Government to investigate Official Opposition

THE Government is considering a public inquiry into the Liberal Party’s role in bringing down former Speaker Peter Slipper through legal action which was thrown out of court.

The inquiry would be a high profile act of revenge for the Opposition’s strategy of attempting to bring down the Government by highlighting allegations of corruption against Mr Slipper and former Labor MP Craig Thomson.

Hopefully wiser heads will prevail. This is a game everyone can play.

Source. HT: CL.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

170 Responses to Government to investigate Official Opposition

  1. Mike of Marion

    Watch out Labor – two can play that game

  2. m0nty

    Hopefully wiser heads will prevail. This is a game everyone can play.

    Wait, so the Libs have just promised an inquiry into the AWU once they regain government following months of mud flinging, but once Labor hints that it might reciprocate, THEN you talk of “wiser heads” and it’s a “game everyone can play”? The right has no justification in taking the high moral ground on this one.

    The squealing in this thread from you lot will reach fever pitch.

  3. Gab

    following months of mud flinging

    Another lie by monty.

  4. .

    The right has no justification in taking the high moral ground on this one.

    Yes, they do. See how what I said above isn’t actionable because the unions and ALP are shit scared of discovery?

  5. candy

    Why did Peter Slipper resign then.

  6. C.L.

    Wait, so the Libs have just promised an inquiry into the AWU once they regain government following months of mud flinging, but once Labor hints that it might reciprocate…

    Inquiry into AWU = government investigating the Opposition.

    Monty: not only site wrongologist but also dogmatic pro-fascist douchebag.

  7. Helen Armstrong

    Gillard is desperate to take attention off her disastrous polling. I remain in admiration of her ability to hang on to the job by claw and fang, but that aside, to point the finger at the coalition in this is to raise to new depths the blame Tony Abbott meme.

    How could anyone view this as anything but mutually exclusive, defending the poor clam with out a shell or the red light moth while portraying yourself as a mummy gal champers and canapes at the lodge – well I shakes my head.

    Completely deranged.

  8. m0nty

    Why would they care what you say Dot, you’re a poor student.

  9. Gab

    Monty, just returned from the ALP daily talking points brainstorm session. SFB and stevec will follow shortly.

  10. Sinclair Davidson

    m0nty – this may surprise you, but the AWU are not actually the government.

  11. And Another Thing

    Would the government really be this stupid? Okay.

  12. Chistery

    The government loves an enquiry, and why not? It’s a great why to outsource the 24hour news cycle so they don’t have to talk about them doing their job.

  13. .

    monty

    You’re not exactly croseus either, yet you own your own business and you’re too stupid to use chopsticks without hurting yourself.

  14. Infidel Tiger

    but the AWU are not actually the government.

    Just the puppet masters.

  15. Jannie

    Well I suspect its another thought bubble by the Labor ‘strategists’. It may well explode in their faces, and somebody will figure it out and announce another NBN or something.

    But meantime could one of the legal people explain why Roxon paid $50K of Commonwealth money to James Ashby to ‘settle the case’, and it then went to court?

  16. Greg James

    Would the government really be this stupid?

    Yes.

  17. .

    No Jannie.

    monty has described the NBN as the “ace in the hole” for Gillard.

    Yes, he really said that.

  18. Jannie

    Dot, I do my utmost to ignore munted. Not because he is a Lefty, but because he adds nothing to the debate, and deliberately disassembles. And I am afraid of stupidity, especially disguised in the cloak of moral righteousness.

  19. squawkbox

    More to the point, can you hold a public enquiry while the matter is still under appeal?

  20. tasch2

    Jannie,

    I would imagine because FWA is a no cost jurisdiction and to sit and fight that sort allegation would in the end cost more than you would save. Costs are only awarded in vexatious circumstances as described in the Ashby decision. To be considered vexatious you have to do something alarmingly improper ie abuse the Court process or not have any sniff of an argument.

    You may not that the proceedings brought against the Commonwealth by Mr Ashby did not contain the of the “frivolous” cab charge allegations or any of the backroom preselection political machinations involved in the Ashby/Slipper matter. It was purely a workplace Complaint.

    In those circusmtances you would have to hear all the evidence before deciding whether the allegations had any merit. If someone gets up an makes a convincing show of giving evidence that they believe they have been sexually harrassed then it is pretty difficult to see them having costs awarded against them. In those circumstances you are better of cutting a deal that will save you money (or in this case all of our money) in the long run. Would you prefer the Government had persisted with the defending the matter racking up a legal bill of an amount greater than $50,000 in order to prove their innocence, only for it to come to light 2 years later that an offer to settle for $50,000 had been made? Maybe it would suit some becuase it would allow them to start sreaming that the Government doesn’t make wise economic decisions with public funds.

    The reason why it went to Court is simple. If you sue two different people and settle with one the matter still goes to Court to settle your claim against the other.

  21. thefrollickingmole

    To skirt the issue a little, out of all due respect for the judge involved, there were some curiously political findings made.

    I expect the next time Clive Palmer does “last turkey in the shop” at the assembled members of Emilys list he will be immune from prosecution based on his future political ambitions?

  22. A Lurker

    Hopefully wiser heads will prevail. This is a game everyone can play.

    I would lay down a safe bet that there are far more skeletons in the ALP/Union closets than the Liberal one, and if skeletons exist in the Liberal one, then likely they are of the same fictional species as the Abbott Wall Punching variety – i.e. as credible as the existence of the Australian Yowie.

    Really, Labor does not want to go the enquiry route because current revelations about Labor/Unions is like tentatively lifting up the corner of a rusting piece of corrugated iron in an overgrown junkyard and seeing a couple of cockroaches and a venomous spider scuttle out, but knowing that entire nests of vermin lurk deeper underneath.

  23. tbh

    Oh this is most definitely a game that everyone can play and you can bet that the current ALP will come out looking a lot worse. There are so many spivs and low-lifes in that party at the moment that any kind of enquiry ought to have them scurrying for the darkness like a bunch of cockroaches.

  24. C.L.

    There are so many spivs and low-lifes in that party at the moment …

    You mean Cabinet?

  25. Chez

    The difference between the AWU scandal and the Slipper scandal is that Gillard is directly involved and documents prove this. If Labor want an inquiry into the Slipper case now they won’t find Abbott’s name on any documents so who cares what Labor threatens!

  26. twostix

    Oh this is most definitely a game that everyone can play and you can bet that the current ALP will come out looking a lot worse.

    Labor will only play this do-or-die game if they mean to somehow not lose the next election to Abbott.

    Their final year could be well be a matter of how corrupt, how fascist should they go? Do they want to lose gracefully and keep the last century of gentlemens agreements between the major parties intact? Or do they want to go Ecuador style nuclear on the nation?

    That’s the question they seem to be asking themselves.

    Strangely Abbott is probably the only person capable of handling them if they go nuclear. He has had the corrupt fascist lefts number since he took them on quite successfully in Uni.

  27. Jc 

    God I hope the malignant slapper does this.

    It basically opens Pandora’s box.

    You go girl

    Fat boy go away.

    Go get a box on dunkins

  28. roger

    Do they want to lose gracefully

    Because, you know, when you think Gillard, you think “gracefully”.
    Remember the Australia Day riots on January, if you want to know who you are dealing with. Expect more of this next year (unless Labor does Australian politics the biggest favour ever, and rids it from this disgrace called “Gillard”).

  29. Lloyd

    Because, you know, when you think Gillard, you think “gracefully”.

    Yep, her tactics are both ugly and ineffective. Quite an achievement, that. The thought that attempting to govern competently has clearly not crossed Labor’s collective mind.

  30. twostix

    Because, you know, when you think Gillard, you think “gracefully”.
    Remember the Australia Day riots on January, if you want to know who you are dealing with. Expect more of this next year (unless Labor does Australian politics the biggest favour ever, and rids it from this disgrace called “Gillard”).

    I was thinking of the ALP generally. Specifically the men at whose leisure Gillard keeps her job. They stand to lose the most if Gillard goes nuclear commie style on the libs and the nation but Abbott wins the next election anyway.

    I don’t think they’re thinking clearly. Their Abbott Derangement Syndrome seems to be clouding their judgment.

  31. Jannie

    Tasch2, thanks for that, but in truth I am still a bit confused. Was the $50K given to Ashby for costs or for ‘go away money’?

    The court documents show its Ashby v CoA and Slipper. One matter was the workplace environment, which was CoA responsibility, Slippers alleged behaviour was the other matter.

    Anyway thanks for trying.

  32. C.L.

    Because, you know, when you think Gillard, you think “gracefully”.

    Yep:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpUUt2QpacU

  33. Token

    Wait, so the Libs have just promised an inquiry into the AWU once they regain government following months of mud flinging…

    So the ALP members like McClelland, former S&G partner Styne-Browne, and AWU officials Kernohan and Blewitt who producing factual documentary evidence are flinging mud.

    M0nty, please lead us in condemning the ALP, S&G & the AWU for those actions that disgust so so much.

  34. Token

    God I hope the malignant slapper does this.

    It basically opens Pandora’s box.

    If they do so it will be good to get a thorough investigation into the Australia Day riot, forcing the journalists involved to produce their phone records and to get the telco companies to provide logs of the texts they received that day.

    I imagine the top decks of the AFP would be healthily purged of political hacks as a result.

  35. Gab

    There’s also footage of gillard falling over when walking about the Lodge grounds during the 60 Minutes advertorial that included gillard being a good little girl and staying out of Tim’s shed.

    She’s a clutz walking and on policy. No wonder she said she can’t chew and walk gum at the same time.

  36. tasch2

    Jannie,

    I would imagine it was as you term it “go away money”. Unfortunately many people rort the system, mostly in unfair dismissal matters, and get similar sorts of payments. That Mr Ashby accepted it could be viewed as just as much an idictment upon his commitment to his own allegations. What was he after: an outcome, justice, money?? Litigation is often curtailed due to the ocst involved, unfortunately justice and principles in this matter cost money.

    I don’t really understand what you are getting at with your second paragraph. I haven’t read the statement of claim so have no idea what the precise matters at issue were. It is possible to settle some issues and have the others remain on foot however.

    If the matters were as you have described then I assume the Government settled on the “workplace environment” and Slipper proceeded with his matter.

    If Mr Ashbvy was concerned about the workplace environment I wonder why he chucked it all in for a settlement when there are many others working in the same environment. Doesn’t advertise many human qualities on face value. Or maybe it just highlights the golden rule about everyone having their price.

  37. Max

    Their final year could be well be a matter of how corrupt, how fascist should they go? Do they want to lose gracefully and keep the last century of gentlemens agreements between the major parties intact? Or do they want to go Ecuador style nuclear on the nation?

    They are outlawing the word “Juliar”

    http://www.news.com.au/national/no-more-sledging-at-the-cricket-or-name-calling-under-proposed-laws/story-fndo4eg9-1226535227751

  38. Luke

    “This is a game everyone can play.” No Sinclair. They really can’t! ONLY a Labor government would get away with this.

    If a conservative government tried it it’s called McCarthism and the media and academia would be positively hysterical about the “trashing of responsible government and democracy”! The vested interests would be straight off to court, where they would find a compliant activist judiciary who would come-up with some legal fiction as to why such an investigation was unlawful and shut it down.

    This is why we are in such a bad way. The rules are not the same for both sides of politics.

    Just look at how much hype was given to silencing dissent under Howard. But where are all those voices now that a government really is taking steps and enacting laws to make it happen? Where’s the books, the art shows, the plays, the editorials, the academic works and the marches?

  39. I imagine the top decks of the AFP would be healthily purged of political hacks as a result.

    Send them all off in a whaleboat with Cap’n McTernan and cabin boy Slipper, back to ol’ Blighty to join up with their race riot comrade. They could go around the back way and drop off Madam Slush…

  40. Rob

    m0nty – this may surprise you, but the AWU are not actually the government.

    Sinc,
    Do you have any evidence for this statement? They certainly seem to have the view that what is good for the union (leaders) is good for the country.

  41. Pedro

    Fingers-crossed that they’re stupid enough to keep reminding people about the ornament they put in the speaker’s chair. Hmmm, they obviously are stupid enough. Fingers-crossed nobody talks them out of it.

    Abbott should do a brer rabbit.

    I love the “bring down the govt” hyper bowl. Like the govt wasn’t in place before they gave slipper the job.

  42. Steve of Glasshouse

    The correct Tony Abbott line should be

    “I will not be lectured on matters of honesty, probity , or ethics by this government”

    That’s only because” I’ve done nothing wrong ” has already been trademarked..

  43. .

    Pedro

    It is hilarious they are hinting at sedition from her Majesty’s loyal opposition when a member of the Alliance, Lee Rhiannon, is an ACTUAL traitor, and should be tried in High Court courtroom No. 3.

  44. Pedro

    Sedition? LOL, surely they’re not going that far?

  45. Muphin

    Bring on the inquiry, the Coalition have nothing to hide.

    Something smells very fishy here. Roxon has been caught out trying to interfere in the Slipper case.

    I wonder how far Roxon’s talons of hatred toward Tony Abbott extend. Could her talons go so far as interfering or threatening the judiciary??

  46. gnome

    Have at it I say. Why should they get away with all sorts of illegality or slimy behaviour just because they’re pollies?

    AWB, AWU, HSU- any others that come up.

    As for Ashby and Slipper, anyone who was involved with either deserves to be banned from public or elected office for life, even though it’s too much to hope for.

    There are scumbags on both sides- why protect them?

  47. .

    Sedition? LOL, surely they’re not going that far?

    The whacker from the Gov. on Sky News at lunch (Mark Dreyfus) was talking about a plot to bring down the Government.

    I think Gillard beat them to it.

  48. “Lee Rhiannon, is an ACTUAL traitor”

    Not that I doubt this in the slightest, dot, but what did she actually do?

  49. “Something smells very fishy here. Roxon has been caught out trying to interfere in the Slipper case.”

    Well, well. Ashby’s lawyer is shocked at the decision, stating his political views are inconsistent with the Coalition’s, so will be appealing on the grounds that the judges assertion that Ashby’s case was politically motivated was not supported by evidence.

    So a throwaway line of suspicion of Roxon gets some meat from an independent source. Considering her record of interference in the matter, this sounds highly possible.

    Any inquiry that doesn’t condemn Roxon for her already known interference would be a farce and very highly suggestive of interference. This would then be a perversion of the course of justice, even more serious that what Gillard is accused. Nothing would surprise me any more, short of Gillard whipping out a gun in parliament.

  50. H B Bear

    Something smells very fishy here.

    Again with the seafood?

    It will be interesting to see what advice Nanny Roxon received before she wrote out the cheque for Ashby’s “go away” money.

  51. .

    It doesn’t seem like much, but she ran a pro Soviet magazine funded by the Sovs.

    There is a lot of unanswered questions too.

    What would you think of me if I accepted money from AQ to set up a pro AQ magazine?

    People forget how evil the USSR was, because they’ve never been there and we didn’t have a direct war with them.

  52. Cato the Elder

    The inquiry thought bubble is exactly that – Nanny Roxon getting her digs in before the appeal is filed. Wait for the appeal before worrying about any “inquiry”.

    And if it turns out that it was all a plot, then have the Inquiry and let the chips fall where they may: that should be out of bounds and no amount of “tu quoque” bullshit should excuse it. Only in the ALPBC’s wet dreams would it have any substantial effect on the outcome of the next election.

  53. Splatacrobat

    If Ashby has to pay Musselman’s costs that will be enormous.
    The cab charges for visits to his brief alone would probably be larger than the GDP of Greece.

  54. Tapdog

    Dot

    It is a criminal offence to harm Parliamentarians. Others around here can quote chapter and verse.

    The already high stakes got a fair bit bigger when Steven Rares dismissed the charges against Slipper because the way is now open for (eg) Ashby and Brough to be required to answer criminal charges.

    Now that the Federal Court has ruled that Ashby’s intent was to bring harm, the argument becomes a lot easier to make.

  55. davey street

    Bring on the enquiry. Roxon paid off Ashby with $50K after interfering in the case on Slipper’s behalf. Who knows what she as Attorney General said to the judge about the case. Then she has the gall to accuse the opposition of sledging Slipper by telling the truth about his outrageous misuse of entitlements over many years. Claiming Abbott and the opposition was trying to bring down Gillard and Roxon’s government is a joke. Ashby worked for the LNP in Queensland and half way through this parliament, Slipper left the party to, in effect, join Labor as Speaker having told voters he was a Liberal at the last election. Farcical. The Slipper/Ashby texts are fact, Attorney General. BRING ON THE ENQUIRY ATTORNEY GENERAL AND WE CAN EXAMINE YOUR PAY-OFF TO ASHBY ALONG WITH ALL THE SLEAZY TEXTS AGAIN FROM THE MAN YOU APPOINTED AS SPEAKER OF THE PARLIAMENT. WHAT WILL YOU DO IF ASHBY APPEALS TO THE HIGH COURT AND WINS ? EXACTLY WHAT CONVERSATIONS DID YOU AS ATTORNEY GENERAL HAVE WITH THE JUDGE, MS ROXON ? REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED TO BJELKE PETERSEN WHEN HE HELD WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS A SHOO-IN ENQUIRY INTO POLICE CORRUPTION IN QUEENSLAND. In the end, anti-corruption commissioner Tony Fitzgerald brought him down.

  56. C.L.

    …the way is now open for (eg) Ashby and Brough to be required to answer criminal charges…

    Bullshit.

  57. Tapdog

    CRIMES ACT 1914 – SECT 28

    Interfering with political liberty
    Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty, shall be guilty of an offence.

  58. old bloke

    Beer Whisperer at 5:12 PM –

    This would then be a perversion of the course of justice

    “Kangaroo Court” predicted this outcome in April 2012.

  59. Jannie

    CRIMES ACT 1914 – SECT 28

    Interfering with political liberty
    Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty, shall be guilty of an offence.

    But they continuously interfere with the free exercise of my political rights.

    Maybe they should outlaw free speech and giving offence. Then I can spend the rest of my life suing them for pain and suffering.

  60. samuelj1912

    I thought that the PM said sexual harrassment is outrageous. The judge said thetre was evidence of harrassment so hasn’t the judge erred, or is the judge saying that the motivation of a suit matter more than the substance of a suit?

  61. val majkus

    I thought I would copy here a comment I made on Michael Smith’s blog hoping to generate some comments from those of you who may know more about these things
    Abuse of Process – on politically motivated grounds so far as I can find has been considered by the Federal Court only once before. The background to that case was when on 16 February 1990 there was a general announcement that a Federal election was to be held on 24 March 1990. Elliott was then the Federal president of the Liberal Party of Australia and both for that reason and because of his prominence in the commercial world he was a well known public figure. As a lead-up to the election, certain Labor Party politicians indicated that Elliott would be made a special target in the Party’s campaign. Statements were made to the effect that he represented the evil face of capitalism and the like, such statements being prominently reported by the media. On 23 February 1990, however, he received a different form of exposure in the media. The ABC in its “7.30 Report” on that day announced in the program, inter alia, that the NCA was conducting an investigation into Elliott’s affairs and into matters relating to the well-known takeover of Elders by Harlin Holdings Limited. It is clear the program came as a shock to Elliott. He and his advisers considered it defamatory of him. He commenced proceedings for defamation in the Victorian Supreme Court against the ABC. He sought in the Federal Court an injunction to restrain the laying of criminal charges by the NCA. That application was unsuccessful but the Court did consider in some depth the principle behind the judicial power to stay a case absolutely. One acknowledged reason for that power to be exercised is to prevent an unfair trial and the other is to prevent an ‘abuse of process.’ The ‘abuse of process’ principle has developed in the criminal law context and in that context it has been argued – and accepted – that the Court has that power to prevent the executive from unlawful practices or an ‘abuse of power.’ The Federal Court judge in his judgement in the Eliott case said ‘it cannot be said that there is at present clearly established in this country a common law principle that a civil court can interfere by injunction to prevent the laying of a charge in circumstances where it could be said to be an affront to justice that the charge be laid. In my view, if such a broad principle is to be accepted as part of the common law of this country this can occur only through a decision of the High Court of Australia.’ That case concerned an injunction sought against the NCA to prevent possible charges being laid and the Court decided against Elliott. Here’s the link http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/1993/556.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query='ABUSE%20OF%20PROCESS'%20NEAR%20'POLITICALLY%20MOTIVATED

    In the Ashby case the Court adopted a ‘predominant purpose’ principle to stay a civil action. The Judge said ‘The legal principles behind an ‘abuse of process’ claim are not in doubt’ and extend to proceedings where the Court’s process is employed for an ulterior or improper purpose, or in an improper way, or in a way that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right thinking people. And ‘a party who alleged that a proceeding had been brought, or was being prosecuted, as an abuse of process had to show that the pre-dominant purpose of the other party in using the legal process “has been one other than that for which it was designed”. The Judge concluded that Mr Ashby’s predominant purpose for bringing these proceedings was to pursue a political attack against Mr Slipper and not to vindicate any legal claim he may have for which the right to bring proceedings exists. For that reason the Judge was ‘ satisfied that these proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court.’

    My personal view is that this case sets an unfortunate precedent. My personal view is that the abuse of process power to prevent a case proceeding should remain in the criminal jurisdiction where it has been developed and where it is predominantly used against Executive power. Others of course will disagree with me.

  62. Mark

    Personally I hope they go for it.

    It would be a huge tactical blunder as it would merely keep the name of Slipper attached to rorts on the front page.

    People turn off. They have their minds made up. Slipper is seen as tainted goods regardless of any court decision and if Labor want to merrily skip down a path holding his hand they do so with my blessing.

    But as these are the clowns that brought us such number hits like burning down housing whilst installing insulation, creating a “refugee” influx costing billions and killings more than a 1,000 in the name of comapssion and building school halls at twice the normal rate whilst literacy and numeracy dropped nothing will surprise me.

    The correct tactic is to call him the conservative member of Fischer and disacoiate themselves as far as they can but no……the dumb keeps on breeding over Labor way.

  63. mareeS

    There’s still no way for Slipper or Labor to escape the “unshelled mussel” comment. As a woman, I’m grievously offended, and if Rocschott attempts to introduce her offence law next year I will be one of the first in court using it against the former speaker.

    How gillard and the handbags got away with excusing him for those ugly words by turning it back on Abbott was a masterpiece of spin.

  64. Gab

    Yes well spin and a lot of help from the fawning media.

  65. old bloke

    The Judge concluded that Mr Ashby’s predominant purpose for bringing these proceedings was to pursue a political attack against Mr Slipper

    The Judge should not be at liberty to make such conclusions; he should simply judge the matters bought before him and judge according to the law. Same goes for Mordy’s judgement in Bolt’s case, he was judged not by what he (Bolt) wrote, but by what Mordy believe was implied, by what was “written between the lines” so to say.

    Judges aren’t blessed by some divine power or by wearing their magic Phantom ring or whatever to give them special insights, stick to the law and judge accordingly.

    In the 1950s, two of Dr. Evatt’s (ALP leader)staff were charged with espionage following Petrov’s defection. Robert Menzies then went on to win the 1954 election. If Justice Rares was hearing that case, would he have dismissed the charges against the two spys because the case was “politically motivated?”

    This case needs to go to a higher court.

  66. Viva

    is the judge saying that the motivation of a suit matter more than the substance of a suit?

    Looks that way but hey why be surprised? Judge Mordy didn’t like Andrew Bolt’s tone.

  67. .

    Any person who, by violence or by threats or intimidation of any kind, hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance, by any other person, of any political right or duty, shall be guilty of an offence.

    Taking someone to court is not a threat nor is it intimidation.

  68. .

    As a lead-up to the election, certain Labor Party politicians indicated that Elliott would be made a special target in the Party’s campaign. Statements were made to the effect that he represented the evil face of capitalism and the like, such statements being prominently reported by the media.

    Which was premeditated.

    Ashby did not premeditate being sexually harassed.

    There are sms messages which prove he was harassed.

  69. .

    The Judge concluded that Mr Ashby’s predominant purpose for bringing these proceedings was to pursue a political attack against Mr Slipper and not to vindicate any legal claim he may have for which the right to bring proceedings exists. For that reason the Judge was ‘ satisfied that these proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court.’

    Which means now, if that were applied generally, you could not sue a political opponent at all.

    Maybe Gillard in her wisdom foresaw this and decided not to sue Abbot /sarc off.

  70. twostix

    It doesn’t seem like much, but she ran a pro Soviet magazine funded by the Sovs.

    Didn’t ASIO record her secretly meeting with a KGB agent?

    Isn’t there questions about what she was doing in East Germany for ages?

    Her parents were the greatest traitors in the history of the country admitting in a public meeting in a town hall in that if a war broke out between the USSR and America (and so Australia too) they would side with the USSR:

    Cowra, March 1948:

    At a Communist-convened meeting in the Masonic Hall last night the audience took charge and carried a motion for a Federal ban on the Communist Party.

    The Communist speaker, Mrs. Freda Brown, was subjected to some interruption, and when her speech ended Mr. Fred Hall said: “I will move that this meeting, called by the Communist Party, affirm its loyalty to the Throne and Constitution.”

    Mr. B. J. Poignand asked Mrs. Brown if in the event of war with Russia the Communist Party would be on the side of Russia.

    Mrs. Brown said the Communist Party would support Russia if Russia were fighting America.

    http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article2740430

  71. twostix

    Just to remind everyone that the ALP were really quite enamoured with the soviet commies last century, in particular the Green Senators Lee-Rhianon’s mother:

    August, 1944:

    Recently Mr. J. M. Ryan, secretary of the Mt. Gambier branch of the Labor party, paid a tribute to Miss Lewis’ ability as a public speaker. She has addressed three or four meetings a day since leaving Sydney some weeks ago.

    In most country towns she has visited she was the first woman Com- munist speaker to appear on a public platform, and was well received in Labor circles in W.A. and S.A., and addressed meetings organised by branches of the party.

    Oh what? The ALP was chock full of commies and commie sympathisers?

    But that’s not what they say was the case now.

    http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article49557514

  72. JC

    Don’t get me started stix. Don’t get me started about that Family.

  73. 2dogs

    This is really going to far. There is no longer an offence of maintenance under the common law, so what are they investigating?

    Ashby and Brough can common law maintenance each others’ brains out, and it should have no bearing on Ashby’s case.

    What Ashby and Brough get up to in the privacy of their consulting/bedrooms is no concern of the court, there was no illegal combination.

  74. .

    2dogs

    This looks like the Fed. court. full bench will strike down the dismissal of the case.

    http://www.allens.com.au/pubs/ldr/foldr30aug06.htm

    Courts throughout the country have accepted, as a matter of public policy, that litigation funded by third parties may allow parties who would otherwise be denied access to justice to proceed with their claims.

    The Court of Appeal’s findings included that:

    champerty or third-party assistance per se does not amount to abuse of process;

    the court is not concerned with the arrangements between the funder and the plaintiff unless they have corrupted, or have a tendency to corrupt, the processes of the court;

    in circumstances where the plaintiff’s claim is viable, as was held to be the case here, the standard of proof for a permanent stay is high, and the court will only dismiss the proceeding as a last resort means of eliminating the abuse;

    and some measure of control over the proceedings by a litigation funder is necessary if the funder is to manage the group litigation and protect its own interests, and is not a basis for finding abuse of process meriting an unconditional stay.

  75. twostix

    Don’t get me started stix. Don’t get me started about that Family.

    I haven’t seen you fired up for ages.

    This will get you going, consider this in light of what we know she knew then:

    Oct, 1945:

    Miss Freda Lewis addressed a pub- lic meeting in the Masonic Hall on Friday night last on international affairs and the Communist Party’s policy for victory, peace and security.

    Miss Lewis said some people had misconceptions about the Communist Party, it’s programme and policy, and these doubts and suspicions were fostered by the press and big businesses. In the past the Communist Party was slandered and ac- cused of being interested in Russia alone and not Australia. To-day, the Russian people, Stalin and the Red Army were admired the world over.

    [She said]The Soviet Union guaranteed the right of freedom of religious worship to its citizens in the constitution. The Australian Communist Party maintained that religion was a private matter for the individual, and believed in freedom of religious wor ship for all.

    She knew the real truth, she knew she was loyal to the USSR and she knew she was lying. She knew if the revolution came she and the ACP would shortly thereafter welcome Soviet T-34′s as they rolled down Commonwealth Avenue.

    Pure.Evil.

    http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article82063868

  76. twostix

    Courts throughout the country have accepted, as a matter of public policy, that litigation funded by third parties may allow parties who would otherwise be denied access to justice to proceed with their claims.

    The Court of Appeal’s findings included that:

    champerty or third-party assistance per se does not amount to abuse of process;

    the court is not concerned with the arrangements between the funder and the plaintiff unless they have corrupted, or have a tendency to corrupt, the processes of the court;

    in circumstances where the plaintiff’s claim is viable, as was held to be the case here, the standard of proof for a permanent stay is high, and the court will only dismiss the proceeding as a last resort means of eliminating the abuse;

    and some measure of control over the proceedings by a litigation funder is necessary if the funder is to manage the group litigation and protect its own interests, and is not a basis for finding abuse of process meriting an unconditional stay.

    So that would basically reduce the matter to Rare not liking the so-called conspiratorial motive of it.

    The conspiratorial motive that was purposefully introduced into the publics mind by Roxon and Albanese in parliament to pollute the case.

    Is that right?

  77. JC

    Really Good blog… here folks. Mangan’s.

    Total welfare spending on da poor in the US is around $168 bucks a day.

    Before you say something like, ” you’ve got to be fucking kidding more because that amounts to around 60K per year and well over median US income.

    It also includes the churn.

    It also quotes the Heritage Foundation study.

    Of the $714 billion in welfare spending [in fiscal year 2008], $522 billion (73 percent) was federal expenditures, and $192 billion (27 percent) was state government funds. Nearly all state government welfare expenditures are required matching contributions to federal welfare programs. These contributions could be considered a “welfare tax” that the federal government imposes on the states. Ignoring these matching state payments into the federal welfare system results in a serious underestimation of spending on behalf of the poor. [...]

    Typically, welfare benefits are received not just by the poor, but also by persons who have incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level ($44,400 per year for a family of four). Around one-third of the U.S. population falls within this lower income range. On average, welfare spending amounts to around $7,000 per year for each individual who is poor or who has an income below 200 percent of the poverty level. This comes to $28,000 per year for each lower-income family of four.

    http://mangans.blogspot.com.au/

    The US is being destroyed from within.

    The only sensible thing for the Australian Right now is to mightily oppose all now spending and put the brakes on existing stuff otherwise it will destroy us.

  78. .

    Peter Whiteford once told me that churn is a red herring and conservatives and libertarians just want to hurt poor people…it must be true.

  79. C.L.

    The ALP was chock full of commies and commie sympathisers?

    Well, its leader – the clinically insane Evatt – was a Soviet spy, according to Des Ball.

    If it wasn’t for Santamaria and the Groupers, the filth would have taken over the entire union movement and the non-Christian remnant of the ALP.

    Naturally, the ALP named its top think tank after Evatt – a Russian spy and traitor.

  80. Julian mclaren

    Bring it on. Let this affair stay front of mind.

  81. C.L.

    I agree, Julian.

    I hope Fatty Roxon launches a full-on investigation of the Liberal Party.

    I want that precedent.

    You know, the lunar craziness of this ‘government’ makes me wonder about what they’re afraid of – in terms of what the next government will find. I suspect there’s too much paper even for these shredders to disappear – being evidence for their criminality, indictable contempt for human life and liberty, the rule of law etc.

  82. Pyrmonter

    @ dot and @ twostix

    The point dealt with in Campbells Cash and Carry – summarised in the Allens note – was that it is lawful for an outsider to take a stake in litigation for a cut of the proceeds. Essentially this is a liberalization of funding market for litigation. As the plaintiff wanted the return – payment – anyway, there isn’t an intrinsic abuse, although in the days when champerty and maintenance restricted access to external funding, the parties were required to navigate a rather tortuous path to set such arrangements up.

    Pursuing litigation for the purpose of using the court (a venue where there cannot be recovery for defamation) as a venue for smearing reputation is abuse of process, just as much as would be suing for a trivial sum in order to obtain access to confidential documents, or using the courts to pursue meritless litigation as part of a vendetta. The courts are right to seek to avoid becoming the playgrounds of the hacks.

    Perhaps the more curious thing is what has become of the political staff culture that claims such as these can be propounded.

  83. C.L.

    Speaking of insane members of the Labor Party – Chris Uhlmann ‘interviews‘ Craig Emerson.

    Which is to say, he lobs marshmellows in his general direction, allowing the prime minister’s ex-boyfriend to argue that Abbott organised the whole Ashby affair.

  84. Gab

    The thought of the government launching an investigation/inquiry into the Opposition reeks very much like something a dictator would do. Chavez comes to mind.

  85. Gab

    Whatever. They all look the same to me.

  86. JC

    Chavez comes to mind.

    I used to refer to the Lying Slapper and Julia Chavez. It wasn’t a joke.

  87. duncanm

    Rhiannon’s Dodgy cruise is where the Soviet meeting was suspected.

  88. Leigh Lowe

    Rares record with appeals is about as dismal as that of Australia’s premier off-spinner, Nathan Lyon.

  89. twostix

    I must say though, reading the newspaper articles of the day that mention her I’m mightily impressed by Senator Lee Rhinanons treacherous mother.

    Imagine in 1948 going to Cowra, in the middle of rural NSW, standing up and agitating for communism in a public meeting full of belligerent god fearing farmers.

    And she did it all over the country.

    That’s why in so many ways they won.

  90. 2dogs

    “Pursuing litigation for the purpose of using the court (a venue where there cannot be recovery for defamation) as a venue for smearing reputation is abuse of process”

    Then Rares J. has overreacted. He could simply close the court, hold proceedings in camera, and restrict media reporting of the case.

    Also, the defamation in this case is not a “collateral advantage beyond that which the law offers”. If a person may take an action against another for being an XYZ, that may be for no other reason than getting that person officially recognised as an XYZ. It is entirely within a courts jurisdiction to label that person an XYZ or not in its verdict, and its not an abuse of process to seek a verdict that the other is an XYZ per se.

    The Bolt case may have been based on a bad law, for example, but it certainly wasn’t an abuse of process for Eatock to bring the action merely because the objective was to discredit Bolt, rather than collect damages from the Herald Sun.

  91. William Bragg

    How completely unsurprising that, on a day when the basis for the sexual harassment case against Slipper is decimated and key LNP figures stand implicated with scurrilous behaviour in relation to it, Sinc should attempt to distract attention by focusing on a relative minor issue – and one which affords some opportunity to criticise Labor.

    When will the numerous Catallaxians who only a couple of months ago were louding hooting that the Ashby case obviously has legs (as George Brandis also unwisely did) acknowledge their earlier error? No time soon presumably, because its business as usual at Catallaxy.

    “Hear no evil; see no evil; speak no evil.” seems to be the approach here, unless of course it involves Obama, Gillard or indeed anything to the left of Ghengis Khan. You guys are truly, pathetically tribal.

  92. JC

    Billy

    So you think Slips acted in a manner befitting a Speaker?

    Obviously your standards aren’t low enough.

  93. Paul

    “You guys are truly, pathetically tribal.”

    And you aren’t?

  94. C.L.

    I don’t mind that Ashby’s case was thrown out, per se. More of these cases should be thrown out. But we know for a fact that it was only thrown out because he’s a bloke and the respondent – in essence – is the Labor Party. If the complainant was a woman bringing an action against Tony Abbott there isn’t a luvvie Laborite on the Federal bench anywhere in Australia who wouldn’t uphold her claims. The judge’s reasoning stinks but blowing away that malodorous pong is the stenchful plan by the government – led by a woman who apparently receives secret $5000 payments from a criminal – to investigate the Liberal Party.

  95. .

    No time soon presumably, because its business as usual at Catallaxy.

    Will you shut the fuck up when the full bench overturns this determination?

  96. Jarrah

    “the sexual harassment case against Slipper is decimated”

    I wish people would stop misusing that word. There are scores of words they could use to describe what they actually mean, rather than one that means “to reduce by a tenth”.

  97. C.L.

    There are scores of words they could use…

    Technically, a score is 20, yes?

    Are there really more than 40 words they could use instead?

    :)

  98. Greg James

    Maybe Gillard in her wisdom foresaw this

    Geez, I was nearly having palpitations there, until I realised you were joking.

    The woman has to go. She is so morally and ethically compromised that I do not understand how they can keep her in her current position. They are going to have to get rid of her; they must know it; so why on earth are they continuing to promote her?

    Maybe it is just me, and I simply do not understand the arcane machinations of Labor Parddddy politics, but by gee I really would like it if our country was not being run like some sort of fiefdom of Melbourne University’s socialist collective.

    And also, by the way [and no offense meant to most of you] but I am really sick to death of ‘Yummy Mummies’. I really am. I am so sick of these pretentious whining gas bags, most of whom have never had a job outside left wing intelligentsia or the press or in academia – all of which such jobs are likely to be on the public teat or subsidised by it.

    [Never mind. I think I'm probably having a Michael Douglas moment. It happens every time I start to fill in a quarterly BAS Statement.]

  99. .

    Actually, have nine of your mates beat you to death on the orders of a superior.

  100. MichaelC58

    I am confused now.

    Dammit, so can I text my secretary that I would like to eat her unshelled muscle…or not?

  101. MichaelC58

    Judge Rares:

    A party cannot be allowed to misuse the court’s process by including scandalous and damaging allegations.

    What the f*ck does that mean?
    Wouldn’t any allegations of sexual harassment by their very nature tend to be scandalous and damaging?

    Are not people in power mean to behave non-scandalously just so they don’t get scandalous and damaging allegations made against them.

    Are we now allowed to bring only non-damaging allegations to courts?

  102. C.L.

    The Australian’s legal affairs reporter, Chris Merritt:

    Lawyer will pay for spin with reputation.

    For a lawyer who had looked unstoppable, the findings that have been made against Harmer are as bad as they get.

    Justice Rares found that Harmer had abused his professional obligations to the court. The lawyer had misused his privilege to make allegations under absolute privilege.

    The accusations that Harmer had initially made against former federal parliamentary Speaker Peter Slipper were irrelevant, scandalous, oppressive and vexatious.

    Bullshit.

  103. Gab

    The last line the best:

    As for the government, it wheeled in Julian Burnside QC and 21 government lawyers, [costing around $750,000] then gave Ashby $50,000 to settle a claim that has just been thrown out of court.

    Of course, no one was acting in a politically motivated intent then. nooooo.

  104. Tiny Dancer

    I’d pay money to watch Slipper being ripped apart while under oath by some eminent but violent barrister on behalf of Brough.

  105. Samuel J

    Hypothetical: Person A from the Liberal Party observes Person B from the Labor Party kill person C from the Labor Party. Person A goes to the Police and charges are laid – the case is thrown out because the Judge concludes that Person A was politically motivated in bring forward information about the matter.

  106. CameronH

    Two can not play this game. The courts are so hopelessly corrupted with Left wing activists that not action by a conservative would be considered. This is now virtually a one way street.

  107. Andre Lewis

    Interesting to see if a similar case where the complainant was female would have had a vicious judgement summing up like this. Not sure if a judge can be sued for defamation based on his public decision comments but if I were Mal Brough I would be checking out the legals.

  108. Token

    Seems like that Slipper video from 2003 will have to be released to the public so we can understand the judge’s concern in context.

  109. Token

    …the case is thrown out because the Judge concludes that Person A was politically motivated in bring forward information about the matter.

    …and the Stenographers hound Person A from parliament for “months of mud flinging”.

    Finished your statement for you Samuel.

  110. Pedro

    W Bragg, have you noticed any part of the judgement where the claims about Slippers actions have been refuted? On my read the decision is that the claim was vexatious for reasons not connected with the potential and admitted impact of the behaviour. So the judgement does require some caution.

  111. Sinclair Davidson

    When will the numerous Catallaxians who only a couple of months ago were louding hooting that the Ashby case obviously has legs (as George Brandis also unwisely did) acknowledge their earlier error? No time soon presumably, because its business as usual at Catallaxy.

    What error? We’re still talking about Slipper – and by extension reminding everyone that Gillard thought he should be Speaker of the Parliament.

  112. .

    I cannot flaw any comments made by our host or other interlocutors since my last post at 12.17 am.

    You are all correct.

    The idea that there can be no cause of action vis a vis an abuse of process if your goal is anything more than to seek relief in common law or equity, or criminal justice, is simply nonsense.

    Champerty and maintenance are medieval concepts which are antithetical to rule of law. You cannot blame the plaintiff or prosectuion for the defendant bringing themselves into disrepute. Nor is it relevant to the operation of a trial except in unusual circumstances of criminal trials involving detestable crimes.

  113. Cold-Hands

    Given Justice Rares’ past form with appeals (see the Optus Case), it would seem a little unwise for Craig Emerson to be going in too hard re. an inquiry into the Opposition lest he look even more foolish if this judgement is also overturned.

  114. Token

    …a little unwise for Craig Emerson to be going in too hard…

    A double entendre?

  115. Pickles

    I suspect that litigation funders, no win no fee plaintiff lawyers and defendant insurers are pulling the decision to bits line by line with glee and trepidation in equal measure. There’s something in this for everyone.

  116. Luke

    Old Bloke “The Judge should not be at liberty to make such conclusions; he should simply judge the matters bought before him and judge according to the law.”

    AAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Name me a judge that doesn’t think they have some divine power to read minds (real intent) and infer meaning. You can litter your judgment with all the footnotes in the world. Doesn’t mean you haven’t been blind to your cognitive biases and gone well done the rabbit hole of logical fallacies.

    What annoys me most about this case is that there was no determination on the harrasment, it was dismissed as an abuse of process without regard to any merits of the case, but yet, Slipper, Labor and many MSM are presenting it as a determination of inoccence.

  117. C.L.

    Joe Hockey calls on Labor to back their rhetoric on the innocent Peter Slipper and return him to the Speaker’s chair.

  118. Brian4Jesus

    [No idea what you're up to, but you not doing it here. Sinc]

  119. .

    Guys guys, get a grip, those of us who went to the trouble of reading the messages knew from the getgo that there was no case, it was always a scam.

    Hi Alan! I’m a long time listener and first time caller. Let me tell you a little about myself. I vote Liberal, but I’m a dyed in the wool, rock ribbed, blue ribbon Libertarian from Palm Beach and I am a long time supporter of Bronwyn Bishop, but last election, I voted Green. I could forsee the misogyny and vexatious litigation an Abbot-Truss-Brough Government would engage in. I could not, on my conscience, do anything but vote for a party which may be lead by a Communist traitor.

    God bless, jebus wuvs you.

    Ah blowjobs for jebus…you are the most braindead troll there is. You have the sentience of a bucket of decomposing pipis.

  120. C.L.

    If the Liberal Party had any top class scrappers – it doesn’t – it would be out there today taking up the government’s “Watergate” smear.

    Watergate centered around a slush fund. Hello?

  121. candy

    Seems very reasonable for the ALP to put p.Slipper back in the speaker’s chair if they believe he’s been set up and is innocent. It would be the right thing to do.

  122. C.L.

    According to Labor, he is absolutely, 100 percent innocent.

    They must return him to the Speaker’s chair.

  123. Pickles

    Who would have thought that a pooh flinging contest between two shirtlifters could end up this way.

  124. Helen Armstrong

    we like to say here at the Cat

    ????

    Who is ‘we’ paleface?

  125. Token

    Seems very reasonable for the ALP to put p.Slipper back in the speaker’s chair if they believe he’s been set up and is innocent. It would be the right thing to do.

    It will be great to revisit the mussel-man texts.

    The texts really should get read into the Hansard so the proper context can be provided to Gillard’s stirring defence of a mysoginist via a speech against mysogyny.

  126. Gab

    Plus they’ve spent $30,000 on a portrait of the misogynist and since Labor believes he’s an upstanding, honorable misogynist of integrity, well it’s only right and fitting they make monty’s dream come true.

  127. Gab

    Who would have thought that a pooh flinging contest between two shirtlifters could end up this way.

    Hilarious yet accurate take on the situation.

  128. C.L.

    LOL. Gillard spokesman Lenore Taylor:

    No one wins in abuse of the law, media and politics.

    This should be the time to pause for thought. After a year of scandal, sometimes substantive, sometimes driven by the Coalition’s determination to claw down the minority government, this extraordinary Federal Court decision is a victory for no one…

    And you know what we need in instances of sexual abuse?

    Secrecy.

    No one defends the inappropriate, sexually explicit and downright weird things Slipper said in his texts to his former staffer James Ashby. But no one would have ever seen them if the case had not been brought. And according to the Federal Court, it never should have been.

    If this isn’t a corruption of justice, I don’t know what is.

    The charges are true but making them was unfair and therefore we should never have known about them and therefore they’re rejected.

  129. SteveC

    I’m, a bit late to the party. The scathing remarks of the judge on “Slipper-gate” are yet another clear judgement that the opposition’s strategy of trying to achieve government by smear is not working.
    Slush-gate – dud.
    Slipper-gate – backfire.
    A sustained campaign for many months aimed at discrediting individuals, rather than any clear policy objective has achieved absolutely zero gain for the opposition. Perhaps next year we will see some argument about policy, instead of “legitimacy”, but under Abbott, I doubt it.

  130. .

    A sustained campaign for many months aimed at discrediting individuals

    THE PRIME MINISTER IS A CRIMINAL.

    Fuck off.

  131. JC

    SteveC

    The libs never took action against mussel man. Ashbey did and as far as I can see he’s an adult.

    You also need to explain why Fatty Von Roxon paid 50K to Asbey.

    Lastly, if you think Slipper is exonerated you must by default support his return to the speakership. You must think everything he’s said is irrelevant and shouldn’t be considered to determine his standing as the Speaker.

    By the way how’s Kimberly, your plastic sex doll?

  132. JC

    No one defends the inappropriate, sexually explicit and downright weird things Slipper said in his texts to his former staffer James Ashby. But no one would have ever seen them if the case had not been brought. And according to the Federal Court, it never should have been.

    Funny that porky Taylor never applied the same ‘reasoning” when the accusation came out that Abbott hit a wall with his fist.

  133. Gab

    And according to the Federal Court, it never should have been.

    True because a politician sending salacious, sexually teasing and misogynistic text messages to a subordinate should always be hushed up.

  134. SteveC

    The libs never took action

    It was all they talked about in question time for weeks. They called in debate for his resignation, remember? For a case the judge says was vexatious and an abuse of process.

    You also need to explain why Fatty Von Roxon paid 50K to Asbey.

    Because to proceed in court would have cost more.

    Lastly, if you think Slipper is exonerated

    I think the judge has clearly stated there was no case of sexual harassment to answer. However, his standing as an individual has been damaged, due to his poor judgement in the content of his personal text messages , making it not possible for him to hold the speakers role with any dignity. I’d like to see him sue Ashby for damage to his reputation.

  135. SteveC

    CAPS dot? Take some more of your calm pills.

  136. Gab

    It was all they talked about in question time for weeks.

    Actually it was six days.

  137. .

    For a case the judge says was vexatious and an abuse of process.

    No. He was not the judge on the case. He presided over a dismissal hearing.

    The finding is so ridiculous that MPs may never sue each other. Of course it will get overturned. He quotes case law on the topic, but his findings are not consistent with the case law. If the judge actually called Ashby vexatious without declaring him so, he may be in hot water himself.

    I think the judge has clearly stated there was no case of sexual harassment to answer. However, his standing as an individual has been damaged, due to his poor judgement in the content of his personal text messages , making it not possible for him to hold the speakers role with any dignity. I’d like to see him sue Ashby for damage to his reputation.

    You are off your head pal. Drop the talking points.

  138. .

    CAPS dot? Take some more of your calm pills.

    You need some of your own medication. Like Clonazepam and Thorazine.

    Yes, caps.

    Like Brandis sez: THE PM IS A CRIMINAL

  139. JC

    Ashby is going to appeal the finding. Lets see what happens on appeal.

  140. SteveC

    Actually it was six days.

    I haven’t checked, but as that is more than 5 days, even on your number they must have discussed it over at least two sitting weeks.

  141. SteveC

    “THE PM IS A CRIMINAL”

    Whatever you say dot. Just like Clinton was a criminal over Whitewater.

  142. JC

    I haven’t checked, but as that is more than 5 days, even on your number they must have discussed it over at least two sitting weeks.

    So what if they discussed it?

  143. SteveC

    The finding is so ridiculous that MPs may never sue each other. Of course it will get overturned.

    Yet another example of dot being smarter than everyone on the planet. Do you live in a normal sized house dot? Did you need to get the doors widened so your head would fit through?

  144. .

    That’s right Steve C

    THE PM IS A CRIMINAL

    FFS in addition to the AWURA scandal, she ripped off orphans and widows.

    What a smarmy bitch.

  145. candy

    Ms Gillard should have held an enquiry into the AWU matter and her part first up when it all started.
    Being completely honest as she claims, she would have been cleared, presented all the docs to prove it,
    and her poll numbers would have skyrocketed!!

    an opportunity missed, perhaps ….

  146. SteveC

    So what if they discussed it?

    JC, this was only 15 minutes ago – is your dementia really kicking in? dot may have some pills he can share with you.

    The libs never took action

    It was all they talked about in question time for weeks.

  147. .

    Yet another example of dot being smarter than everyone on the planet.

    Lefties really don’t like arguments. “I’m wrong, refer back to childish insult re: inferiority complex”

    Do you live in a normal sized house dot? Did you need to get the doors widened so your head would fit through?

    The judge is a flake. He has a track record of flakiness.

    Get over it. This is another issue Mc Ternan can’t spin to hide the bankrupt administration of Gillard.

    She’s fucked. She’s going to lose in a landslide and she might end up going to gaol.

  148. .

    Ms Gillard should have held an enquiry into the AWU matter and her part first up when it all started.
    Being completely honest as she claims, she would have been cleared, presented all the docs to prove it,
    and her poll numbers would have skyrocketed!!

    an opportunity missed, perhaps …

    She would also declare, in Parliament, where she was the day the AWURA documents were signed in her legal capacity.

  149. Gab

    JC, this was only 15 minutes ago

    LOL That’s supposed to be an argument?

    Yeah, JC respond to his inane comments faster. Chop, chop.

  150. JC

    I thought you were tagging MR Leg over’s (Emerson) talking point that Abbott and Brough must have talked about it.

    Fuck you’re weird, Steves C

  151. JC

    LOL That’s supposed to be an argument?

    Yeah, JC respond to his inane comments faster. Chop, chop.

    He hasn’t been around of late I notice because Kimberly has been taking a lot of his time.

  152. I remember saying that Ashby sounded like another Grech, seems there is some truth to my comment.

    So the opposition is stupid and the government is a little worse because they wasted my tax dollars paying Ashby off $50 000 and apparently around $500 000 in legal fees. Who will be held to account for this waste.

  153. SteveC

    The judge is a flake. He has a track record of flakiness.

    whatever you say dot, I’ll have to take your word for that. Fortunately your word is recorded for prosperity so I can come back and laugh at you when you are seen to be wrong.

  154. Tintarella di Luna

    I remember saying that Ashby sounded like another Grech, seems there is some truth to my comment.

    Oh? how so kelly, did Slipper’s lurid, disgraceful texts, emails etc disappear? What do you know? and when did you know it? Do tell.

  155. SteveC

    Here you go JC, maybe you can make sense of your own thought process this way:
    JC: The libs never took action

    SC: It was all they talked about in question time for weeks

    Gab: Actually it was six days.

    SC: I haven’t checked, but as that is more than 5 days, even on your number they must have discussed it over at least two sitting weeks.

    JC: So what if they discussed it?

    And about now I should say, “but there’s a hole in the bucket, dear Liza”

  156. SteveC

    I remember saying that Ashby sounded like another Grech

    Good call kelly. Another highly unreliable witness. Do the LNP run ads in the paper: “wanted, unreliable witnesses to participate in dud smear campaigns against the government”. ?

  157. candy

    The simplest thing is that ALP must bring back P.Slipper to the Speaker’s chair if they believe there has been conspiracy and foul play.
    They should not let their man be put down and demoted, if they truly believe in him.

  158. C.L.

    Absolutely, Candy.

    Gillard MUST reappoint the innocent Fr Slipper immediately.

    Else she’s a liar and a phony.

  159. What do you know?

    Well it has been thrown out of court. The thing that set off alarm bells was this Common sense would say this guy is not reliable.

  160. JC

    Lol… Mr. passive aggressive..

    I’ve already explained that I thought the discussion about talking for 5 or 6 days related to what Mr. leg-over-the slapper said last evening.

    That’s why I made the last comment, you fucking moron Steves C.

  161. SteveC

    dot, QC. I’m puzzled by this comment:

    No. He was not the judge on the case. He presided over a dismissal hearing.

    So who was the judge on the case?

  162. SteveC

    I thought you were tagging MR Leg over’s (Emerson) talking point that Abbott and Brough must have talked about it.

    Fuck you’re weird Sorry, I made a mistake, Steves C

    FIFY

  163. SteveC

    I’ve already explained that I thought…

    Which is why I was trying to help you with your own train of thought. perhaps it’s just a toy train. Try using a real one in future.

  164. JC

    Yea right, StevesC. Hold your breath.

  165. Tintarella di Luna

    Common sense would say this guy is not reliable.

    My commonsense would say this guy is not reliable

  166. .

    Steve C

    Do Federal judges resit cases is the case is remanded to a single judge from the full bench?

  167. Tintarella

    So you are saying that the LNP has no commensense whatsoever. That is a fair point given Slipper was their candidate.

  168. SteveC

    dot, here’s the judgement. Which other judge heard any of the case? You said Rares was not the judge on the case, so if not Rares, who was it? Or did you just make up your assertion , as per usual?

Comments are closed.