Julia Gillard changes her story again in the AWU fraud scandal at yesterday’s press conference

Prime Minister Julia Gillard yesterday called a press conference in relation to the AWU fraud scandal. Ms Gillard claimed she had no evidence of any crimes in 1995/1996 and that is why she did not go to the police or AWU. Well that is a lie. But even if true she certainly has evidence now and has had so for numerous years, so why does she not go to the Victorian police and make a statement given they are currently investigating the matter.

The evidence Ms Gillard has of a crime by her own admission.

Ms Gillard has said a number of times and in her interview at Slater and Gordon in 1995 that she believed the AWU Workplace Relations Association she helped set up for her then boyfriend Bruce Wilson was a slush fund. As we all know it was an unauthorised association used to launder fraudulently gained money through for the benefit of Bruce Wilson and maybe Ralph Blewitt.

Ms Gillard says she only gave legal advice to Bruce Wilson and/or Ralph Blewitt in relation to setting up the association. But for her to believe it was a slush fund either Mr Wilson and/or Mr Blewitt had to have lied to Julia Gillard. If that is the case that is evidence that the Victorian and Western Australian police could use in charging Mr Wilson and/or Mr Blewitt.

This is important evidence because what Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt did was fraud and identity theft. Identity theft does not have to be of a person it can also be of a body corporate such as illegally using the AWU name.

The laws

I previously did a post where I used a NSW law in relation to Julia Gillard concealing a serious indictable offence. (Click here to read the post) Someone pointed out on the comment section that the offences took place in Victoria and Western Australia so I found a Victorian law that I believed covered the crime. But on further reflection I have no doubt that NSW laws were also breached. The AWU head office is in Sydney NSW and they are the only ones who have authority to grant the use of the AWU name. And given the AWU name was used to facilitate the crime it was a crime against the AWU head office.

Section 10c part 2 of the NSW Crimes Act says: (2) A geographical nexus exists between the State and an offence if: (b) the offence is committed wholly outside the State, but the offence has an effect in the State.

The fraud and theft had a financial impact on the AWU and the identity theft had an impact on the AWU reputation.

Then we look at the very NSW laws such as:

Section – 192E Fraud

Section 192J – Dealing with identification information

 Section – 192G Intention to defraud by false or misleading statement

Section 193b – Money Laundering 

There is no point arguing too much about whether NSW laws were broken as other states have similar laws. But the key point is that the above crimes or similar are what Julia Gillard is currently concealing based on her own evidence that she was lied to by Wilson and Blewitt into believing that the AWU Workplace Relations Association was a slush fund, when in fact it was a breach of the above crimes.

Julia Gillard should go to the police now and make a statement in relation to the lies she was told by Wilson and/or Blewitt when giving advice in setting up the association.

Backing away from the reasons she split up with Bruce Wilson

In yesterday’s press conference Julia Gillard said this:

“As for me, obviously at the time these matters came to the attention of the partnership they came to my attention too. I did not have in front of me any evidence of criminality or wrong doing but there was a lot of rumour about what was happening in the Victorian branch of the AWU at that time.”

In those circumstances I came to a personal decision about ending my relationship with Mr Wilson and I did so. Then of course the Slater & Gordon internal review went through and you see the outcome of that review.”

But in the August press conference she said this:

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, as I understand it, when these issues were first questioned within the AWU, the matter was looked at, at Slater & Gordon by Bernard Murphy. Now, I presume he then informed you of these issues. What was your reaction at that time? This is specifically the activities of Mr Blewitt and Mr Wilson?

PM: Well, I’m not in a position, for all the obvious reasons about legal professional privilege, to canvas the contents of files operated by solicitors at Slater & Gordon.

What I can say to you, Dennis, and what I think your question is trying to drive at is once I became aware that I had been deceived about a series of matters, I ended my relationship with Mr Wilson.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, at any point were you aware that this workplace reform association was to receive lumps of money from companies like THEISS and John Holland?

PM: I was not aware of the receipt of these funds. I had no knowledge about the operation of the association. I provided advice, as the association was established, I then knew absolutely nothing about its workings until allegations about its workings became the subject of discussion within the AWU and then more broadly.

And

JOURNALIST: Did you confront Bruce Wilson personally after certain matters were raised with you? What was the atmosphere of that meeting and what are your feelings towards him now?

PM: I ended our relationship and I know that there’s some material in today’s Australian which would lead people to believe that our national newspapers are for Mills & Boon style recounts of words spoken between people who were formerly in a close relationship. It’s not my intention to canvas those matters. And it’s not my intention to canvas them because by definition there can be no public interest in them. I ended the relationship. That is the significant fact.

JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, when the scandal erupted and it became known that this money had been stolen by two shysters, who told you? Was it someone at the AWU or was it Bernard Murphy who’d been told by someone else?

PM: Well, I can’t go to matters of privilege, but first and foremost, allegations were being raised and dealt with within the AWU. Those allegations came to my attention. I formed a view that I had not been dealt with honestly and based on that view I ended a relationship I had back then, 17 years ago.

So in August they were allegations against Bruce Wilson which one assumes were obviously backed up by evidence as a person does not make serious allegations without evidence, but yesterday Ms Gillard said they were just rumours.

In August Julia Gillard said she was “deceived” by Bruce Wilson and ended the relationship. That clearly says she had hard evidence, not just rumours. But yesterday she says she ended the relationship with Wilson based on the rumours.

Julia Gillard is trying to back away from having knowledge of the crimes in 1995/1996 so she can justify not going to the police or AWU with her knowledge in 1995/96. What is Ms Gillard saying? That in her interview with Slater and Gordon in 1995 over these matters they said to her, “Ms Gillard we have heard rumours about Bruce Wilson, we have no evidence just rumours.” From my memory of the transcript Slater and Gordon had documented evidence, such as Slater and Gordon’s own files, not just rumours when they interviewed Ms Gillard.

I could write plenty more but I do not want to lose the focus which is why does Julie Gillard not go to the police now given that the Victorian Police are investigating. Quite simple, Ms Gillard will not go to the police now for the same reason she did not go in 1995, she is lying and if she goes to the police and gives evidence against Bruce Wilson he might do the same against her. If they both keep their mouths shut they will probably get away with the fraud and theft.

It would be greatly appreciated if you spend a minute using Twitter, Facebook and email etc and promote this post. Just click on the icons below.

And 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, buy a t-shirt, coffee mug  or a copy of my book. The links are below.

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 her to visit the website)

Thank you for your support.

Tags: , , , , ,

55 Comments on “Julia Gillard changes her story again in the AWU fraud scandal at yesterday’s press conference”

  1. Geoff U November 27, 2012 at 4:24 pm #

    Shane, your grammar/word usage is pathetic. What does this mean? “…Blewitt had to of lied to …’ OF lied – beats me.

    • Badjack November 27, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

      Nit picker. That is a very common phrase, maybe you need to research before you go to print.

    • aussieblue88 November 27, 2012 at 6:07 pm #

      Oh, Geoff U give us a break. Shane isn’t the only one to make this mistake….hundreds do every day. Unless you have a big GOLD STAR IN ENGLISH then butt out. By the way, no comment on the subject? Covering for JEG won’t do you any good…..

      • Shane Dowling November 27, 2012 at 10:49 pm #

        Geoff is what is known as a troll who comes on sites like this to take comments off topic. I was at work and he slipped through moderation and as numerous people have responded to him I will leave it. No more responses to him please.

  2. getting sticky November 27, 2012 at 4:27 pm #

    Interesting to note that Ms Gillard’s legal opinion seems to be totally valid for her interpretation of events (especially given her exhalted current position). However far more learned legal eagles very strongly argue the case for her advice as being a complete conflict of interest; that as the AWU was her actual CLIENT, the far more senior executives of that union should have been definitely advised of Messrs Wilson’s and Blewett’s separate slush fund and her legal involvement in same. Maybe this should be tested in a court of law.

  3. Peter November 27, 2012 at 4:28 pm #

    If she did nothing wrong, and is a innocent person in all of these scandals, why did she resign as a partner of SLATER and GORDON? why would a lawyer leave her place of employment if she was putting in a hard, honest days work and she did nothing wrong. Could you imagine an executive chef leaving his job because his waitress girlfriend got caught stealing a bottle of red wine. None of this makes sense.

  4. Ivan November 27, 2012 at 4:56 pm #

    1. In yesterdays press conference, the PM said she did not set up the Aust Workplace Relations Association
    Then in the next sentence she said ‘ when I set up the Aust Workplace Relations Association’
    Which is it
    Which of the journalists will take the PM up on this
    2. I can remember a case where some years ago, one of my clients suggested an inappropriate property matter procedure that they were going to use, to their lawyer. The lawyer explained the illegality of this procedure and refused to take further instructions, (sacked the client). I now realise the difference between a good lawyer and a bad lawyer. Is that what S and G realised in 1995?

  5. Dick Tracey November 27, 2012 at 4:56 pm #

    Gillard refers to the statements made outside the House.She won’t answer the same questions in the House because she could be charged with misleading Parliament.

  6. ABOMINAL SNOW WOMAN November 27, 2012 at 4:58 pm #

    SHANE,
    I THINK SHE IS REALLY WORRIED, HOWEVER ,SHE HAS A TEAM OF THE HIGHTEST PAID LAWYERS IN THE LAND AT HER DISPOSAL, SO SHE WILL HANG ON LIKE GRIM DEATH.
    RALPH B WAS VERY IMPRESSIVE ON 7.30 LAST NIGHT SO COOL INTELLIGENT AND THOUGHTFUL.

  7. Pat McCann November 27, 2012 at 5:14 pm #

    Geoff U. , Are you trying to do a “Gillard” and divert people from Shanes article? He has been working hard to get information on this matter, to all the people! Snide remarks are not required. I suggest you check the grammatical errors made by the PM!

    • H. W. S. November 27, 2012 at 6:37 pm #

      Agreed, look at substance rather than be a professional nit picker.

  8. 2 Bobs Worth November 27, 2012 at 5:16 pm #

    Gillard was comprehensively nailed in question time today by Julie Bishop.
    Bishop asked Gillard a question along these lines.
    Given that she said she was unaware of the money ($5000) deposited into you bank account at the request of Wilson, how can she now be sure that the money did not come from the proceeds of the fraudulently obtained funds Wilson obtained illegally?
    Gillard was shielded by the sisterhood in the speaker’s chair ruling the question out of order.

  9. Pat McCann November 27, 2012 at 5:16 pm #

    Shane, thanks for keeping us informed of all the mistakes made by GILLARD! It is hard to keep record these days.

  10. curious November 27, 2012 at 5:30 pm #

    Gillard you can only run for so long!

  11. ABOMINAL SNOW WOMAN November 27, 2012 at 6:06 pm #

    GEOFF U DID THAT SNIDE REMARK MAKE YOU FEEL IMPORTANT?
    THE TIME AND EFFORT SHANE HAS PUT INTO THIS WEBSITE IS CONSIDERABLE.
    AND REQUIRES CONSIDERABLE COURAGE.
    YOUR SNIDE REMARK IS NOT APPRECIATED BY THIS BLOGGER.

  12. Sam The Man November 27, 2012 at 6:11 pm #

    Her excuse was : i was young & naive . Isn’t that an admission of guilt.
    In other words , Yes, but I was young & naive. That’s her excuse ?? Pathetic !
    I agree with Ivan (above), she says she did not set up the Association, but next day contradicted herself by saying “when I set up” the Association. Gradually the truth will come out if the opposition & media keep up the pressure.

  13. H. W. S. November 27, 2012 at 6:56 pm #

    Shane,
    Been awhile, but I suggest you look at section 178 B and A of the NSw Crimes act (now repealed) as it applied at a relevant time. It was introduced by AG Frank Walker to deal with corporate criminals. A very underutilized provision. Basically it was: any one by deception obtains a financial benefit for themselves or a other by deception is guilty etc.
    I often theorized that if a politician obtained a benefit by being elected and therefore paid, based on false promises to the electors, then the politician may have breached the section/s by deceiving the electorate for financial gain, i.e the office and salary. ( us perks!)
    I suspect that the politicians eventually woke up and repealed the sections, just in case a jury got on to them for their knowing false deception/s.
    Have to love them, Frank Walker, I salute you. RIP.

  14. H. W. S. November 27, 2012 at 7:32 pm #

    Geoff U,
    My most humberlest apologeesus for my typographical errorours in my post. Just loook up 178B and 178ba as it was in NSW in the middle naughties.

    • phiston November 27, 2012 at 7:59 pm #

      Geoff U.. I agree with you that Shane’s grammar is a bit off at times (including the instance you referred to)… however, his stories are spot on!
      So, I suggest that we have a royal inquiry costing millions of $$ please! into his grammatical errors, nit pick at his use of the word ‘of’, and all the while the story is going unnoticed because we are concentrating on the correct or incorrect usage of words.
      If you are so concerned with Shane’s grammar, what would you do with Julia’s integrity?

  15. curious November 27, 2012 at 7:53 pm #

    Watching Bruce Wilson tonight, blind Freddy could tell he was lieing. Just his body language said it all, looking up and touching his face with his hands are good indicators of lieing. Anyone backing Gillard and Co. is looking pretty shabby!

    • H. W. S. November 27, 2012 at 8:09 pm #

      Be was a pathos sight and the interviewer more so. She slapped him with a wet lettuce leaf. I gave up when she did not press him on why the property was not purchased in his name. Does the ABC not do some research and consider the possibility of the purchase in another name may have something to do with matrimonial proceedings. Why are we paying for the ABC incompetents?

      Ethnic to do w

      • H. W. S. November 27, 2012 at 8:11 pm #

        Sorry Geoff, more typos. I-phones suck.

      • curious November 27, 2012 at 8:31 pm #

        I wonder if it was a strategy that Leigh Sales did’nt interview Wilson as she had interviewed Blewitt the night before. That way it hides the bias in the way questions are asked! I noticed too their was No ” You can see the full extract of that interview on http://www.blah blah blah”

      • Paul November 28, 2012 at 9:59 am #

        Why are we paying for the ABC incompetents?

        We are paying for stenographers, not journalists. Journalism is not on TV or in the papers anymore, its here on the Web.

      • Sonja Kraskov November 28, 2012 at 10:05 am #

        Spot on Paul. Main stream media is a farce. Our Govt, following in the US Govt’s footsteps, are and will do their best to close non-stream (truthful) media down.

  16. H. W. S. November 27, 2012 at 8:23 pm #

    As a matter pertinent to section 178, in a Darlinghurst District Court in the late 70’s, early 80’s a ‘fortune teller’ was convicted for obtaining money by deception, i.e.: getting money for fortune telling. Now what be if a politician foretells the future with promises and is proved a liar!
    Poor politicians, the sections had to disappear, they are very poor fortune tellers!

  17. suan November 27, 2012 at 9:16 pm #

    The 7.30 report tonight was a matter of considerable interest..forgive me, for all I know she may be some high flying journo that I’d missed along the way..but I’d never seen her before..why was a low profile journo sent to interview Wilson and the hard questions asked. For instance some of the questions Shane has written and the one that Sam the Man asked up there^
    I’ve read those questions before so surely a journo had.

    Wilson looked as though someone had glassed him sometime and came across as very nervous, looked sideways a lot and, as Gillard has stated, didn’t recall a lot.

    And Blewitt had some 100g odd buried in his backyard? omg! when is the movie coming out?

    Gillard’s choice is men is rather low brow considering she’s such a high flyer..

    • H. W. S. November 27, 2012 at 9:33 pm #

      The PM’s judgement of choice of partner has not improved, lately the PM chose globalist Bob Brown and earthling Christine.
      Perhaps naivety never passes.

    • Carrie Patten November 30, 2012 at 7:49 am #

      There is surely some record of the eventual sale of Kerr Street as the Gov. and ATO always love to “follow the money”. Who put it up for sale/who bought it and the exchange of funds. Whoever carried out the legal work on the transaction would have been responsible for disbursements? And note the profit.. Had Wilson/Blewitt renovated to good enough standard for AWU to have decent profit to justify the expense of having slush funds available to speculate with? ALSO: as any 30 yr old ‘young and naive’ partner in a proficient firm of solicitors who just got her rear end kicked, wouldn’t it be a balance of probability to be visibly distancing herself from the likely fraud against their client, AWU, by going to the cops, recommending the deregistration of fund with ASIC etc..? Even more probable as she was involved in setting up Emily’s List – for women to compete in a man’s world: politics. Our PM’s banging on the gender drum, but Sister Roxon of Emily’s List also, didn’t advocate deregistering AWWRA when she took on AWU file at Maurice .Blackburn’s?? They are a stinky, sleazy sisters giving women a rotten name. Thank God for the beautiful Dolce Bishop!

  18. Gazza November 27, 2012 at 11:38 pm #

    It is a sad indictment of the firm that employed her:Slater and Gordon.

    • robh November 28, 2012 at 10:47 am #

      Let us not forget, Gazza Slater and Gordon is the firm who so enthusiastically took over the infamous Keddies firm an took on board one of its partners up to his neck in the overcharging scams .
      How bad would you have to be to be shown the door by a crowd like this?

  19. ABOMINAL SNOW WOMAN November 28, 2012 at 12:06 am #

    SUAN, I AGREE WITH YOU LOW BROW IS THE WORD, HOWEVER, AT LEAST WILSON DID NOT WEAR HIS USUAL SINGLET.

  20. concernedwhistleblower November 28, 2012 at 8:27 am #

    What I found very interesting in the interview with Wilson last night (which didn’t seem to get picked up) is that Wilson stated that he had gone to another solicitor first and that solicitor refused to deal with him over some technicalities and that is why he then went to his girlfriend….I would love to know who that firm was and grab their files to see what evidence they possess and what the technicalities were?????

    • terry November 29, 2012 at 1:48 am #

      Your comment is so spot on, obviously, a ethical lawyer refused his instructions.

  21. Ivan November 28, 2012 at 9:25 am #

    Concernedwhistleblower, that observation is HOT. See my comments above (27 Nov). It would follow that if that other solicitor said the proposed activity (setting up the Association) was illegal, then why did Wilson’s girlfriend do the proposed activity. Who was that Solicitor ?
    And last night some journalists were saying that this ephisode is going nowhere ! !
    Who are they kidding?

    • concernedwhistleblower November 28, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

      Absolutely!!!! Even if it was only minor technicalities….why didn’t he have that law firm fix up the issues????? Hopefully this angle can be looked at further…..

  22. Bob Anderson November 28, 2012 at 10:38 am #

    Hi Shane and all helpers. Keep up the great work.
    Australia is at the crossroads!!!
    I think more should be made of the following-:
    As I see it, Gillard went with Wilson to WA where she successfully assured the miners that it was in their interest to allow their Widows & Orphans support fund for Miners families ($500,000+) to be moved from their local account to a bank account in Perth under the control of Wilson. She cannot deny this. It seems there were plenty of witnesses!
    No doubt her recommendation carried the substantial weight that came from her being a partner of the “prestigious” AWU Legal Advisers, Law firm, Slater & Gordon.
    She surely knew that she had successfully conned them & that the money was transferred from their account.
    A partner in a leading Law Firm would surely satisfy him/herself as to the
    bona fides of what he/she was recommending to the working people, in whose welfare she is always so concerned.
    She would have been further assured of that transfer, when the Miners began to kick up a stink when they realized they had been conned.
    Surely she was involved or at the very least aware when the writ for defamation was drafted and issued by her legal partnership and signed off on by B. Murphy. How could she not put 2 + 2 together even if she had not drafted it. This is a laugh!!
    If she had not been implicit in the scam, (ha, ha) she would certainly be very much aware by then, that the whole thing was a con job and they needed to take urgent action to silence the Miners so that her dirty work did not come to light.
    Who instigated the writ and who paid the costs? As Ralph Blewitt was the man in hot seat, did he brief S & G, and if so, was the fee charged to him and if so, did he pay it?
    The fee for the preparation and issue of such a writ would be in excess of $20,000.
    Was it another pro bono job? And if so, why the generosity to Ralph? She seems to think he is a very unworthy person.
    Who was covering for who?
    Great work everybody, the future of Australia is at stake with this corrupt gang in charge.
    Larfa

    • phiston November 28, 2012 at 2:53 pm #

      Hi Bob – good comment(s), however you raised a question which I think I may be able to help answer. Your question, ” How could she not put 2 + 2 together even if she had not drafted it.”? My suggested answer… SHE WAS INNOCENT, YOUNG AND NAIVE!

      As a fellow concerned Aussie, I have to wonder what the younger people of this nation will do if they ever have to provide answers in a court… will they defiantly protest their innocence and quote our present PM as their example?

  23. curious November 28, 2012 at 4:19 pm #

    Another good laugh was when Wilson said he did’nt go to the Police when he was aware Blewitt was burying money in his back yard and some money had been destroyed by the weather, to me that implys, well thats where all the money dissappeared! Who needs to watch “bold and the Beautiful and sorry about my Typos!

  24. J Fuller November 29, 2012 at 12:17 am #

    ashamed
    I was ashamed of the behaviour of the Speaker of the House – this lady receives hundred and thousands of dollars and yet she does not control the house. She should make sure the Prime Minister answers the questions and not carry on like she has all week and not answer one question put to her by Julie Bishop.

    • ivan November 29, 2012 at 2:46 am #

      It is so obvious this Speaker is impotent and biases. The should be made to answer questions and not carry pm with her ‘hysterical phrases
      I hope some hard evidence of corrupt behaviour is revealed soon and the unbiased parts of the media follow through.

  25. Paul November 29, 2012 at 9:18 am #

    My reading now is that these latest revelations may perversely support the “young and naive” defense to some degree in that she may have been led by the nose by a charismatic individual. The question of culpability will come down to motive now that it is proven objectively that she crafted the communications that deceived the Commissioner into letting the WRA be incorporated. She certainly did it, but did she do it knowing she could benefit personally from it? This I think is where her role in Kerr Street and the POA comes in. If the POA can be objectively proven to be phony then we have an ongoing timeline of active and knowing participation in an extensive fraud, young and naive or not. If she was naively doing the bidding of a strong personality that controlled her then at the least her judgement is seriously at issue, and she is clearly unfit to be a Prime Minister, or a even lawyer, as S&G worked out for themselves.

    Labor are stuck with her now. No other Leader, outside of Rudd would look credible and Rudd would not tolerate any of Gillard’s factional conspirators in his ranks. The bloodletting would be magnificent to watch.

    • Badjack November 29, 2012 at 10:00 am #

      If you believe the guy who was on the 7-30 report saying he was Bruce Wilson is a charismatic individual with a strong personality who was able to influence the young and naive Industrial Relations Lawyer and Partner in a Labor law firm then may I suggest you fold your arms across your chest when you retire to bed each night.
      You would have us believe a charismatic individual with a strong personality who went on to become a down and out wimp was able to influence and force a young and naive girl who went on to become a ruthless politician lacking a moral compass to do dreadful and possibly illegal acts. OK I buy it!!!

      • Paul November 29, 2012 at 10:32 am #

        I’m talking about then, not now, and her opinion of him then, not yours of him now. But I know what you’re saying. I’m just speculating about possibilities, not excusing her. She’s clung pretty hard to “young and naive”. Maybe she should have gone with “young and stupid”.

  26. phiston November 29, 2012 at 10:07 am #

    It certainly appears to me that the ‘sisterhood’ (including certain members of Emily’s List) may have a strong hand in all of this. With our current GG not doing anything (not that I can see anyway) about what is taking place appears to be supporting the rather obvious corruption relating to the current Labor party.

    The madam speaker also appears to be in strong support of the ‘sisterhood’ whether it be Emily’s List or not. Ms Bishop is a very brave woman indeed and I support her for taking a stand for what is good and right especially considering that what she is doing is like a lone wolf being thrown at the mercy of the pack. Unfortunately, that is how the ‘sisterhood’ is now behaving, in my opinion!

    (Some) Parliamentarians, politicians, Members of the Legislative Assembly (call them what you will) and (some) members of the judiciary in this nation are members of a very elite club – a club that is hell-bent on the destruction of what we hold dear to us – Australia and a good future for our children and their children etc.

    What a bunch of thugs we have in ‘government’ and parliament in this nation. Never before in our nation’s history have we been privy to the stench of rotten governance that this current bunch is offering! Thankfully there ARE some good people among all those thugs!

  27. Paul November 29, 2012 at 11:23 am #

    I’m watching the defenses of Gillard now being offered by various Labor Party people today. Its going beyond politics, they are actually abetting in the concealment of a fraud now. The argument in the real media (the Internet) has moved beyond whether she did it to how she did it. I bet she wishes Wilson had kept his yap shut. I expect a political “resolution” to be thrown up from within Labor pretty soon.

  28. dahlialama November 30, 2012 at 10:12 am #

    Is it possible that the Young Gillard was the one with forceful charisma who might have set up Wilson & Blewitt at a time when she clearly needed to fund an ambition to pursue an active role in politics? Being approached by Dave’s Mum: Joan Kirner to establish Emily’s List perhaps indicates she was recognised as being more than “young and naive”?
    Is it possible she was the ringleader ? As she actively demonstrates in her current circus of a government. Young naive unemployable as a lawyer stabs PM in back and grabs title for herself. It would explain why she wasn’t proactive in rectifying the fraud she “unwittingly” set up. Was any AWU donation received with Emily’s List?

    • Badjack December 1, 2012 at 5:35 am #

      No one seems the slightest bit interested in checking out where the money that Emily’s List has accumulated came from originally. Kirner needs checking out also, she was one dumb but very crafty vixen.

    • Bob Mack December 4, 2012 at 1:40 am #

      dahlialama,

      Wow, after seeing both Wilson & Blewitt on tv, you may have something there. I remember Wilson on the Rankin platform back in the eighties and idn’t think his actions were particularly clever. Maybe Gillard was the mastermind,, not leaving a file that could be referenced, no paper trail, no crime. What a tangled web she weaves. Methinks that may be that is why she displays such outrage when anyone dares to ask her a question. “How dare they?”. She must be delusional and thinks she is smarter than everyonbe else. Delusions of granduer as well, she thinks it’s “her government”, it’s all her’s and me with Gillard. What a tragic spectacle she is.

  29. plumber perth November 30, 2012 at 1:02 pm #

    i have left my comments till the end of the week i cannot help but feel sorry for tony Abbott every time he gets up to put a question to gillard all she can do is start on the msyonge attack and sexist rants well i think he has her on the ropes and she knows it.i for one am sick and tired of listing to her and her front bench i switch of or switch channels not to listen to them.great company she kept in her young and naive days when she criticizes them to be lowlifes deadbeats lairs thieves and stupid have i left anything out.

  30. Jazza November 30, 2012 at 10:59 pm #

    Julia Gillard’s gutter language and guerilla demeanour in the parliament is testament to the old adage that when your target cannot refute your facts, he or she will attack you or yours personally. She has been like a vicious tigress, almost spitting at Julie Bishop ,but I don’t think that attack will prove her best form of defence when the Victorian police finish investigating Michael’s Smith’s complaint.,since Ralph Blewitt has given his statements after conferring with his lawyers
    it is great to see Tony Abbott with his mojo back and he and Brandis committing to a judicial enquiry, i have some hope now that the right chickens will eventually come home to the right roost SOON!
    At the worst, this whole matter will be part of the Coalition’s election platform, so the days are numbered for Gillard and her past and present co conspirators in this union rorting game,and if Labor leave her in the chair she will just be a target till the day she is forced to step down one way or another,and a millstone round their necks trying to get people to believe a word she says.
    As Michael says, and “unedifying spectacle of the police taking her from the Lodge…”

  31. Gazza December 1, 2012 at 8:50 am #

    Gillard’s staff wrote her victory speech for the 2010 leadership election two weeks prior to her challenge, contradicting Gillard’s earlier claims that she had only resolved to challenge Rudd the day before the vote. This revelation caused particular conflict between Labor factions,cheeseman called on her to resign.
    Well we know she lied here.

  32. Jeffrey December 1, 2012 at 6:41 pm #

    She repeatedly says she’s “done nothing wrong”.
    But at an absolute minimum surely she breached her legal ethical duties as a lawyer by acting for Blewitt and Wilson in conflict of interest with her client AWU.

  33. geofflomas December 5, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

    Why is this taking so long? Are these facts correct?
    1/ Blewitt and Wilson entered into a fraud together.
    2/ The Authorities stopped it.
    3/ Blewitt and Wilson sought Gillards legal expertise to get round the Authorities, which she did….Isn’t this, ‘Accessory before the fact’? Gillard would have known that.
    4/ Gillard aquired ‘Power of Attorney’ Doesn’t this make her the leader of the fraud, if the Union didn’t grant it?
    5/ Gillard provided this service without telling her employers and without seeking direct payment from Blewitt and Wilson. Doesn’t this make her an accomplice at least.?
    6/ Gillard new that the fraud had netted enough money to buy a house. She was at the auction.
    7/ Gillard is now refusing to answer questions about her involvement. Isn’t this ‘Accessory after the fact’?

  34. Jazza December 20, 2012 at 1:21 pm #

    It’s a no brainer that Quid pro quo applies” if she spoke out against Bruce he’d dob her in it,and that still applies so they are still conniving albeit through a Mc Ternan or third person of that ilk.!
    Now they both try to blame Blewitt for it all and claim they are white as snow. It is as plain as a nose on a face that she and Wilson cooked up all the angles they played!

    That woman is an undignified, crass , egotistical,manipulative,possibly sociopathic ,loose with the truth “crook”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s