Julia Gillard has misled parliament on who sought the dodgy AWU association, which was used to defraud the AWU, in an attempt to protect her former boyfriend Bruce Wilson. Gillard and Wilson are playing the blame Ralph Blewitt game to protect themselves.
Bruce Wilson was the brains behind the fraud and setting up the association to facilitate the fraud and Ralph Blewitt was the dummy he had sign the documents to register it which the video shows.
The below video is of the interview that Bruce Wilson did on Tuesday this week for the 7.30 report and of Julia Gillard in parliament on Thursday. They clearly contradict each other.
.
(The full interview on the 7.30 report with Bruce Wilson goes for 17 minutes. Click here to watch.)
Julia Gillard is limiting what she says about Bruce Wilson as she knows if she says the wrong thing it could be used against him in a court of law and more importantly end her career. In the above video Julia Gillard was fully aware that she was misleading Parliament.
I had Thursday afternoon off work to watch parliament question time which is the reason I came across Julia Gillard misleading parliament. Having Thursday afternoon off work was only possible because of the supporters of this site so you all did your bit.
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.
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.
Categories: Julia Gillard
How can this Prime Ministers actions not be, at the very least, a misprision?
I emailed this question to a morning talk show programme & received a standard ‘out of office’ response, though I note Julie Bishop on the same show the following day made scant reference to this avenue.
I’m sure, had I behaved in such a fashion, my doors would have been kicked in.
She will not sue any one even if they were to front her in the streets with the T,V. cameras rolling. Why, because she isn’t all that certain of who knows what, and who has what in the way of evidence against her. With out any court action the evidence cant realy be displayed, but can be denied by her. But don’t give up, Gillard is a criminal and sooner or latter will face her crimes against the workers sh helped to defraud.
KEN T HOPE YOU ARE RIGHT.
I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF POWERFUL PEOPLE DOING THEIR BEST TO SEE JUSTICE IS DONE, JUST AS MANY PEOPLE DOING THEIR BEST TO PROTECT HER AND MANY MANY OTHERS
No one is prepared to publicly ‘call’ her on the illegalities she partook in.
Shane if someone did openly challenge her and call her a crook and she sued that person for defamation would that person have the right to put all the documented evidence to the court so that he could prove his innocence of defaming her. If that documented evidence proved he had not defamed her would there then be a case to have her charged with crimes.
This site and others have been calling her a criminal for a long time and she takes no action because she can not.
Shane, I know you and some other blogs do but I was talking about the weak kneed Press Gallery
Badjack…wish she would sue somebody for defamation, then as you say, all the evidence would be tabled in court. she wouldn’t get away with saying, I said all that at my press conferences. this, I would like to see.
SMUDGE YOU MIGHT GET BASHED LIKE BOB K OR GET YOUR HOUSE BURNT DOWN., BUT YOU WON’T GET SUED.
I THINK SOMEONE SHOULD CONFRONT HER PERSONALLY FOR EXAMPLE
“JOOYLA THERE IS A BLOG KCA IT HAS PUBLISHED A POST JULIA GILLARD”S PAST, IT HAS BEEN ARCHIVED BY THE NATIONAL LIBRARY,
WHY DON’T YOU SUE” NOW THAT WOULD BE FUN.
Hi Badjack – Gillard used the word ‘defamatory’ a numbe rof times when responding to the Abbott interview Thursday morning – mentioning the word was all theatre … she will not sue because it would all become exposed … the Press have no real balls – she rides roughshod over them and they are intimindated by her.
How any political party can keep a prime minister like this is beyond me. They seem to be hell bent on loosing the next election. Dig a bit further and you will find this is not all she did. Many in the labor government who are rushing up to defend her have also been cosy bed-fellows with her.
Somehow, someone has to bring charges to an impartial court of law. That unfortunately means some of the aggrieved need the courage to get out of the ALP stranglehold and lay the charges. The second part of this action is to select who to charge and with what breaches of what laws? The miscreants include not just ex-lawyer Julia but her co-conspirators, the AWU, Slater & Gordon, The third part is to find a court that is not infested with ALP stooges and appointments to hear the case.
For the ordinary man in the street this would involve one of our police forces working through one of the prosecuting Commissions that have proliferated. However the ALP hold the various police forces and commissions in their grip and control that game.
Beware haste at this time . Witness how the ALP, two police forces, and several government departments managed to subvert the course of justice in the case of Jayant Patel in Qld. The ALP have form and the shysters in-house to prolong this matter until the next election.Julia hasn’t the legal horsepower or brilliance to pull this off. on her own.
She’s pulling in a lot of markers, building a house of cards that must be knocked
over.
As the police and others are supposed to be investigating, you are right, hasten slowly and pray the Law is on our side!
The Vic Pol look like they are backing away from their investigation using the “none of the involved parties have complained” excuse. Everyone is in everyone else’s pocket when it comes to this fraud.
not infested with ALP stooges and appointments to hear the case…
Aye, there’s the rub…
i watched that interview talk about evassive and that young reporter why not someone like leigh sales or one of those other gun reporters that the abc has stacked up and show there true colours when intervieiwing any liberal member than a labor member well as far as i concerned they where all in it.no one is going to put there hand up to this so lets move on and let this labor goverment slowley destroy themselve naturally.
Don’t know if it’s a red back or a black widow but it sure has woven a tangled web …with more than a few flies stuck to it.
Re: Bruce Wilson, “His word against mine, make up your mind”
The sycophants sitting behind her disgust me, and going by what I read in the Sunday paper the majority of Australian’s want to see them gone also.
Well spotted Shane, another reason the Police need to talk to him…
The interview with Bruce Wilson was a farce, the interviewer was outclassed by a stupid criminal who stated he had not made any material gain from the AWU slushfund as Gillard called it and then tells us that she knew nothing of the setup and operations of the association. He is a liar bluwett is a liar and gillard is a liar,they have all committed crimes and are covering their arses. Regardless of Shane’s and others valiant efforts I can see the slimy person and her equally slimy mates walking away with this and her with a big pension I couldn’t jump over with a vaulting pole the other two have already had their reward for robbing the poor,Robin Hood got a knighthood. Allan Myalup WA.
The interviewer wasn’t outclassed, the interviewer did exactly as required.
Maybe we will see more of that interviewer now, or maybe a step up the ladder for her! She has paid her homage to corruption!
nice choice of words couldn’t have said it better myself.
Shane, well done a an excellent video that puts everything into context. It appears the noose is tightening. Whilst the Labour Party is corrupt from the top down I hope nobody thinks the Liberals aren’t? They are just different sides of the same coin. Corrupt lawyers, such as Gillard, have infested politics on either side. The real story lies in the fronts known as Australia’s State Legal Service Commissioners and Boards who are supposedly “independent” and protect the public from corrupt lawyers. They are merely fronts protecting lawyers whilst they go about their business of corruption. Certain law firms breed corrupt lawyers who then rise into politics. Just look at the front bench (and back bench’s) and you will see a disproportionate amount of lawyers……These politicians know how to use the law for their own devices. Next time you vote ask yourself am I voting for a lawyer?
Letting lawyers into political parties and into parliament is like giving the asylum keys to the inmates. Lawyers and their considerable incomes rely on there being too much legislation for the oft-quoted reasonable man in the street to ever understand and be able to rely on or enjoy the fair rule of law. Legislative Assemblies, by any name, keep lawyers in work.
In every court proceeding there are three lawyers involved, the defence, the prosecution and the judge. No matter what the outcome, all will be paid for their erudition and slant placed on the facts.That is why Americans call them shysters. .
Julia is devious, but far from stupid. She will be hard to catch out . Even harder because the opposition catchers are also lawyers.
Edward III had it right when he barred lawyers from parliament in 1372. But by 1422 In Henry V’s parliamentum there were 40 lawyers back among the 262 sitting members.
Today, the Australian parliamentum is headed up by one and a very junior one at that. Problem is, if there were a change of government we would only be replacing one lawyer PM with another.
Julia Gillard is definitely misleading parliament. She is protecting Bruce Wilson because if she says that Wilson was behind the frauds, Wilson will likely blow the whistle on Gillard. That’s why they are both blaming blewitt. However Bruce Wilsons performance on the 7.30 report a few days ago was a dumb one, and Gillards rude, nasty performance on parliament over the last few days refusing to answer questions on the fraud could make the Victorian police list Gillard & Wilson as persons of interest in the investigation of the awu fraud.
Dear Sir,
I am an avid follower of your newsletter.
I’m not sure of the veracity of the attached but it does raise some serious questions.
Best regards
John Blakey
Perth WA
When Gillard and Co. use the excuse it happened two decades ago means what? That it is ancient history? No way it should! People been deceptive and good at it will generally get away with it for years and than down the track the truth emerges. Any amount of time should be viewed as a deterrent! Otherwise deception wins!
What Gilliard fails to address when she said, “Oh that was 17 years ago” is that there are no statute of limitations for serious indictable offences such as “Obtaining Property by Deception etc.” Gillard as a lawyer would or should know better but instead treats us the public like fools with utter contempt.
Conspiracy (to defraud, to steal, to import drugs, to kill whatever) has always been premeditated and therefore difficut to prove. Neither conspirator can afford give the other up. It usually takes a bit of genuine, good police work. There is evidence to be gathered.
Labor corruption is everywhere , parliament , corrupt Federal and State courts , corrupted press media and corrupt lawyers all feeding off a corrupt system of government , WELCOME TO CORRUPTION AUSTRALIA INC. by Labor .
ITS THE CORRUPTION WE HAVE TO HAVE ! According to Gillard and co.
Unfortuneately she has used the word Mysogynist, so therefore she can now get away with intimidateing all men and standing over them and if anyone gets the better for her, she brings them down by useing the word MYSOGYNIST. Bronwyn Bishop has her number, but her age has got her on the back foot.
Quite frankly I do not know of a woman in the Liberal Party who has such a wickedness to match her… Although I think it has to be a woman to bring her down……….Julie Bishop may need to get tougher and dirtier to match Julia Gillard.
I watched the interview of Wilson and it is very interesting to count the number of times he swallows, hesitates and looks to the left. The ‘body language’ of a liar. On the other hand the wily old JULIAR is a master/mistress (pun intended) of her craft…Lying. She has done it for most of her life and she is a ‘pearler’ so you won’t see her swallowing, hesitating and looking to the left. However, I have said it before and I will say it again: Unless some one brings forward some concrete, undenaible, printed evidence and gives it to the Police then she and all of her thieving, lying cronies will walk away from all of this with their pockets full of Union Member’s money laughing at all of us.
Gillard is lying. It is not the lawyer who “acts on instructions”, it is the other way around. There is a legal problem (with the incorporation) then a lawyer – who understands the applicable laws, and that is what lawyers do – instructs the client on how to facilitate incorporation. OK, so Wilson got a lawyer (who got it seriously wrong) to fix up the application. He created a dodgy body and got sprung. He should sue her for malpractice.
Gillard keeps telling us “she was acting on instructions”. If those instructions were for her to give advice on how to avert or break the law then the advice should have been ‘I cannot advise you how to break or avert the law’. Now, she could choose to offer that advice and even help them break the law, but she would do it in the knowledge she was being unethical at the least or breaking the law herself. Or am I young and naive at 65.
I read this on another blog.
Enough said?
“Australian Bar Review, vol 5 No 1 March 1989 page 1 refers to conspiracy to defraud and aiding and abetting a breach of the law as the two areas of the criminal law which potentially apply to professional advice.His Honour McHugh J said (in part) “…when the lawyer goes beyond advice and draws documents for the purpose of enabling a client to achieve an objective, it is, I think, almost impossible to contend that the adviser does not aid the commission of any offence which results.”
If nothing else, surely section 170 of criminal code should get her charged.
I think wilson has been brutalised over the years by unionists who’ve told him his life’s not worth living if he breathes a word of any of this. Look at how he looked through the curtains and yes, you’re right about the swallowing .He’s s..t scared and it’s not of the police – it’s of the hierarchy in the union!! Did you notice how an earlier photo inthe paper had him holding a kid? That was to remind him of just what’s at stake. He was speaking from a simple, simple script with things like “she knew nothing” and “recycled and recycled and recycled” It rang so UN TRUE.
Wilson would have had a agreement when he left the AWU. The confidence this lot had in their fraud tells me that they were Not the only ones doing it! They just caught the contagious fever and maybe went ” out of control”. Another question I would like to put out their! Does the AWU launder drug money? Just invent members? How many real members are on their books?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AWU_affair
Now the efforts of Shane and others will gain more traction. And hillbilly.
The Law Schools of Australia will be eternally grateful to Julia for her exemplification of how to subvert the Law. As a practicing atheist she knows confession is NOT good for the soul. Pleas of guilty as charged do nothing for employment in the Legal Profession.
Julia’s “Tell ’em nothing, take ’em nowhere, finger up the witnesses’ backside to give straightened back,” approach must surely make Law Schools of Australia proud of their product.
She’d have got Ned Kelley off. Cardinal Pell would be well advised to ask her to take his case before the upcoming Royal Commission.
The RC is to take attention away from her own crimes. She needs for Pell to take a fall here. Otherwise, it would have been a great idea.
Thats it! Sad how they use Royal Commissions and Victoria Cross’s for political reasons!