Ms "I Did Nothing Wrong" Gillard

Go to this Michael Smith News post and listen to his audioboo.

Most of us following the Gillard/AWU/Wilson scandal can only hope for one outcome, that being the Victoria Police have enough substantial evidence to haul in the Prime Minister for a serious round of discussions.   From there, we must hope justice will be served.   Not only do the Australian people deserve it, but  so do the AWU union members who were so blatantly screwed over.

Michael Smith has worked extremely hard to expose the truth regarding the AWU affair and Gillard's involvement.  Those of us disgusted with the trashing of the  reputation of the office of Prime Minister by this woman must now take heart that Smith's diligence will finally pay a dividend.

That is what we must hope for.

Brandis Ups The Ante

The Coalition has stepped up its attack on the Prime Minister, with Liberal senator George Brandis using parliamentary privilege to suggest Julia Gillard broke criminal laws while working as a lawyer in the early 1990s.

Ms Gillard has consistently denied any wrongdoing in relation to her role in providing legal advice to establish the Australian Workers Union (AWU) Workplace Reform Association while working at Slater & Gordon.

She has said she believed the association's funds would be used for legitimate purposes.

They were instead used by her then-boyfriend and former AWU official Bruce Wilson as a union slush fund, although he denies financially benefiting from it.

Speaking in the Senate, the shadow attorney-general said it was clear Ms Gillard knew the association's funds would not be used for their stated purpose, which was for the advancement of workers' rights.

Instead, Senator Brandis said she knew the funds would be used for the "private purposes" of Mr Wilson and fellow union official Ralph Blewitt.

"There is no doubt - no doubt whatsoever - that at the time she was involved in setting up the slush fund, Ms Gillard knew what its purpose was," he told the Senate.

"Indeed, the choice of an incorporated association as the entity to hold the funds for union election purposes was Ms Gillard's brainchild.

"It is already clear, that from (the association's) inception, Ms Julia Gillard's involvement in this matter has been characterised by concealment, deception, professional misconduct, and it would appear several breaches of the criminal law."

Full story at link below:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-11-28/brandis-claims-in-senate-that-pm-breached-criminal-laws/4397254
                                        ********************

I watched Question Time again today and all I can say is:  This disgrace of a Prime Minister obviously doesn't want to incriminate herself in the House.  It's a serious offence.

Senator Brandis is no fool.  He knows the law and I am sure he has researched this matter thoroughly.  I hope he keeps the pressure up whilst the Senate is sitting.

Parliament rises tomorrow for the summer break.  I have no doubt this story will continue and eventually, the truth will out.  The fate of this Prime Minister should be known shortly.

Sub-prime Credibility

I rather like the description “Sub-prime” as it may relate to our Prime Minister,  Julia Gillard.  I didn't coin the phrase but I wish I had.  In my opinion, she has to be the worst Prime Minister leading the worst government Australia has ever had the misfortune to suffer.  Even Gough Whitlam’s ALP government was not as bad as this current mob of incompetents.

The Prime Minister is not having a good week.  She is still fielding questions about her role in the AWU slush fund scandal as an equity partner at the legal firm, Slater & Gordon advising her boyfriend at the time, Bruce Wilson.  Wilson slushed nearly half a million dollars his own way after Gillard did the legal work on the AWU/Workplace Reform Account.

In my eyes, Ms. Gillard has zero credibility.  In the eyes of this nation, I believe her credibility is taking a fair whacking.  Deservedly.  The woman can’t or won’t answer a question directly.  Julie Bishop, Deputy Leader of the Opposition has posed a number of questions to her in Parliament.  This woman simply will not give a direct answer.  The average Joe can only take that one way.  The Prime Minister does have something to hide.  PM Gillard has attempted to deflect, Ms. Bishop’s forensic questioning for the 2nd day in Parliament Question Time by not answering, by deferring to her non-direct-answers during the 2^nd of two long Press conferences and by blaming the Opposition for running a dirt file and a smear campaign.  Her hypocrisy knows no bounds!  Her Government IS the Government of smear.  Remember the Australia Day Race Riot orchestrated by her own staff to smear opposition Leader, Tony Abbott.  That’s just one example of the tactics of this disgraceful regime.

Gillard also lambasted Ms. Bishop for having a 10 minute meeting with the con man, Ralph Blewitt who played 2^nd fiddle in Wilson’s two member band.  Hello?  This woman must have conveniently forgotten her own long association with Mr. Blewitt.  She was so familiar with Blewitt, she didn’t charge him for legal work.  You can only shake your head and shed a tear that this is the sort of untrustworthy creature currently running this country.

Gillard stupidly laid into Blewitt on Monday during the second of two lengthy press conferences.  After Gillard had finished unloading on Blewitt she said “His word against mine?  Make your mind up.”  Good question, PM Gillard and here’s my answer.  I’ll take Blewitt’s word over yours any day.  I deplore liars.

Last night, (27/11) the ABC managed the scoop of the week.  They wheeled out the ex-boyfriend, Bruce Wilson for an interview on the weekly television current affairs segment, 7.30.  Any person with a brain that functions watching Mr. Wilson trying to defend Sub-prime would have picked up the body language pretty quickly.  They would have fallen to the ground in fits of laughter when Wilson declared he had no case to answer with regard to his own involvement in the disappearance of monies from the unauthorised entity, the AWU Workplace Reform Association. 

Gillard’s credibility has now sunk below sub-zero.  The ABC, by pushing nice, ‘credible’ Mr. Wilson onto the public stage loaded more guns and handed them to the Coalition.  In particular, Deputy Leader, Julie Bishop.  There are two more days of Question Time in Federal Parliament left for this sitting year.

Get your popcorn ready!  

The ABC Is Required To Be Impartial

Last Friday (23/11) Jon Faine, presenter of Mornings With Jon Faine, weekdays on ABC Local Radio 774 (Victoria)  most probably breached the ABC's Code of Practice, particularly Section 2 which relates to accuracy (according to the standards of recognised journalism); Section 4 which covers impartiality and diversity of perspectives: weight of evidence; fair treatment and open-mindedness and Section 5 relating to fair and honest dealings.  I suggest you listen to his broadcast and determine for yourself whether or not Michael Smith was given an opportunity (unhindered) to respond to the smearing Faine inflicted on him during his programme which went to air on the 22nd November, 2012.    I don't believe he was and that would appear to be in breach of Clause 5.3 of the ABC's Code of Practice.

The same treatment was dished out to The Age's Editor-at-large, Mark Baker.

Faine's segment was a follow-up of his pathetic attempt to cover, in his own lunchbox, the AWU/Gillard/Wilson/Slater & Gordon affair which went to air the previous day.  Faine, of course, pummels away at his audience by saying Prime Minister Gillard has nothing to answer and has done no wrong and he, himself, must be thick and two bricks" and he "just doesn't get it."  He doesn't "get" what all the fuss is about.  Well, he wouldn't "get it" if he is too left-blinkered to do some basic research.

Shock-Jock Faine's role as an ABC presenter is to be impartial.  He is not supposed to be a propaganda-peddler for the ALP.  Nor should Faine apply his own form of censorship by talking over guests and callers to deliberately stifle broadcast of their views.

I believe Faine must apologise, on air, to Messrs. Smith and Baker.  Both deserved some respect.  Respect Faine denied them.  Perhaps an apology should also be extended to Mr. Ralph Blewitt, an associate of PM Gillard's ex boyfriend, Bruce Wilson and who later became the fall-guy as Wilson went about syphoning off money from a dodgy slush fund set up on Wilson's instructions by the then equity partner with the firm, Slater & Gordon, Julia Gillard.

All the evidence has been compiled through the thorough investigative journalism of one Michael Smith and can be found on his Blog.

In Thursday's AWU segment, oracle Faine attempted to discredit Blewitt by referring to some scuttlebutt lifted from a Western Australian commercial radio programme as proof Blewitt was untrustworthy, a con-man.  Of course, Blewitt has already admitted he has had a pretty shady past.  However, Faine, in his infinite wisdom relied on the words of "Penny" who identified herself as Blewitt's sister.  I put it to Faine:  Did you bother to check the bona fides of this caller "Penny" before you used her words on the ABC to smear Ralph Blewitt?

I don't think the ABC should retain the services of someone who waves his political affiliations so publicly.  Such bias within the ABC is surely going to backfire sooner or later.  This organisation relies on funding from the taxpayer, afterall.  An awful lot of people are calling for the wrecking ball to go through the joint as soon as the Coalition take over at the next election.

It was a disgraceful week for Jon Faine and a disgraceful week for the ABC.

Judgement & Credibility - AWU Scandal

Yes, this entire saga goes straight to the judgement and credibility of Julia Gillard who is currently Australia's Prime Minister.

Incredible!

Here's a News Limited article that covers quite a bit of ground.

http://www.news.com.au/national/awu-scandal-why-it-matters-and-what-you-need-to-know/story-fndo4eg9-1226522812935

Is is too much to ask for honesty from our Prime Minister?  Just a little bit of honesty?  Are Australians heartily sick of being lied to?  Let's start with the lie "There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead".

There must be a full investigation into the Union movement and the lead players in Australia.  Why?  Because whilst this federal Labor government has the power, it's Union power.   The Unions control this government.  Full stop.  Remember, those faceless (Union) men who dislodged a sitting Prime Minister and installed Julia Gillard into the role.

We have one Union-related scandal after another at the moment, all involving corruption.  The HSU, the AWU, the CFMEU, and the appalling case surrounding NSW State Labor currently in the spotlight as the dirt flies via an ICAC Inquiry..

How can we have faith in the leadership of this country when the Unions are operating sock puppets?

ABC Radio 774 & A Shock-Jock

Here is a repost of Andrew Bolt's brilliant put-down of 774's morning presenter, Jon Faine.  Faine made a classic jerk of himself today.  Clearly, he was not fully across the subject of Prime Minister Gillard's involvement as a partnered solicitor in the AWU fiasco.  As such, he should not have opened his mouth.  What happens to his radio career as a result is entirely of his own doing.  I certainly will be watching with keen interest.  Faine has form for being obnoxious, not only to guests he disagrees with but also to callers.

The ABC has been dragged kicking and screaming to the point where they are right now, having to recognise there is a story which is actually in the public interest - not some non-event as they have portrayed this scandal for many months.

The 7.30 Report's Leigh Sales is to interview Nick Styant-Browne, one of the ex Slater & Gordon partners, tonight, Thursday, 22nd November, 2012.  I wonder if Leigh will try and shout him down?

I will have more to say on this in another post.

.................................................................................

ABC presenter makes hash of defending Gillard

Andrew Bolt

NOVEMBER

22

2012

(11:45am)

Melbourne ABC host Jon Faine was vehement today in defence of the Prime Minister, yet has not based his faith on facts. Let’s check his editorial:

…it’s to do with the slush fund that she was helping to establish for people who were acting as a group within the AWU at the time.

Fudge. Well, less than a group, Jon. It essentially operated just for Bruce Wilson and, to some extent, for his bagman, Ralph Blewett. And it was set up for their benefit as individuals, not AWU officials.

Well, at that stage, I do remember laughing out loud on air and saying since when should a client not act for someone because they might be breaking the law?

Red herring. No one to my knowledge has ever suggested Gillard should not have taken as a client someone who “might be breaking the law”.

Then Julia Gillard was criticised for not dobbing in her clients when it became apparent that they might have broken the law.  Well, since when does a lawyer dob in their own clients to the police when someone is making a complaint about them? It’s alleged that she should herself have gone to the police, which is preposterous and would’ve been an unethical act, if not a breach of duty to her client and a breach of confidentiality.

Gross oversimplication. Misleading. Porbably false. Gillard actually had two clients here - her boyfriend, Wilson., and the AWU itself, which was her firm’s primary client. When she found out Wilson’s slush fund had fraudently taken funds ostensibly paid to what donors believed was the AWU for workplace safety for its members, she had a duty to at the very least notify the AWU. She did not.  She arguably could have also notifed police of the frauds when told about them without breaching anything told her her in confidence by Wilson, since they were brought to her attention not by Wilson himself but others. On this point, here is the opinion of former High Court judge Michael Kirby:

Question from audience: Look, there are plenty of people in the legal profession that seem to have moral compass deficit disorder. If a lawyer naively helps a friend to set up a slush fund, and then subsequently finds that the friend has used it to misappropriate half a million dollars, is there a legal or moral obligation for the lawyer to report that to the police, the knowledge of that matter?

Kirby: It sounds as though it’s getting a little bit close to a real live problem and I know it could be presented as hypothetical, but I sort of have got very, very strong antennae and I can sniff out a real live problem pretty well. (Audience laughter). And I’ve gone out of the business of giving legal advice, but generally speaking, in our sort of society, if a person is aware of a serious crime and doesn’t report it to the police, that is what we call misprision of a felony; if there is a felony, you have to report it, it is a citizen’s duty. Now that law might have been modified in Victoria and other states, you’d have to look that up, but that’s the way the law generally operates.”

Here is High Court justice William Deane in Baker v Campbell, 1983:

Deane: Moreover, if the (doctrine of legal professional) privilege were confined to disclosure in judicial (or quasi-judicial) proceedings, it is difficult to explain why, logically, the lawyer who fails voluntarily to disclose the wrongdoing of his client to the appropriate administrative officer does not, in the absence of some particular justification, stand guilty of the offence of misprision of felony.

Doug Meagher QC has discussed this at length:

Meagher: Bankes LJ at page 526 when considering an allegation that the accountant had breached an implied term of confidentiality, said:

“ ... There may no doubt be cases to which the rule laid down by the learned judge may be applied, as for instance confidential communications to a professional adviser as to the proposed commission of a crime, or as to the proposed commission of a civil wrong upon an individual.  A contract to keep such a communication secret may well be considered an illegal contract, and the duty to the public to disclose the criminal or illegal intention may properly be held to override the private duty to respect and protect the client’s confidence.”..

Wood VC put it in vivid phrase: ‘There is no confidence as to the disclosure of iniquity.’

In Weld-Blundell v Stephens Bankes LJ rather suggested that the exception was limited to the proposed or contemplated commission of as crime or civil wrong; but I should have thought that was too limited.  The exception should extend to crimes frauds and misdeeds, both those actually committed as well as those in contemplation, provided always - and this is essential - that the disclosure is justified in the public interest.  The reason is because no private obligations can dispense with that universal one which lies on every member of the society to discover every design which may be formed, contrary to the laws of the society, to destroy the public welfare…

The disclosure must, I should think, be to one who has a proper interest to receive the information.  Thus it would be proper to disclose a crime to the police…

The existence of the exception to the privilege was firmly established in Australia following the obiter dictum in Varawa v Howard Smith & Co (1910) 10 CLR 382. At page 385 Griffith CJ said:

“The rule was laid down very distinctly by Lord Halsbury LC in Bullivant v The Attorney General for Victoria:

‘I think the broad propositions may be very simply stated:  for the perfect administration of justice, and for the protection of confidence which exists between a solicitor and his client, it has been established as a principle of public policy that those confidential communications shall not be subject to production.  But to that, of course, this limitation has been put, and justly put, that no Court can be called upon to protect communications which are in themselves parts of a criminal or unlawful proceeding.’

The rule is very well illustrated in the case of R. v Cox & Railton in which the communication stated and put in evidence was a communication made by a solicitor to his client for the purpose of enabling him to carry out an unlawful enterprise.”

This says nothing about the duty to report; but once the privilege is removed, the shield vanishes and the ordinary duty cast on all citizens to report a threatened crime applies to the lawyer as well.

Moreover, Gillard, in explaining why she did not contact authorities about the frauds did not cite client confidentiality as an excuse. The reason she gave was that inquiries were already under way when she found out. There is reason to doubt the factual basis for this claim.

It’s alleged that at one stage she was party to a fraud, which has been met with stern letters from Julia Gillard’s lawyers, and you might notice a prominent apology published in The Age today, saying whoops, we might have gone too far.

False. Straw man. There was no such apology and no such admission by The Age. The item referred to is here. Check for yourself. Faine also oversimplifies in referring to allegations that Gillard “was party to a fraud” and then claiming this was false. In fact, the allegation has consistently been that Gillard created a slush fund used by her boyfriend to commit fraud, and that she insists she had no idea those frauds were intended or committed.

Then it was alleged that there were files that are missing and those files it seems now are turning up in the registrars of the Federal Court and elsewhere. Then it was alleged that files were missing at Slater and Gordon and it was pointed out that files get destroyed after seven or eight or so years because it’s actually just impossible to keep them all and on and on and on the allegations go.

Misleading. In fact, four files were alleged to have gone missing - two in the Federal Court, one in Slater & Gordon and one in the WA Corporate Affairs Commission. Only one of the files, in the Federal Court, has since been located. Slater & Gordon is unable to confirm what Faine implies - that it’s own missing file was destroyed as a matter of routine after seven or eight years. Indeed, it claims not to be sure the file even existed, although Gillard is recorded being questioned about it in a taped record of interview with her partners in 1995.

Today as you’ve already heard on AM, one of the key witnesses in inverted commas to all of this has arrived back in Australia. His name is Ralph Blewitt...

Smear. Blewitt is indeed a key witness, without inverted commas. Correspondence demonstrates he was one of the two people for whom Gillard helped to create the slush fund, and placed the notification of it in the press. Gillard also claims to have witnessed his donation of power of attorney to Wilson to buy a house in his name.

However, on arrival [Blewett has] already said that he knows nothing about events in Victoria, but he may be able to shed some insight into what was alleged to have gone on eighteen years ago in Western Australia. Of course Victoria Police don’t investigate things that happen in West Australia. The West Australia Police do, but that’s for Mr Blewitt, his lawyers and the Victoria Police to sort out between them.

Red herring. Misleading. The complaint Victoria Police are investigating relates to the power of attorney Gillard says she witnessed as a solicitor in Victoria, donated by Blewitt in favor of her boyfriend, Wilson. Blewitt alleges Gillard was not present when he made it out in Perth, and the document was backdated. Blewett claims it was misused by Wilson to purchase a property in Victoria in his name, using stolen funds. Blewett is also expected to discuss renovations to Julia Gillard’s Abbottsford house. All this is well within the scope of Victoria Police to investigate. Blewett’s reference to not knowing about events in Victoria refers to the creation and operation of a second slush fund created in Victoria by Wilson. Faine should know all this.

How could Faine be so sure Gillard has no questions to answer if he himself does not understand what’s been alleged or demonstrated?

It seems to me that Faine instinctively wants to clear Gillard without even knowing what the case against her is.

(Note: Gillard says she did not know of Wilson’s frauds and did not benefit from them. She did not know the house was brought with stolen funds. She says paid for all her own renovations.)

UPDATE

Michael Smith rang Faine for a right of reply, but was not given one.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/abc_presenter_makes_hash_of_defending_gillard/

WUWT TV

On November 14th and 15th, 2012 Anthony Watts (Watts Up With That?) presented a 24 hour counter broadcast to that of the slick presentation of Al Gore's "24 hours of Climate Reality" (caveat emptor).

Mr. Watts is now in the process of releasing his 24 hour broadcasts and I will repost them as they appear.

Here is the first segment - an interview with US Senator Inhofe.

Keep An Eye On This Man

John McTernan, Prime Minister Gillard's Media Advisor

Here's a nice observation piece by Samuel J at Catallaxy
...........................................................................................


John McTernan: taking Julia Gillard down
105 comments

Those in Labor seem to treat Gillard’s spin merchant, John McTernan, with awe and reverence. He is supposed to be the brains behind Gillard, and is responsible for the present attacks seeking to brand Abbott as a misogynist.

I think she has chosen badly – McTernan’s tactics have always failed. Rather than helping his master stay in a job, McTernan has ensured the master’s removal.

From a range of relatively junior positions, McTernan became Tony Blair’s spin merchant in late 2005. By June 2007 Gordon Brown had unseated the Prime Minister.

Then he helped take out his next master, Des Browne, Secretary of State for Scotland in 2008.

Then he saw off Jim Murphy, the next Secretary of State for Scotland in 2010.

He took up his present role in Gillard’s office just over a year ago (September 2011), and it is only a matter of time before McTernan takes her out too.

McTernan’s true genius is making people think he is helping while quietly undermining them.

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/10/13/john-mcternan-taking-julia-gillard-down/

Gillardgate - The Series

The Gillard/AWU/Wilson saga keeps on giving.  I haven't included the background yet but this post is a start - towards the end, I suspect.

Readers who are unfamiliar with this scandal may go here  if they are interested in a truckload of serious background information.

How can important Court, Government and Law Firm documents just disappear?

Surely, we are not witnessing a massive cover-up!