This site is starting to come under regular attack by Michael Smith on his website Michael Smith News. In response to my last post, Michael Smith wrote on his site “it’s an unsupportable and horribly defamatory piece of fantasy.” The problem for Mr Smith is that he fails to support his own statement.
It is not the first time Smith has had a swipe at my website and I have decided it is time to return serve. Criticism is not a problem. I write the content on this site and fully expect it as all sites expect criticism. If people do not like or agree with what others write on the internet it is their right to disagree and criticise what has been written. But it not fair and reasonable to tell lies in an effort to push their own agenda and that is what Michael Smith has done and continues to do.
When it comes to the judiciary Michael Smith has no clue or idea. I have spent years dealing with the Federal Court of Australia and its Sydney registry and know most of the players and know exactly how they operate and the corruption that goes on there. I have written about it extensively on this site and in my book. I am well positioned to give an educated viewpoint on what is happening in relation to the missing file.
It must be noted Smith has done a lot of good work in the AWU scandal but he thinks he owns the story and investigation. In a post I will do in the very near future it is very clear that Michael Smith has become a major liability in the investigation of the fraud. It has got all the mistakes of Malcolm Turnbull in the Godwin Grech Utegate scandal, just taken up about a thousand notches.
Mr Smith overrates himself and his credibility and underestimates this sites resilience to attacks based on lies by him. I have full confidence of this sites ability to withstand those sorts of attacks and continue to grow. But even so, I have decided to respond to Michael Smith’s posts as it is time he was put in his place and outed for the lies he tells.
Just a quick look at Mr Smith’s site and you can see he is one of biggest content thieves on the net in breach of copyright law on an almost daily basis which he is well aware of. But hey, he’s Michael Smith and he is above the law or so he thinks.
Chief Justice Patrick Keane – Michael Smith’s latest attack
I wrote a post last week titled “Chief Justice Patrick Keane ignores police threat and continues to hide evidence in the Julia Gillard / AWU fraud scandal“
One of the key arguments I put forward was that CJ Keane could have and should have called the police to investigate the missing file and has not, which is very telling given the credibility of the Federal Court is on the line and it is his responsibility to protect the reputation of the court. His failure to call the police really says what his position is and what he is up to. I also base this viewpoint on extensive previous experience dealing with the court and Keane’s predecessor Chief Justice Black and how he swept judicial corruption under the carpet. I wrote a post on it titled “How the Australian Federal Police and Federal Courts collude to sweep criminal conduct of judges under the carpet. Part one.(Click here to read the post) I also base the above viewpoint on the fact that Patrick Keane is corrupt which I wrote about in another post titled “Chief Justice Keane comes under attack from CEO of leading law firm.” (Click here to read the post)
Michael Smith said on his site:
“I’ve received a few links to this post on another website about file 2082/96″
“it’s an unsupportable and horribly defamatory piece of fantasy. I don’t know of any instructions issued by the chief justice in the matter. The files are missing because of a SNAFU or they’ve been knocked off by persons currently unknown. The police will look until they’ve exhausted every avenue of enquiry and the court is co-operating completely and openly with the police. Both the court and the Victoria Police agreed to the public release of the Court’s letter to police so there could be no misunderstanding as to the Court’s co-operation.”
“It is difficult enough to present factual, validated material on a website such as mine in the current environment and have it taken seriously. The sort of fantasy writing that you’ve pointed to on another site is one of the reasons that is so. I’ve no doubt that Shane Dowling is well-intentioned and believes everything he writes, but it is the stuff of fantasy in this case.” (Click here to read)
Well let’s start with “it’s an unsupportable and horribly defamatory piece of fantasy.” By saying it is a “horribly defamatory piece of fantasy” Mr Smith must have evidence to the contrary right? Well he fails to produce. All he say is “I don’t know of any instructions issued by the chief justice in the matter.” So if Michael does not know, it must not be true as he implies. Can he guarantee no instructions were issued? No, so how can he say it is defamatory?
Smith says “the court is co-operating completely and openly with the police.” In relation to the letter that Robert Thomsett on behalf of the Federal Court sent police saying they could not find the file Mr Smith did an earlier post on the 20/2/13 that said “Thomsett’s letter is notable for two things: a) the obscuring bureaucratic gobbledook he uses, which is quite characteristic of bureaucrats world-wide; and b) that which he does NOT say, again characteristic”
and “Thomsett fails to note the difference between the computerised record and the physical box numbering here – because he knows the likelihood of clerical stuff-up and cannot admit it in writing”
“Overall, I contend that there remains a good chance that the file can be found with a real, determined physical search” (Click here to read the post)
That is a Michael Smith post as written by one of his readers and from reading it one clearly gives the impression that he is implying that Robert Thomsett is lying and deceiving the police on behalf of the Federal Court. So on the 20/2/13 the court is lying to the police but when I do my post on the 24/4/12 they are not lying says Smith. So much for Michael Smith’s statement in relation to my post “”the court is co-operating completely and openly with the police.”
Smith says “It is difficult enough to present factual, validated material on a website such as mine in the current environment and have it taken seriously. The sort of fantasy writing that you’ve pointed to on another site is one of the reasons that is so.”
It’s a bit rich coming from Michael Smith. This is the same Michael Smith who said we should send the thief and fraudster Ralph Blewitt a Christmas card. I hate to tell you Michael, but most people including myself would have read that and thought you were a nutter living in fantasy land. (Click here to read)
Now lets wind the clock back to the 24/11/12 when I did a post titled “Gillard appoints Patrick Keane, who has responsibility for the missing files in the AWU scandal, as High Court judge” (Click here to read the post)
The next day Michael Smith does a post titled “ The Honourable Justice Patrick Keane” and says:
“I’m receiving quite a few notes and emails asking my opinion about Justice Patrick Keane’s appointment to the High Court.”
I know that elsewhere there’s some very strong and pointed criticism of the appointment.
I don’t share that view and I thought I’d just post this opinion once rather than keep answering blog comments and the like.
His Honour has been to date the Chief Judge of the Federal Court.
He is a jurist of conspicuous distinction and a man of great integrity given to public service.
At the Federal Court he was not in the business of managing the movement of files or visiting the compactus at night. He was the Chief Judge.
I imagine that Justice Keane is embarrassed at the attention that the appointment of Judge Bernard Murphy has brought to the Federal Court.
It is out of character for Nicola Roxon and the Gillard Government to appoint a man with so superb a set of credentials to the High Court, so yes Justice Patrick Keane’s appointment is a bit of a surprise, but only because of the uncharacteristic good judgment shown by this government.
Smith’s post was in clear response to my post but he fails to state that as he usually does. I know that because of the line “At the Federal Court he was not in the business of managing the movement of files or visiting the compactus at night” which clearly responding to my post.
Michael Smith says he is a great judge and “so superb a set of credentials to the High Court”. Michael Smith does not say why he is such a great judge and fails to address his clear political association with Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party.
Michael Smith does not even seem to know Keane’s history as he says “His Honour has been to date the Chief Judge of the Federal Court.” Keane was also a judge of the Court of Appeal at the Queensland Supreme Court and Solicitor General in the Goss Government when Kevin Rudd worked there but Smith does not mention this.
I also wrote a post last year on the 13/12/12 titled “Justice Rares hands down judgement countersigned by AG Nicola Roxon in the Peter Slipper James Ashby matter” (Click here to read)
Smith the next day (14/12/12) wrote a post titled “Justice Steven Rares” and said:
“I know a lot of people have sent in comments linking to other sites that make adverse findings about Justice Rares.”
“I won’t be publishing them because I do not believe for a moment that Justice Rares is corrupt.” (Click here to read)
It is Michael Smith’s choice what links he allows but why do a post on it saying he won’t allow the link and he went further and did one of his voice recording posts and said words to the effect “I know another man on another site writes Rares is corrupt and he might find his website taken down”.
That is a straight out lie that my site could be taken down because of a post that I did on Justice Rares and Michael Smith knows that. If a website publishes an article that is found to be defamatory (which mine never have been nor will be) the worst thing that can happen is they are made to amend the post. The site will not be taken down. It might explain why I cannot now find that post on Michael Smith’s site.
Ian Cambridge Lies
I wrote a post on the 18/11/12 titled “Ian Cambridge returns serve against Kangaroo Court of Australia attack and drops the boot into Julia Gillard” where I accused Cambridge of being corrupt and taking a bribe in his appointment to the NSW Industrial Relations Commission to shut his mouth about the corruption at the AWU in the 1990′s.
The next day on the 19/12/12 Michael Smith wrote this on his site:
Commissioner Ian Walter Cambridge
I would like to set the record straight about Ian Cambridge and also to set out a few ground-rules for this little piece of the internet.
No human I know of could have done more to bring The AWU Scandal to the attention of the proper authorities than Ian Cambridge did.
Commissioner Cambridge’s call for a Royal Commission into his union was unprecedented and it remains a unique call to root out union corruption.
Ian Cambridge and his family, small children, suffered greatly as a direct result of his honesty and his action. In that regard he has something in common with Bob Kernohan and latterly Kathy Jackson.
While it must have been a relief to move on to a job at the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission, you’d be hard-pressed to describe it as a bribe. The published salary package for an IRC commissioner in NSW at the time was considerably less than the package for the National Secretary of the AWU.
You know I don’t impose censorship – but I won’t cop untrue and unfair defamation of a good man’s character. And Ian Cambridge is a good man. (Click here to read)
As per usual Michael Smith did not mention my site but it was a clear response to my post. Anyone who has researched the AWU fraud scandal knows Cambridge was up to his neck in the cover-up as much as anyone and I outline plenty of questions that Cambridge needs to answer in the post. While above might be considered by some as only a difference of opinion between myself and Smith it is worth noting for his lies and how he does not respond directly to me and name my site or myself.
Michael Smiths said “While it must have been a relief to move on to a job at the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission, you’d be hard-pressed to describe it as a bribe”
Well a bribe does not have to be financial, it could be a job with better conditions and job security which Mr Smith himself points out. Let’s have a look at what Michael Smith said on the 18/10/12
“Ian Cambridge did accept a position offered to him by the Carr Labor Government as a Commissioner of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission. Who would have knocked it back? A judicial appointment, independent of the requirement to toe any party line, independent of government and protected from improper influence by the doctrine of our separation of powers.” (Click here to read)
That is clear admission by Smith that Cambridge did take a bribe, not a financial one but a job with better conditions like ”A judicial appointment” which guarantees your job until retirement. It was a bribe of a job with better conditions as Smith points out. It is just that Michael Smith is too stupid to realise that he is saying that Cambridge took a bribe.
Why is Smith supporting Ian Cambridge? Well to me it is obvious that Smith is talking up Cambridge’s credibility because he wants to use his evidence against Julia Gillard. In Mr Smith’s complaint to the Victorian Police against Julia Gillard Mr Smith makes reference to Ian Cambridge and says “His Honour Commissioner Ian Cambridge of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission swore an affidavit in proceedings in the Australian Industrial Relations Court in September, 1996 in which he described and produced copies of the cheques that were drawn on the AWU-WRA to finance the purchase. His Honour described the money as the property of the Australian Workers’ Union and said that it was money stolen from the union” (Click here to read Mr Smith’s complaint to the Victorian Police)
Michael Smith the content thief
Michael Smith steals articles from other sites on an almost daily basis in clear breach of copyright laws. Under fair use policy you can take a small portion of others work and then need to put a link back to the source. That does not entitle you to take the whole post then put a link back which Mr Smith does regularly. At other times Mr Smith will take 1/4, 1/3 or 1/2 of someone else’s post then put a link back. This is still a breach of copyright law.
The reason someone like Smith does this is that it gives his site further content which helps with traffic to his site. An example being that the extra content means his site will show up more on Google searches.
Michael Smith is well aware of what he is doing breaks the law but does not care and he thinks he is above the law. Not exactly the type of person you want holding others to account.
An example is the article written by Mark Baker at The Age stolen in full. (Click here to see)
It must be noted in May and July last year I recorded interviews that Mike Smith did with Alan Jones and Ben Fordham in relation to the AWU fraud and put them on this site and YouTube. I did that because believed it was in the public interest as the issue was not getting much media attention. Michael Smith also did not have his site up and running then. Smith Jones and Fordham did get promotion from my site which also must be noted. I also copied the Michael Smith/2ue emails to Julia Gillard before 2ue took them down and published them on this site. Once again I did that becuase it was in the public interest to do so. But that is hardly in the same league as Mr Smith breaching copyright laws and taking new material on an almost daily basis from other sites.
Smith owes me nothing, but I have helped him a fair bit so you would think he would show at least some respect for my site and myself. That is what this section is about, he shows no respect for anyone.
Michael Smith originally came across the AWU fraud scandal via the post I did on the 7th August 2011 although he never admits it. (Click here to read the post) When Smith first started running with the story on 2ue a follower of this site sent me a link to Smith’s broadcast and it was a clear rip off of my post. I spoke to him the next week and he admitted reading my post but not ripping it off. I did not care that he ripped it off without referencing it as it helped with the traffic to my site anyhow.
A few weeks later Michael Smith had been suspended and then launched legal proceedings to stop 2ue from sacking him. During the course of those legal proceedings Michael Smith phoned me to ask me questions in relation to the AWU fraud and my post, such as how I knew Julia Gillard had set up the association used to funnel the stolen money through.
When Michael Smith set up his site last year I helped promote his site even though I knew that he would unlikely promote my site given his previous form. And true to form he has never done a post putting a link back to my site nor has he ever mentioned the name of my site. In fact when he talks about the media who have been reporting on the AWU fraud he mentions many names except this site. It must ne noted that his readers do put links back to my site which he allows at times. He asked me to comment on the site when he did posts. I never have commented on his site as that is for the readers, but he obviously thought I would help his site.
I have spoken to Smith about 4 or 5 times on the phone and exchanged a few emails. Michael Smith is not my friend and never has been and obviously after this post never will be. He owes me nothing.
But I have helped him a reasonable amount and plenty of the content and ideas that he has put on his site originates from this site and I helped promote his site when he set it up.
Smith thinks he can dump on anyone and do what he wants. Well this site has and always will act without fear or favour, so Smith has picked on the wrong website, even more so given I am well briefed on the AWU Gillard/Wilson fraud and can see through Smith’s lies.
What Smith’s game is who knows? Maybe he feels he has gotten all the value out of this site and feels it is time to trash it.
My guess though he is trying to control the thoughts of his readers with clear censorship and preaching his lies and propaganda to achieve what he wants to achieve. The problem for Mr Smith is that it near on impossible to do that on the internet and his readers will wake up to him.
Michael Smith does not try to get to the full truth, just the truth that suites him and what he wants to achieve. That is to get Gillard at any cost.
The full truth will only come out from a Royal Commission. I will do a follow up post relevant to the above in the very near future.
Some people might not like what I have said about Michael Smith. That is too bad. I am entitled to defend myself and this site from continued grubby and gutless attacks by Mr Smith. Smith seems to like to attack from the shadows. He is too cowardly to even mention this sites name and only in his most recent attack has he mentioned my name.
Make sure you follow this site by email which is on the top right of this page and about once a week you will get an email when there is a new post/story on this site.
This site is fully funded by myself, both time wise and monetary wise. If you would like to support the continuance and growth of this site it would be greatly appreciated if you make a donation. Just click on the button below to donate via PayPal or go to the donation page for banking details for direct bank transfer or sending a cheque. (Click here to go to the donation page)
If you would like to buy a t-shirt or coffee mug visit my online shop (Click here to visit the shop)
If you would like to buy a copy of my non-fiction book on corruption in the Australian judiciary that names names visit my website for the book which has links to the online bookshops. (Click here to visit the website)
Thank you for your support.