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.
Justice Rares
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.
No respect
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)
Thank you for your support.
Categories: Michael Smith
Boy what a bucket load dropped from a great height, I thought you guys were aiming for the same result. Co-operation not confrontation with your peers please Shane, sometimes you have to ‘go with the flow’ and ride out the bumps while keeping the pressure on the main subject.
In the post you can see that I tolerated a few bumps since last year by Michael Smith. But he has gone one too far and needs to outed for his lies otherwise he will just continue. He is not the honorable person some people think.
To take a line from your above story – how do you know Mike Smith is not honourable?
You saying he is – ‘not the honourable person some people think’ … is drawing your own conclusions based on what … some comments made in a blog …
Sorry Shane – as much as I enjoy your commentary and take on the legal aspects you write about – personal criticism is a part of the rough and tumble … but writing a whole post to defend yourself and downplay another damages both sides …
You might want to read the post again. I know he is not honourable given what I have written in the above post. Criticism is fine, telling lies as Michael Smith does is not OK as I wrote in the post.
I have to agree that Michael is getting a little arrogant of late Not only interferring in your page but even telling everyone how he advised Ray Hadley not to talk regarding his defamation case pending with the NSW Attorney General HE WAS DOING A VERY GOOD JOB SAME AS YOU ARE But seems to be heading off track Why is he interferring when not necessary
@ Arthur of Bendigo. At what expense? Shane’s integrity? The Truth? Pfft! Get real mate!
Ignore the fools and keep up the good work Shane.
Actually Arthur, Shane is quite right. I have personal recent experience of Michaels Smith’s censorship- I wrote a perfectly reasonable response to a post of his that contained no racism, no contentious language, and certainly expressed no hatred, but did mildly rebuke the messsage he was delivering. After some hours I realised that he was not going to post my response (thin skinned perhaps?), so I sent him a message expressing my disappointment, which he did publish without comment.
It is my considered opinion that Michael has become a bit puffed up with his own importance, and morphed from investigative bloodhound to radio shock jock as the difficulty in maintaining the freshness of the attack against Gillard has increased. (and hence the large scale plagiarism).
However, as Arthur implies, it is definitely bad form to sledge the opposition in any endeavour and generally counterproductive (our political masters on both sides don’t seem to understand this home truth however).
But I have a suggestion Shane. An old business maxim that has long proven effective is “Don’t get mad – get even”.
What is really needed is a forum that truly is free of censorship.
I know for a fact from personal experience that both Andrew Bolt and Michael Smith practice censorship, and not just on legal grounds.
If I have experienced it, there must be a truckload of others with the same experience.
Shane, why not set up a part of your site to host comments that were rejected by the others? Draw attention to what is not being allowed by them which can be more telling than what they allow (subject to some scrutiny for language, racism and plain bad taste). I wouldn’t like the comments section to degenerate to the level of Pickering’s for example. Anyone who feels that their comment warranted an airing but was denied could repost it on your site with a link to the subject under discussion.
Now that’s a concept that I would gladly subscribe to
I have to agree regarding censorship by not publishing comments – there are only two types of comment I don’t publish – obvious spam and those comments which may get the commenter into trouble on my site. I’ve had some charming comments on how to deal with named banksters … I figure they’re venting but since I also know they are still involved in litigation, I choose not to publish these comments – by the same token, I send them a message as to why the comment wasn’t published – that’s just courtesy 🙂 There are plenty of people who leave negative comments – no point only publishing the ones that flatter me though is there?
There is another type of comment that I delete and that is off topic comments which is where yours is heading. Please keep on topic.
Good to see ideas tossed about. I think KCA has No bias, has integrity and is independent. I think some other sites are bias and the people running them remind me of company boys. Although they are doing a good job exposing some corruption I would love to see a solution to “weeding out” bias and exposing the motive for the bias. What you say geteven could be the formula for that. Time waits for no one and the internet will be the final judge!
This seems a good idea, or something that does in practice achieve that end.
Any omission of responses or commentary is both a betrayal of trust of those who not only submit comments but those who read them.
Anyone who lays claim to being trustworthy as a focus for open discussion and then censors that is deceitful. There are no excuses and there are no exemptions.
In itself, to lay bare those things that have been suppressed by any party is a vital element in establishing the integrity of any one person in a position to do that, and their actual rather than claimed commitment to establishing what is true and having it seen.
Integrity and honesty are not provisional. They are absolute.
They exist in all cases or none.
Don’t worry Shane, fortunately we are not all the mugs some think we are. We mostly have the intelligence to know the difference between fact and fantasy and personally I really enjoy the FACT that you always back up your comments with proof.
I find you Shane to be a person of honesty and integrity (even when questioned re another matter) – we can only trust Michael Smith will show the same honesty particularly when there is so much corruption in our government and Court system
Rumbles in the ranks …
In this pause whilst the AWU investigation winds up … promoters and believers in the story turning on one another because ego’s are being bruised over who wrote what first and the like – is distracting and perhaps a small insight into the personality traits behind the story in the first place.
Now is not the time to listen to outsiders throwing mud … get over yourselves guys and focus on who the real enemy is …
EYE-BALL
Ok. My opinion or maybe I’m guessing is, and I maintain impartiality by the way, I’m only interested in the facts put forward by people who research these topics, that Mike Smith, being an ex-Detective, has a very noble, however naive & misguided it is, belief in the judiciary as a system which cannot possibly be anything else but impartial & applying the laws of the land as originally intended. He was probably a good cop, a better detective, by the book, which is essential for the cases handled by the fraud squad. However that does not mean a methodical, determined investigator is a all-round genius.
As someone who lived through the Bjelke-Petersen years in Qld, the whole political, & law system including the judiciary was influenced by people with high standings in the Worldwide Bricklayers and Stone Cutting club, Qld branch, The Deputy Premier was I believe, the big cheese and was D.P for that reason. While Joh was flat out turning QLD into a money making machine with the cheapest cost of living in Australia, thanks mate, and entertaining the Japanese and saying what should be in the Guineas Book of World Records for the greatest Freudian slip since creation “That’s for you to know & me to find out”, the Old Boys club was busy running the place as they saw fit. Whether they did a good, if somewhat illegal job is debtable, I think it just got away from them at the end, due to certain people turning from slightly corrupt public officers into full on criminally minded scallywags with very dodgy, but lucrative links to certain criminal organisations. I was in fact a recipient of this good fortune in a very minor legal matter, but it helped out in the long term effect it had on my life. Thanks Terry I owe you one.
So, if the judges are to be assumed to be honest & immune to influence in their duties to the people of Australia, I hope there are not too many people around with the same misguided beliefs as our Mike. I think Shane you are just too blunt & straight forward with the facts for some people. Straight talk & blunt statements bbacked up by fact are a little too much for some people’s constitutions. I love it Shane and will keep reading your posts if you maintain your integrity and don’t break the “no reporting without evidence” Rule #1 you seem to go by which was what impressed me about you in the first place. At first I didn’t believe it, or was at least a little skeptical, but know I know better from the quality of your information. Thanks for sharing too.
In closing though, please Shane, ignore ANY and all comers that distract you from your mission. Truth should & will prevail if applied correctly and consistently. Logical people will recognise fact & evidence, especially when delivered in your no-nonsense style. I guess some welcome reality checks & some don’t want their boat rocked.
Case in point, you could have probably written the above in half the space I used. Drives my boss nuts at work as he is not a “details person”.
I’m glad you did this post. I like going to Michael’s website, at least its a little alternative from the MSM. However, he is starting to sound like he should be the last word and he decides what is right/wrong.
There are some things that didn’t add up to me, but i wasn’t bothered enough to spend all day commenting about it.. I did wonder why Ian Cambridge got his job when he was in the thick of the original scandal. The fact that Carr put him there leaves him guilty of association.
Perhaps (reaching here) Carrs appointment to Foreign MInister is payback for services rendered. Heaven knows, hes a terrible minister
Ever wonder why Carr resigned as Premier of NSW? I’ve often wondered how an unelected person can possibly be given a Government portfolio; there is something very, very disturbingly fishy going on.
Deleted – Off Topic – Please keep on topic
Rosie, I totally agree with you
We all thought when Carr was given the Foreign Ministership something fishy was going on – like everything else in the labour federal government – what next? Bracks???
I like the general drift of both of you Shane, but please, let us not lose sight of the ultimate prize here by squabbling over spilt milk. Your site is very good and followers generally want Gillard charged with fraud and do her just time behind bars. Some members of the judiciary are obviously crooked so let’s get them too.
Maybe time to work with Smith for the betterment of Australia.
Couldn’t agree more Bazza1946. United we stand, divided we fall. Smith is doing a great job, as is Shane. Don’t really understand why Smith wants to put this site down, as it serves a very different functrion. Smith needs to keep his EGO in check. Pride commeth before a fall, and we don’t want that to happen.
Shane ,
This saddens me that it has come to this- I have supportted you both plus bought a few of Larry’s calenders. Have links to you all on my main page. I have had three years or so in this game myself and know what a thankless time consuming job it is trying to get hearts and minds to one’s causes..
Your posts on Pickering and those judges etc are probably based in historical fact- but Michael is all too aware that to awaken the sleeping critical population mass….. the internet is a tightrope walk and our supporters are fickle and there are many saboteurs lurking and relishing this sort of outcome.
You haven’t explained how alienating Ian Cambridge, Ralph Blewitt would have helped the cause. Goodwill from everybody has got this to where Gillard is waiting for the “Knock”- so I think that we all should chill out and and work together
I first met Cambridge in 2005. That is where this all actually started. If I had not met him then it is almost guaranteed that there would be no reporting on the Julia Gillard AWU fraud as it is now. Read the post titled “The Julia Gillard, Ian Cambridge and Shane Dowling connection.”
http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2012/11/04/the-julia-gillard-ian-cambridge-and-shane-dowling-connection/
But at the end of the day that has no relevance to the above post.
I can understand your not happy Shane, but you both have a common enemy here along with the rest of Australia, we need to all head in the same direction and not waste our energies or focus and I would tell Michael Smith the same thing.
Please lets work together. If this PM gets returned at the next election it will be lights out on all media who are not approved by her. And none of us will have a say. Stalin revisited.
Exactly!
I understand where you are coming from Shane and to the posters that are offering their advice about burying the hatchet and moving on, I say, it is often difficult to do if the hatchet is embedded in your back. The old saying comes to mind; “With friends like this, who needs enemies?”
It would appear from the comments from both sides of this argument there is common denominator that is, bring the perpetraitors to justice this will not happen if you take this Hitler /Stalin attitude, all you will succeed in is helping the common enemy. supporters will desert the cause and all will be lost. Allan Myalup WA ,
Well said Flin! I understand where YOU are coming from too. I just wish more readers would than apparently do! (But now we really are we digressing from the task at hand)
Whilst I agree with Ken, it’s also possible that he has become what is known as ‘controlled opposition’. In other words, only willing to go so far in terms of whistleblowing. There are a lot of them out there I have found. Time will tell the full story.
I regularly read Michael Smith News to keep updated with the AWU/WRA affair- there are no other blogs sites which, I believe, are as comprehensive in their covereage as MSN.
The way I see it- KCOA and MSN have basically the same objects- ie the prosecution of members of government and the judiciary who have committed fraud and are covering it up by perverting the course of justice. Its a pity you have to be in opposition- those interested in the same object should work together- KCOA from its history of investigating the judiciary and Smith as an ex-cop and journalist form the investigating crimes point of view. Remember, if it wasn’t for Smith, Gillard would not now be a “person of interest” in five fraud complaints made with the Victorian Police.
Yes fellow readers, we all have our agendas and this is why we interpret a person’s actions with our own bias. The appointment to a safe job (Judge) by a colleague (Politician) is seen as a bribe by some and not by others . . our perceptions can be clouded by our motives. However, truth is in the pudding . . so many Labour led appointments appear to be related (also meaning family members) to the cover up of union fraud, by the very people who sit in Parliament representing us !
Am I too brazen in this summary ?
I thought Shane Dowling and Michael Smith were on the same page . . maybe they have the same intent but different motives.
Why is it that when one writes to impress the masses one attracts plaudits, but when you write from the purity of thought, born of actually experience you cop the sort of comments that suggest ‘sour grapes’.
There are three websites that I am aware of …and two of them are driven by ego and the perception that ‘they’ are the ultimate dragon slayers.
Shane for what it is worth I have experienced similar in my time and what I see in your account is the frustration of having to combat ‘spin’ from the standpoint of integrity. Sadly it is not something that is generally appreciated.
Being at the vanguard is one hell of a lonely road.
I thought we are all heading in the same direction…just different cars
Re: copyright:
COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 – SECT 42
Fair dealing for purpose of reporting news
(1) A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work if:
(a) it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical and a sufficient acknowledgement of the work is made; or
(b) it is for the purpose of, or is associated with, the reporting of news by means of a communication or in a cinematograph film.
(2) The playing of a musical work in the course of reporting news by means of a communication or in a cinematograph film is not a fair dealing with the work for the purposes of this section if the playing of the work does not form part of the news being reported.
When reading section 42 you need to understand what “fair dealing” means: Fair dealing exceptions
The fair dealing exceptions in the Copyright Act allow you to copy limited amounts of copyright material without the permission of the copyright owner.
(a) 10% of the number of words in the work or adaptation; or http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s40.html
So Fair dealing means to can take 10% of someone elses work. Not 1/3 or 1/2 or the whole article.
Shane, I am not sure your interpretation is correct. I think you may be applying the “Fair dealing for purpose of research or study” (sect 40 – as per your link) to Fair dealing for purpose of reporting news” (sect 42 – as described by Allison).
As I read it each section makes a separate definition for Fair dealing depending on the way the information is being used. For your argument to stand up, all information used on Michael Smith News, that is not original, is only used for research or study, whereas I understand most of the non original content used is for news and is properly attributed.
I am right. There was a case a couple of years ago Fairfax Media v Reed International. It related to Reed just taking a very small part of Fairfax’s work. Fairfax lost. The point is if Reed had been taking a lot of Fairfax’s work, Fairfax would have won.
Judge Annabelle Bennett yesterday ruled that publisher Reed International had not infringed on copyright laws by reproducing The AFR’s headlines as part of its LexisNexis and ABIX news and business information services that provide abstracts of articles in newspapers and magazines.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/fairfax-loses-copyright-battle/story-e6frg8zx-1225915574372
The Fairfax v Reed case was dismissed because Bennett J found there was no actual “copyright” in any of the headings; none were “capable of being literary works in which copyright can subsist”.
Mark of Brisbane is correct – s40 refers to the 10% of reproducing literary, musical or artistic works only relating to research and study.
But s40 (a) is a quite different section of the Act.
Taken from the Arts Law website (community legal centre for the arts):
“Fair dealing for the purpose of reporting news
A ‘fair dealing’ with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is not an infringement of copyright in the work if it is used ‘for the purpose of, or associated with, reporting news’.
Under this exception, news can be reported in the following mediums:
• in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical provided that a sufficient acknowledge is made
What is sufficient acknowledgement?
For the acknowledgment to be regarded as ‘sufficient acknowledgement’ it will need to identify the author and the work by its title or other description”
http://www.artslaw.com.au/articles/entry/its-not-a-copyright-infringement-im-reporting-the-news/#_ftn1
Shane, I would check this out more thoroughly.
First unsubstantiated attacks by this site on Larry Pickering as soon as he got the AWU onto the national agenda, where this site tried to claim it had ownership of the story (only mentioned it a few times in attacking the judiciary). Now attacks on the excellent and credible work of Michael Smith. The green eyed monster is on the rampage.
In relation to Larry Pickering, people can read the post I did on him and be the judge themselves which is here: http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2012/08/19/larry-pickering-who-ripped-of-15million-in-a-betting-software-scam-claims-to-be-investigating-julia-gillard-for-the-awu-fraud-scam/
As for what I have written on the AWU fraud scandal people can see that here: http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/julia-gillard-bruce-wilson-awu-fraud-page/
As for Michael Smith, the above post says what I think.
Unbelievable … as the moderator of your own site you choose to inflame your readership and your position … whatever high ground you may have had is now trashed and the cause you fought so hard for is but a whisper on the wind as Gillard cheers …
A very poor call Shane …
Shane… dont worry….. Michael Who?????
It was only ever a question of when….
It’s a fickle readership that debates and splits hairs over right of ownership when the enemy is in plain sight … I’ve read the comments here and they seem drawn into two camps – those who think Shane’s rant is motivated on a personal level, and those who support Shane and his rant against Smith …
Who bloody cares about who writes the story … personal ‘hits’ and ‘stats’ are not what is important as neither site is a paid for subscription … personalities are at play here and for mine Shane feels he has more to prove than MSN … but really is that important when evil will prevail because the good guys decide to fight over the prestige of – ‘I was first to tell the story’ …
Hell I promote all three … Pickering, Smith, an KCOA … I make no judgement on any of the content … each of us has to tell the story we have to tell … slagging someone else because they tell it differently or trying to score points is a massive turnoff for readership.
So please … support Shane, Support Smith, but don’t let yourself be drawn into playing one against the other …
Agree as someone who visits both here and Mike’s blog there is enough room on the net for all opinions to be weighed up for the reader to form their own opinions.
Eye Ball, you are offering very good advice, lets hope ALL concerned take that advice. Shane keep doing your good work, if the rules are broken by anyone they will get caught out eventually.
I think yours and Michaels site are very different in nature. One is seeking justice through developing a cult following, the other is seeking judicial justice after being burnt.
I fully support your thoughts Eyeball, and feel your own site deserves far more recognition. However, I’ve reason to be grateful to both Shane and Michael, but have had my differences with both, as is only human and natural.
In my own writings, which I hope have contributed to some general understanding of the complex matters involved, I have tried very hard to stick to the substantive facts which I have personally checked, and to eliminate as far as possible, any confrontational attacks on anyone. We are all entitled to our own points of view and if I’m wrong in mine at any time, I am quite happy to have them changed by reasoned argument or the emergence of new facts.
To me it is an extremely sad day when two of the few remaining bastions of free speech in Australia lose sight of the ultimate goal and engage in a futile exchange of denigrating comments. That smacks all too much of the McTernan/Gillard strategies of “shoot the messenger”.
Personally, I don’t give a tinker’s cuss about who was first , last or in between or who said what and when. I’ll make my own mind up based on what I personally know. We’ve come so far in such a short time, let’s not spoil it now by petty squabbling. I for one will not be “choosing sides”, and I’d like to think that many of the wonderful constructive posters I’ve met on both sites would share my feelings on this.
Have your ego battles after the war is won fellas, and in the meantime, let’s not lose sight of that big picture!
Cheers to all. H/B
Wisdom Hillbilly … if only it came complete so people could see the future before they opened their mouth …
As always … comment adds to the debate and very much on point …
I’m with you…well said!
Spot on mate ,spot on.
Shane, Mctavish would be reading all this blueing and garbage canning and think he’s had a victory.
Don’t drop the ball now because somebody’s hurt your feelings.
You and your site are bigger than that.
There is only but one enemy at the minute and that’s Gillard and her corrupt government.
I hate to use it but how does the union battle cry go?
United we stand, divided we fall.
Same same….love the different styles of BOLTA>>>PIERS>>>>MIRANDA>>>MICHAEL>>>PICKERING>>>ETC all bringing own personalities into the wonderful story that is our Government
Well said Eye Ball Opinion. Let’s cool it! Shane, you’ve done a great job and keep doing what you do well. We can see what’s going on, just contine to play the ball, and not the man. ‘We’ need you and we also need Smith.
I’m with you Eye-Ball ……….up to a point.
I absolutely DO make judgement on the content of the three sites, and sometimes take each of them with a pinch of salt – Shane can be too noble/earnest, Pickering too ‘circus shill’, Smith too ‘hale fellow, well met’
But at least the three are what they are and I believe none of them have an ulterior hidden agenda – they all just want the corruption purged from this country and for perpetrators to be called to account without fear or favour.
I would hate to see any of these three valuable sites tainted by infighting. There is a VERY important role for all three to play, and that needs to be their primary focus.
Pickering is a crook and conman and always will be. http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2012/08/19/larry-pickering-who-ripped-of-15million-in-a-betting-software-scam-claims-to-be-investigating-julia-gillard-for-the-awu-fraud-scam/
I visit both sites, but must admit to feeling uneasy when Michael has alluded to this site in a less than complimentary way. Shane has held his tongue/keyboard for quite a while, and I’m not surprised that he has finally had enough. I hope that this does not fester any further, because we need both of them to highlight the deeply embedded corruption.
You have every right to attack Michael Smith as he attacked and discredited Kangaroo Court and Shane Dowling. Everyone has a right to defend themselves. It appears Michael Smith is doing a good job with the AWU but also has dollar signs in his eyes as he can see money to be made out of his site. He has a huge ego and it looks like he is playing a dirty game of discrediting his opponents to obtain “top dog”
If, what you say is true, then it’s a big, big pity! So sorry to see this happening…..
playing right into the hands of those we are trying to eliminate….!!!
GROW UP
You might need to WAKE UP!
This post will probably become more apparent in time as with Pickering too, when people wake up to their motives. I don’t like the way Smith try’s to keep the army and police on his side while the police and army need to be looked at for their corrupt issues.
Fully agree. Interesting revelations today about some of the goings on in the past with Victoria Police
Those who know of my work know that I never applaud unless it has been well-earned.
Shane has been exactly correct in writing this latest post. It was VERY important that he did so. Those commenting against it clearly don’t understand the deeper dynamics of these matters. That’s because their moral values are seriously skewed. To recommend that we should all STILL support (for example) Larry Pickering – and any other plagiarisers – irrespective of the moral standards demonstrated, is to unwittingly (and frighteningly) assert that proper morality and decency are no longer relevant. That, for example, it’s OK to steal (correct word) others’ work – in this case Shane’s – and pass it off as your own. Right now we are experiencing the destructive consequences of people with low – if any – moral standards who wield power in Canberra. Should we support and empower MORE of their kind so we can have MORE of the same consequences should our new ‘heroes’ – with our misguided support – ever get to evolve from a small-time blogger into a big-time politician?
I am pleased to be in tandem with Peter Forde on this issue. Integrity, consistent with values born of a life time of experience stand out to those who look into the argument. Today the very word is bandied around and used as a prop to underpin ‘spin’ and loose truths. Integrity should be the foundation of a nation but like so many values today is under attack. I endorse Peter Fordes assessment in support of Shane Dowling.
Having thought a lot more about this, and having read Peter Forde’s post, I must admit I fully support his view. Sometimes, we forget to see the light. There is no substitute for sound moral values.
Well said, Hear hear
Shane…I think that your agenda is on courts and judicary and you do it very well…a pity Michael went against your Cambridge details..not sure why?
Michael is going head first….you are collecting data ….Both views are required to keep both Government and AWU to account
another point is Gillard /McTernan will be rubbing their hands together DIVIDE and CONQUER
Shane you have done incredible work in trying to bring Gillard to justice.
The Labor government is utterly corrupt with top jobs for those in ‘the club’.
The Union is utterly corrupt. The Federal Courts, top Judges and top Cops are all utterly corrupt. Most of the top newspapers in the country appear to be afraid to report anything against Gillard or her government and their silence on this issue is very frightening.
You need to continue with the good work you have been doing on this site and concentrate on bringing down Gillard and having her locked up – you will be doing the entire country a huge favour. If she manages to lie, bribe, conive and get re-elected in September God help Australia………..! Michael,… Michael who?
EXACTLY, Peter Forde! When it comes to true justice & morality, the end does not neccessarily justify the means, and we don’t want/need anyone on our side who thinks it does!
Hilbilly- as always – summed it up for me- Eyeball( had my first look at your blog) – you write well and say what I’m thinking. This shouldn’t be a Fords or Holdens issue- as has been said many of us visit all three sites and all have different angles to offer.
I don’t think that Michael had any choice but to distance himself re the judges and Cambridge and I find your aggro against Blewitt a bit surprising. Nobody is perfect especially by the time we reach 50 or 60+ years- we’ve all done things we regret- I think Blewitt has been a true hero in this and unfortunately- showing a lack of judgement on Shane’s part by posting this. Don’t worry -we all do it but I wish you would delete this as McTernan would have his team fuelling this for sure!
I respect all the sites that highlight how crooked the union movement and it’s puppet government is. Shane, you have made your point, and hopefully you can now respect each others points of views, and move on, so that the messengers don’t shot each other in the foot. I think this all a bit of a storm in a tea cup, but at least you have got it off your chest. Keep up your good work, cheers.
It’s crazy when the both of you are after the same outcome! I stopped reading Michael Smith’s News awhile ago..got a bit tired of what his czechoslovakian princess was doing…I’m just not interested. I think he may be suffering a little from professional jealousy. I also got tired of reading every day that Gillard is a heartbeat away from being arrested…I doubt she ever will. She will lose the election and vanish wherever ex PM’s vanish to and it will all be forgotten.
I was reading here long before I even heard of Michael Smith.
It would be a huge pity if the PM is not brought to account.
haaa thats why the only action taken was by smith
Labor is rubbing its hands together over any infighting in the camps they oppose…where is the integrity in that?
Shane, you have been doing a remarkable job without a lot of fanfare along the way. I truly respect the amount of investigation you put into your work which I know we all rely upon. Please continue so that justice will eventually prevail. Never say never….
Why worry? I couldn’t care less about rumour mongering or unfounded garbage such as Mr.s writes on his site. Enough of that we get from the media everyday. I like that your posts are backed by fact. I feel confident that should your post/s be found incorrect you will advise the readers why you have been asked to remove them. I think Mr.s is probably brown nosing. Perhaps he’s paid to fog the truth?
Initially I was a fan of Mr Smith but he is one that cannot accept even the smallest amount of criticism despite it being of a constructive nature. And his cut and paste of whole articles from a site behind a paywall surely amounts to theft no matter how many times he implores people to subscribe to the Australian, unless they have given him permission which he should state if it is the case.
Yes, the dollar signs are starting to figure greatly in his eyes. While I appreciate we all need to make a living, it shouldn’t get in the way of truth and justice.
Shane, I read this post yesterday and have thought about it ever since. I think it is a good thing you wrote your thoughts honestly, as you always do.
Whether it was a good decision to publish it, will remain to be seen.
I am afraid that Gillard will be very pleased about this, the one thing none of us want.
I will continue to support you Shane, we should all do, as we all have the same goal.
Please continue your important work and forget about the others.
this is what i love about KCOA… not afraid to stick the boot into anyone as long as it is backed up with evidence and facts. and from what i have seen it is justified.
interesting question from rob wright above: “perhaps he’s paid to fog the truth?” IMO there is definitely something wrong here… if he’s got no evidence to call somebody a crook then by all means he should keep quiet to protect himself, but why actively come to their defense? and why attack the person who’s saying those things/accusations/facts? something doesn’t add up. oh, and the timing of his posts ARE remarkable, just a day or so after KCOA’s.
i for one have great faith in shane’s ability to research and present the facts. it seems to me like KCOA will be (already is!) the definitive source for such news and others out there are struggling to keep up and so attempt to use other methods to stay in the race. fear not, your readers are a bright bunch, we can see!
I don’t think Smith sets out to be a gatekeeper, and I think his pursuit of Gillard and her co-conspirators is genuine and heartfelt, but I think his media background compromises his style at times. That’s why I like this site. Shane doesn’t waste time with media-friendly niceties. Media niceties and the things they cover over are a large part of the reason our country has fallen into the state its in. Unfortunately I can see Smith starting down the road of becoming another Bolt, Blair etc. wannabe, and that’s where the real gate-keeping starts.
I agree Paul. I believe Michael Smith’s pursuit of justice is genuine and heartfelt. His blog was pretty unique when it first started – the provision of documents and audio clips with various personas. I read him avidly every day to try and get my head around some of the matters. Like @Susan though I have slowly become disenchanted. Not with concern over the blog’s veracity, but rather such things as his meanderings on his Czechoslovakian princess (I could care less), the dabbling in YouTube music clips (overtones of Mr Bolt?), postings on news items unrelated to the AWU scandal (I get this from a multitude of other sources), etc.
I think many people summed up the problems he faces as a new blogger, in particular the cost of maintaining his site, when he posed the question to his followers whether or not they would pay for the privilege of accessing his blog should it go behind a paywall.
Shane, you may very well be correct in what you claim. Truthfully though, I do not have the energy to care. My time and inclination is all focused on seeing those who need to in the AWU, be brought to justice. If this includes the PM, so be it.
Overall I am saddened and deflated it has come to this. My sincere hope is that you and Mr Smith and Mr Pickering and Mr/Ms… whoever is working on whatever angle on this immensely important issue for the country, find a way to pull together.
P.S. I was one of the first to buy a KC t-shirt for my better half when you introduced them. We both enjoy your blog and hope to continue doing so.
I agree entirely with Arthur from Bendigo, this carry on can only benefit the crooks, it will certainly blunt the points that have been put very well by the concerted efforts of all the blogs collectively to achieve what the MSM are incapable of and resisting.
I would hate us to loose the momentum when we are nearly there!!
It seems to me that there are some posters on here who are trying very cunningly, in the interest of their own agenda, to stir the pot, put petrol on the fire etc., as nothing would suit their cause more than to create a knock down, drag out brawl that would destroy the common cause we all have in the interests of the future of Australia and thereby, our children.
Lets refresh and get on with the job, for Gods’ sake.
I fear the future if we do not!!
Thank you
LARFA
After reading Shanes defending post and the readers comments, I am somewhat dissapointed that some of these comments are critical of Shane for posting his retaliation to Mr Smiths derogatory and factless attacks on Shane and his site over numerous months. What are Mr Smiths motives behind his actions?
If Mr Smith has a similar agenda (Gillard/AWU) as Shane, then why does he attack this site, it would be better for Mr Smith to join forces with Shane, one would think.
I personally believe Shane has every right to defend himself and KCA against the factless and bias comments made by Mr Smith to his readers. The question I am asking is why?, is it purely to discredit KCA, does he attack other sites, or is his barrel aimed purely at Shane and KCA?.
Could it be Mr Smith has taken it upon himself to degrade KCA in an attempt to feather his own nest, it would be a feather in his cap from a political point of view, nothing like hedging your bets, maybe there’s a financial kickback involved, after all “every man has a price”, and it wouldnt be the first time either, you just need to look at our political, judicial, police and defence forces to see it, corruption knows no bounds, so why would Mr Smith be any different. Or is it that he just lacks moral and ethical fibre.
I do agree with the readers comments in regards that this is not helping the greater cause, and that the enemy is lapping it up, but this also leaves us to ponder the question “who is the enemy”, it would seem you could add Mr Smith to the list, once again I ask “why”.
Keep up the great work Shane, it’s a shame you had to divert your energies into defending the integrity of yourself and KCA, but also a necessity. At least your information contains facts, looking forward to your next post.
“UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL”
Hey everybody- just remember that Shane dumped on Blewitt and Cambridge and also Pickering who for whatever his sins are – has done a good job at elevating this story now. A year ago- it all seemed impossible and this whole discussion would have been impossible if it weren’t for people with profiles and guts- the Shane Dowlings or Rob Moore’s or Joe Blow’s were never going to break through this 19 year cover up.
You put Michael in a difficult position as in a way you are all blogoshere partners- Please take this thread down and carry on as we were and keep adding each unique input as this is madness.
Apparently if you post here that you support Shane’s position it is the end of your comments appearing on the other said site. Must be keeping a weather eye on your site Shane.
Rubbish. My comments were posted on Michael Smith site after I posted here.
Well good for you, mine haven’t been. Your personal experience isn’t mine so rubbish right back at you. Do you post with the same screen name there I wonder, can’t say I can recall having seen any “chookums” thoughts appearing there.
United we stand, divided we fall…..well said!
All of the bloggers and some of the media journalists who are searching for the truth do so in their own style. All are contributing in their own way.
Best to keep focus on the truth for this country’s benefit and all of us!
Thanks Shane for you efforts.
Jane
Folks, let everyone keep their eyes focussed very clearly on the “BALL”. The game has a long way to go and we cannot waiver from the ultimate aim of seeing Gillard and others before the courts.
Sorry, I only got as far as “Can he guarantee no instructions were issued? No, so how can he say it is defamatory?” I think the onus of proof is on the accuser, not the defendant – you would need evidence that instructions were issued. not just it’s possibility.
While you and Smith both seem good blokes and work for the truth, you seem to write what you ‘know’ to be the truth from your long experience and Michael writes mainly what he can demonstrate to be the truth (and yes, an increasing amount of, referenced material). Maybe you do present evidence – I have not followed either closely enough.
Both styles have their use. Allegations may sway public opinion in time, but in these times of ‘never admit you are guilty’, only hard evidence will get us anywhere any time soon, like police prosecutions.
Michael Smith should be more respectful of colleagues, he need not complain against ‘fantasy’ on the web – if that’s the case, then it’s a chance for his blog to stand out in the crowd.
Its a shame to see you ‘divided’. Maybe it’s time for you two guys to be man enough to have a beer together and see what you can learn from one another for the sake of the goal. But no doubt egos will prevail.
i gotta jump in here michael.
“i think the onus of proof is on the accuser…”
from evidence/facts presented, certain things can be inferred even if there is no physical piece of paper with written instructions. it is perfectly justifiable to do so.
in this case possibly criminal acts have occurred, ie the removal/hiding/destruction of court documents. now, as the person in charge YOU CAN DO YOUR JOB of conducting an investigation and/or notifying police, or you can just pretend it never happened. but why just ignore it and say/do nothing?
to me this speaks volumes about Keane’s involvement in this putrid affair. if anybody including Keane does not agree with this inference then they can come clean with a damn good explanation or evidence to the contrary. or better yet, the missing file.
both actions and inactions can say a great deal about people.
sorry, i forgot to write in there that IMO such inferences as above ARE in fact proof. when you don’t do your job as you are legally required to then it shows that you have probably got something to hide.
I think your overstating the case a bit Shane. From memory, I can recall only one time when Mike Smith has criticized you, I think he referred to your post about Ian Cambridge as ‘fantasy’. Sure I agree with you that Cambridge may have been less than noble in accepting an appointment to the IRC. But think about the reality-the fact remains that Cambridge continues to speak out against the AWU rort, and he may be an important witness in any future prosecutions. Therefore I think Mike has been entirely sensible in defending the reputation of Cambridge.
I have addressed some of that in my current post. http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2013/03/10/the-julia-gillard-bruce-wilson-police-investigation-its-just-another-malcolm-turnbull-utegate-affair-stuff-up/
Share, do you know whether Michael Smith has permission from the copyright holders to republish or quote their material at length? Unless you know, you should not accuse him of content theft in those cases.
Regarding the first incident where you claim that he failed to acknowledge dependence on your site for his information, I will reserve judgment until I learn Smith’s side of the story, however there are scenarios which would exonerate him.
Regarding his recent failure to acknowledge your site, that is understandable. He wants to limit his case to documentary evidence and witness statements. You are prone to use a much wider range of evidence, and he does not want to be associated with that.
Regarding his giving Rares and Keane a free pass, despite there being grounds for doubt, I disagree with him, but that does not make him a scoundrel. Similarly, I disagree with you on Ian Cambridge, but that does not make you a scoundrel either.
Clearly, Smith has offended you, and you believe that he has behaved badly. It is enough to say so. It is not necessary to attack his character. Doing so diminished you, as several people have commented.
Yes I do know he does not have permission.
Shane – what is your definition and description of a “fraudster”, and on what grounds do you assert Michael Smith is a fraudster? To me, a fraudster is someone who commits fraud, but maybe my idea of a fraudster is different to your idea. But should you and I have a broadly similar conception of “fraudster”, then I would be most interested to learn what acts of fraud you allege Michael Smith has committed. It seems to me that publicly naming someone as a fraudster is not a matter that should be taken lightly – by either the accuser or the accused.
As I sure you are aware Michael Smith has threatened legal action. So it is not for you come on here and act as his counsel. Given your comment I take it you admit he is a thief which is a start.
What an arrogant response to a genuine question. You publicly name someone as being a “fraudster”, yet seem unable or unwilling to say what fraudulent activities the person concerned has engaged in. When you post something on your blog you are speaking directly to your readers – including me. And when some of those readers then submit follow up questions, you berate and belittle them for doing so. Remarkable.
John, you help Michael Smith on his site (with your own content) from what I have seen and have had plenty of opportuntity to ask the question that you have on this site. But it is only after Smith has threatened legal action that you decide to do so, which to me says a lot about you. I stand by what I have written and it will not be taken down.
Thank God for Michael Smith. I wish we could clone him.