disappeared after it had been accepted

    That happens to me too sometimes, in which case I hit the back button and it takes me to the page where the comment is still in the yellow ‘leave a reply’ box. Sometimes it’s the link that’s the problem so I use tinyurl.com to create a revised link.

  163. val majkus

    cohenite my answer to you is up – at 6.50 pm

  164. Gab

    To be fair, 90210 didn’t initiate comment on his war months on this thread.

  165. stackja

    Is there a law about conspiring to conceal a crime? Should the ALP/media be charged?

  166. val majkus

    Gab, thanks for that tip of yours which I had read and I tried it with my disappeared comment but no luck – empty box
    I usually hit the submit button and wait for the comment to appear so don’t know if your tip would work in those circumstances but I did try it and thanks

  167. val majkus

    stackja, first there has to be a crime
    IMV conviction is required
    maybe no …

  168. C.L.

    Oh my – new allegations: that Nicola Roxon lied about Slushgate.

    Curiouser and curiouser.

    “I have no recollection…”

    Uh-huh.

  169. Gab

    Gee, these Labor MPs have shocking memories. It’s a wonder they remember their own names.

  170. JC

    Seriously, they better start thinking of swapping leaders and people around as this is looking ugly.

  171. C.L.

    I’m telling you – Swan was mending fences with Rudd yesterday.

    HELLO.

  172. val majkus

    We’ve discussed the POA so excluding that the other things about Gillard’s input once you get past deceptive and misleading and conflictual conduct (after all the AWU was a client of her firm) are these:
    a) her input into the Application for Incorporation of the Slushgate Inc (including using AWU in the name which can certainly be called ‘passing off – the name of the application is allegedly in Gillard’s handwriting). Gillard has stated this was a ‘slushfund’. From the incorporation application that’s not apparent so there’s misleading and deceptive conduct plus the conflictual usage of the AWU – the name belonging to one of her firm’s clients
    b) if it exists – the ‘letter of comfort’ to the Commissioner
    c) then failure to report to the AWU at the time of her departure from S & G – the existence of Slushgate Inc – it took the AWU from memory another six months after her departure from S & G to find out ABOUT the existence of that associations bank accounts and it was only found out because Cambridge wrote to every bank in Australia- whether that’s concealment of a crime – well that’s in the hands of others now
    d) whether the purchase of the Kerr Street property should have been reported to the AWU – well yes in my view it should have been – it might have permitted the AWU to recoup some of its losses

  173. JC

    I’m telling you – Swan was mending fences with Rudd yesterday.

    HELLO.

    The back bench must be absolutely horrified at what is going on here. There isn’t a week that goes that the Slapper isn’t caught up in some sort of bullshit… either a fuck up, a lie or both.

  174. JC

    Is there a law about conspiring to conceal a crime? Should the ALP/media be charged?

    stackja

    Actually there has been some decent reporting if you stop and consider that the media includes all facets these days and not just the MSM.

    The glaring absence and propaganda machine for the Liars Party has really been Their ABC. they deserve mass sackings.

  175. cohenite

    cohenite my answer to you is up – at 6.50 pm

    Thanks val; indeed, this is the other side of the misprison issue; even if Gillard did not aid and abet Wilson in an [alleged] fraud she still had a responsibility to notify.

  176. val majkus

    the other ‘untold’ story is the Boulder Fatality Fund

    Julia Gillard and Bruce Wilson attended a meeting of AWU workers in the Town Hall at Boulder in (I think) 1992 and the workers were persuaded to transfer the balance in the Fatality Fund to an account held in Perth and that was the last of the Fatality Fund. Both Gillard and Wilson spoke at the meeting

    The Fatality Fund comprised monies donated by AWU members to give funds to families in the event of the death of an AWU worker on the job

    Dr John Lourens has a paper about to be published on this so I’ve just sent him an e mail asking him if its up yet so I can give you a link

  177. twostix

    Oh sweet.

    The resident shills are going off their nut, with SfB coming full circle back to when this orginially broke and two journalists were fired and he and m0nty were gleefully “warning” us all that if any of us spoke about it at all we were going to get sued / silenced by the completely innocent Gillard.

    Bombing over target.

  178. JC

    Stix

    Lol, yea I recall that. And the other Steves twin also does the same thing. What an appalling face of the left. No sense of ethics nor integrity.

  179. …and now Roxoff is dragged, kicking and squealing from under her rock.
    Is there anyone on the front bench untainted in this cesspit?

  180. Carpe Jugulum

    Is there anyone on the front bench untainted in this cesspit?

    Winston, i believe the term is NO.

  181. kae

    MichaelC58
    Lower than a snake’s belly!

    How are ya?

  182. cohenite

    If that Boulder Fatality Fund is correct then that should be the coalition’s lead-in everytime the PM gets to her feet or opens her trap.

  183. val majkus

    cohenite – Dr John would like it published and I’ve e mailed Michael Smith and if Michael agrees then I’ll send it to Sinclair – I can’t find Judith’s contact details – to see if the Cat would publish it

    It deserves a separate post IMV but would continue the AWU scandal theme

  184. val majkus

    It’s 4 pages plus 2 pages of photos
    the photos can be left out so 4 A4 pages

  185. SteveC

    I guess 50 is more meaningful than any other number.

  186. SteveC

    So will we see Judith’s allegations in the Oz this week or not?

  187. cohenite

    So will we see Judith’s allegations in the Oz this week or not?

    I hope so; having participated in the brain-storming on this thread, I think they have legs.

  188. Bruce

    Here’s a quote especially for m0nty:

    And what about the $5000 that Wilson allegedly asked another official to put in Gillard’s bank account?

    – Phil Coorey, SMH, today

    And for bonus the picture editor has chosen THE best Julie Bishop death stare pic I’ve seen so far.

  189. .

    the other ‘untold’ story is the Boulder Fatality Fund

    Julia Gillard and Bruce Wilson attended a meeting of AWU workers in the Town Hall at Boulder in (I think) 1992 and the workers were persuaded to transfer the balance in the Fatality Fund to an account held in Perth and that was the last of the Fatality Fund. Both Gillard and Wilson spoke at the meeting

    The Fatality Fund comprised monies donated by AWU members to give funds to families in the event of the death of an AWU worker on the job

    Dr John Lourens has a paper about to be published on this so I’ve just sent him an e mail asking him if its up yet so I can give you a link

    This ought to be front page news.

  190. m0nty

    The gulf between the circumstantial case and anything actually linking Julia Gillard to knowingly having done something illegal as a lawyer 19 years ago is a cause of frustration among the Prime Minister’s pursuers.

    It sure is, Phil. Derangement syndrome all round.

  191. m0nty

    Seeking to force a debate over union standards and personal ethics, Mr Abbott will move to suspend standing orders in federal parliament today to introduce a private member’s bill that would toughen standards for union leaders.

    LOL, that trick never works. Another failed stunt, just like all the others. What is it now, over a hundred times he’s tried that wheeze and all failures. Hahaha.

  192. val majkus

    In the Oz

    months after being kicked out of the Australian Workers Union for his central role in a major fraud scandal, Bruce Wilson was still removing tens of thousands of dollars of union money from a different slush fund that had been kept hidden.

    Mr Wilson’s withdrawal of the last of more than $60,000 from the Construction Industry Fund was still possible in late January 1996, as neither Julia Gillard nor her firm, Slater & Gordon, had alerted the AWU to the existence of his major slush fund months earlier.

  193. Keith

    THE best Julie Bishop death stare pic…

    Bah. Call that a death stare. A mere glance.


    Try this.

    Or this.

  194. val majkus

    Michael Smith has some interesting posts up today
    http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/

  195. SteveC

    Definitely the best Bishop death stare is here
    If you can’t be bothered with the whole 5 minutes skip to about 3:45

  196. val majkus

    Getting back to the Boulder meeting I referred to above I haven’t been able to find out much on the net; the Kalgoorlie Miner was the newspaper I’m told was the paper which mainly reported on the immediate events surrounding the Boulder meeting and its on line papers don’t go back to 1992
    However I’ve found these reports:
    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/14584414/push-to-relaunch-fraud-probe/
    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/regional/goldfields/a/-/news/14642031/awu-ex-haunts-gillard/
    so far as I know Larry Pickering was the first commentator to recently report on Boulder
    http://pickeringpost.com/article/is-the-prime-minister-a-crook-part-viii/402

  197. Good luck with the KM, Val. If I remember correctly, it’s a Labor bastion…

  198. Keith

    val,
    thanks for the reminder about Tim Daly (in the first link). No doubt, Smith, Nowicki, and others have been in touch with him, and access to those papers has occurred by now. The WA police will be very interested too.
    When Gillard fronted that Boulder meeting, ethics would have demanded that she declare her relationship with Wilson, but of course this didn’t happen.

Comments are closed.