Some detailed analysis on the incorporation documentation
Friday, 26 April 2013
Sauce says...
Michael has always sought and treasured the detailed analysis and hours of 'brain time' that are provided by his readers. "Seeker of truth" has been busy looking at the incorporation documents for the AWU Reform association. This type of analysis shows the depth the detectives need to go to investigate this matter.
seeker of truth said:
Relying on the incorporation forms submitted to the WA CAC under number A1002116 then A1002203E and finally A1002262E, one can see that Julia Gillard was involved in this fraud from the time it was decided to go with an incorporated association. These incorporation documents remained unchanged from the first attempt to lodge (A1002116) to the last attempt (A1002262E),except for the date 22nd April 1992. The original date looks like it was 1st April 1992 and has been changed to 22nd April 1992.
Documentary evidence shows that Julia Gillard was involved in the preparation of the original incorporation documents of AWU-WRA presented for lodgement at the first attempt. She had inserted the name of the association on the Application at item 1 and had also completed part of item 2. She didn't just tidy up the original incorporation documents of the AWU-WRA to make them acceptable after they were rejected by the WA CAC, as Bruce Wilson has suggested. They hadn't even been rejected when she made the insertions. In fact, it appears that there was nothing amiss with the incorporation documents as presented to the WA CAC. They did not need to be changed and were not changed and the incorporation documents prove this.
If you look at the Application for Incorporation of Association and the documents accompanying it (ie Draft Certificate and Rules), there are three handwritten numbers on top of the document, two of which have been ruled through (A1002116X, A1002203E.) From this we can assume that at least more than one attempt was made to incorporate the AWU-WRA using these application forms before it was lodged and registered under the number A1002262E. There has been no attempt to insert another name. The name "Australian Workers’ Union – Workplace Reform Association" has remained unchanged.
That handwritten name appears on the documents at the first attempt for lodgement. This name was written twice by Julia Gillard on the forms – it matches her handwriting, and Bruce Wilson said in his 7.30 Report interview - BRUCE WILSON: “I tried to do something to get the association established; didn't work because of some technicality. I went to her and said, "Look, can you fix it? Whatever it is that needs to be fixed." And “Simply there was some forms that needed to be filled out in a different manner. It was a bit like going and asking... for example, "This form didn't look right, that one didn't, what do we need to do?" She made the necessary changes. I told her that Ralph was going to then re-lodge the forms. She said, "Well, jeez, if that's the case I better fill this out," and that's where everyone makes a fuss now because she's got handwriting on the form. It's not a real big deal, to be honest with you.” The Western Australian newspaper’s Notice of 6 March 1992 of Intended Incorporation of AWU-WRA refers to application to apply for registration will be lodged on or after 6 April 1992. That notice states that - ‘The Association is formed for the purpose of promoting and encouraging workplace reform for workers performing construction and maintenance work’ Whereas the Application for Incorporation document states it purpose as “Development of Changes to Work to Achieve Safe Workplaces”.
This is written in Bruce Wilson’s or Ralph Blewitt’s hand. The wording on the Notice is written in a legalese fashion and aligns itself to be words in the Rules of the Association that Julia Gillard has admitted that she prepared based on the Socialist Forum model. We can therefore assume that Julia Gillard was involved with the incorporation of the AWU-WRA right from its inception prior to the lodgment of the Notice in the Western Australian paper on 6 March 1992 and not later. The same association application forms were used from the first attempt at lodgement which could possibly have been 1st April 1992, right through to the last attempt (stamped as lodged 23 April 1992). Note that on both the Application for Incorporation and the Draft Certificate the date has been changed by Wilson or Blewitt to read 22nd April 1992. Bruce Wilson was lying about Julia’s involvement, and we know that now. The forms and documents were OK. The evidence shows that the forms submitted under numbers A1002116, A1002203E and A1002262E were unchanged except for the date 22nd April 1992
Seeker of Truth : "The forms and documents were OK. The evidence shows that the forms submitted under numbers A1002116, A1002203E and A1002262E were unchanged except for the date 22nd April 1992"
So, SOT, is the one thing that changed the outcome the "letter of comfort" supposedly written by JEG?
The one she (smugly?) challenged, in parliament, Julia Bishop to produce?
The one that Michael Smith has reported on "good authority" is still extant?
Posted by: mel | Friday, 26 April 2013 at 08:31 PM
It was obviously planned way ahead of time as the first invoice sent to Theiss by the Workplace Reform Association Inc. they had been charged for these hours Jan 248.4 hrs, Feb 216 hrs, March 237.6 hrs. Theiss purchase order (chq request) was sent out on the 9th April 1992 - The invoice from the AWU Workplace Reform Association Inc. was dated on the 30th April. So big date discrepancies in the money paperwork between the 2 entities.
Posted by: michelle 2 | Friday, 26 April 2013 at 08:39 PM
and the reason for lodging the application forms was that the government would only accept a body such as this for theiss to forward their government grant money to.
We need to keep back tracking on this.
Posted by: Face the Consequences | Friday, 26 April 2013 at 09:30 PM
Guilty as sin....
Posted by: Kenny | Friday, 26 April 2013 at 09:46 PM
This whole AWU-WRA saga seems to be a lay down misere conspiracy to commit fraud.
It defies credence that out of the substantial facts presented on this site over the last 8 months, and elsewhere in the MSM, that there won't be be a charge of perverting the course of justice, as an outcome.
"Also criminal are:
1. conspiring with another to pervert the course of justice, and
2. intending to pervert the course of justice."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverting_the_course_of_justice
Posted by: Truth_Will_Out | Friday, 26 April 2013 at 09:56 PM
Well done 'seeker of truth'. Even tho' this important facet is only a part of the whole, this level of forensic investigation into matters of 'available and minute detail', is the sort of thing that fills in the gaps and brings everything into proper and very real perspective. Thank you and....
"Please Sir, can I have more?"
Whilst the msm will probably continue to turn a blind eye hoping it will all be 'Feigned' away, this trap is nearing closure under their noses and I wish, I dearly wish the 'other one' would also.
Posted by: gunnerbringerundun | Friday, 26 April 2013 at 10:42 PM
I can smell feathers burning.
Posted by: Anon200 | Friday, 26 April 2013 at 10:47 PM
You know you're in trouble when you hear your full name being used (even if it's just your mum doing it)!
http://youtu.be/VEve-IM8x0E
Posted by: jules | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 05:25 AM
Great video thanks for the link Jules!!
Come on msm ...no guts...no glory!
Posted by: haggis | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 06:17 AM
Just imagine what some of the contributors to this site could do with an un-redacted Sept 11, 1995 interview between the Crime Minister and S&G.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/what-julia-told-her-firm/story-e6frg6z6-1226455281078
Whole pages redacted, several alone around the point that Seeker of Truth has highlighted. With everything that has been discovered post this interview, I think a lot of dots would be joined...
Posted by: underminder | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 06:44 AM
I didn't realise that the original form was not altered.In that case,
She's a gonner.
Posted by: Alf Welch | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 07:29 AM
Seeker of Truth and all those skilled professionals who contribute to this blog are amazing. I appreciate everything the time and effort they spend keeping us informed and on track. I hate what Gillard has done to the Country and I hate that MPs aware of her foisted her on us as Prime Minister and as rotten as Gillard is those who tried to pull the wool over our eyes are even more so.
Posted by: Maggie Qld | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 08:43 AM
Well done, as that is an important point
I wondered when first this stuff was posted by Michael if JEG had called in a favour from another Emily's Lister, one Carmen Lawrence,to get this incorporation up,and the letter to the commissioner was then enacted to provide the "officialness" of a change of heart by him/her and agreement to incorporate the very same association he/she had previously rejected.
The keeping of the same forms, not even replacing a front page, is a dead giveaway,as SOT shows us clearly now, but to me it-allegedly- reeks of arrogance based on a certainty she would succeed with the incorporation.Wilson and she would-allegedly- have been desperate enough since-allegedly- they had already billed Theiss and must have the entity to receive the money up and running
Posted by: Jazza | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 09:10 AM
A new article from Hedley
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/who-knows-pm-julia-gillard-is-under-investigation/story-e6frg6z6-1226630319702
Posted by: michelle 2 | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 09:25 AM
Well done to the Author and thanks Michael for posting it to your site. It makes me so angry to think of the pathetic government that we have, down there in Canberra and to them, it's just a game. However, judgement day is approaching.
Posted by: David | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 09:38 AM
Chris Kenny brought up the subject today on Sky this morning. It is not going away.
Posted by: HelenR | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 09:39 AM
Thank you seeker of truth and others. I am in awe of the people that contribute to this site in a way I never could.
I read through the blog pretty much every day and try to take it on board, which I guess I do but I certainly don't have the abilities many others do to weed out the discrepancies that point clearly to Gillards complicity in this fraud.
I am wondering what it will be that we all turn our attentions to as this matter comes to it's inevitable end when ever that might be.
With a change of Government in September I hope we see changes that will make it impossible for the likes of Gillard and her incompetent Labor Union Putsch to ever govern Australia again. Perhaps it is a pursuit of this change we will turn our minds to.
One thing is for sure and that is that I will remain a reader of this site and thankful to Michael Smith for his hard work and dedication to bringing the truth of this matter to the attention of all Australians while the largest part of the MSM slept
Posted by: Boffo | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 10:18 AM
Bwahahaha, this list of wishful thinking from Bob Ellis cracks me up.
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/the-palmer-effect/
How can he say all that and ignore the elephant in the room?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/who-knows-pm-julia-gillard-is-under-investigation/story-e6frg6z6-1226630319702
It seems to be a trait of those that call themselves "left" to try and pidgeon hole everything as left or right.
No wonder gillard has lasted this long when so many insignificant people are so passionate about left and right.
Posted by: underminder | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 10:34 AM
I just found this on the Armstrong Legal site.
The maximum penalty for the charge of pervert the course of justice (Section 319 of the Crimes Act N.S.W.) is 14 years imprisonment.
Seems this, along with other "did nothing wrong" charges, could mean quite a bit of "Porridge" coming up for a woman who's name starts with Julia and ends with Gillard
Posted by: Robert Greer | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 10:38 AM
Thanks Sauce for updating the comments.
I hope whilst Michael & the Princess are enjoying their break he has time to put his feet up and browse through the papers and particularly The Australian with Hedley Thomas' article:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/who-knows-pm-julia-gillard-is-under-investigation/story-e6frg6z6-1226630319702
How long can the ABC and the MSM continue to ignore the fact that she is under investigation in a fraud matter?
Posted by: Jeff of FNQ | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 10:54 AM
My money is on the "letter of comfort" supposedly written by JEG to whom????? with regards to how this incorporation was approved.
Posted by: John from the Bay | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 10:58 AM
Jules:
Thank you for the link. Another fantastic video. It is getting closer day by day.
Common sense would dictate that anyone dogged for nearly 20 years with accusations of wrong doing would provide evidence to support they were innocent and put the matter to rest. Gillard never has. Common sense then tells you Gillard has never provided conclusive evidence of her innocence because she is not. With less than five months to the election time is running out for Gillard, professionally and personally. I only hope she is finally forced to answer some questions.
Posted by: A Tangled Webb | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 11:09 AM
Sauce / Michael - can you PLEASE prominently link the Australian article below to this website? As usual, and for some inexplicable reason, The Australian have "hidden" this Hedley Thomas piece (or I am not looking properly) in their online edition
https://outlook.swin.edu.au/owa/redir.aspx?C=3JjorlpSL0isfOsV0ipGUYkZDSZ7FtAIbcZYUIctu_8tb8NAGQ1i_WujPicfzvfOaXsjOzqx2rQ.&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2fnews%2ffeatures%2fwho-knows-pm-julia-gillard-is-under-investigation%2fstory-e6frg6z6-1226630319702
I only hope and pray that Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop have the foresight to use this article as part of the Parliamentary debate that will precede their forthcoming "no confidence" motion.
Posted by: JohnL | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 11:29 AM
So what to make of Ralph Blewitt's statement that he "and another union official" tried to incorporate and that application was rejected, and then he and Wilson went to Slater and Gordon? That seems to agree with Wilson's claim.
Were there three or four applications to incorporate?
Posted by: michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 11:31 AM
Hedley Thomas Today's Australian
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/who-knows-pm-julia-gillard-is-under-investigation/story-e6frg6z6-1226630319702
"Prime Minister Julia Gillard faces continuing questions about the AWU slush fund scandal.
IN the days after a heated 2GB radio interview in March, during which Julia Gillard was questioned closely about the AWU slush fund scandal, a detective in Victoria's Fraud Squad, Ross Mitchell, made a strategic decision.
One answer the Prime Minister gave during a dogged tussle in her interview with Ben Fordham stood out. Mitchell knew it when he heard it. The other detectives knew it too.
Although seemingly innocuous to those not involved in the probe, Gillard's answer was new and pivotal. It meant police in Melbourne would need a sworn statement from Fordham in Sydney, even though as a journalist he would be expected to subsequently disclose some key facts"
Posted by: Jay | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 11:48 AM
The Victorian Police must find this blog so helpful. The very detailed investigative research should be of great assistance. It is great to see so many people with such legal, investigative and research skills, apply these skills to get to the bottom of this AWU scandal. I bet Bruce Wilson is waiting for the knock on the door!
I am a firm believer that justice will prevail. My only concern is how long will this take?
Posted by: Jenny | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 12:01 PM
Andrew Bolt has posted this about the AWU scandal on his blog
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/what_interested_the_police_in_gillards_interview/
Posted by: Tomo | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 12:10 PM
Which someone at the WA CAC decided to ok the same document that had been knocked back twice before.
What did Gillard say in the "letter of comfort"?
Be nice for the police interviewing her to ask her the question and listen to the garbage answer,then place the letter on the table in front of her.
Posted by: Alf Welch | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 12:14 PM
@seeker of truth. Thank you for all the work you have done to assist this fraud to light and bring those guilty of the crime to justice. It is a privilege to participate from the sidelines as michael takes on Goliath and you and others of expertise will be victorious. This country still produces wonderful people. Bless you
Posted by: Jenstar | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 12:16 PM
Hedley Thomas' latest on AWU scandal. Comprehensive update and analysis. Ben Fordham speaks as well. Please post article if you feel appropriate as it is further significant......
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/who-knows-pm-julia-gillard-is-under-investigation/story-e6frg6z6-1226630319702
....this also refers to @BenFordham interview @2GB873 on March 7 (AWU scandal covered from 18:00 onwards in link)....
http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/7690
....Gillard and her office are no longer ruling out there's a police investigation into her according to above Hedley Thomas' piece.
Furthermore, in the Fordham March 7 audio link, the damaging allegations Gillard help set up slush fund is canvassed. Link below is of section of S+G 1995 exit interview transcript, showing Gillard admits to helping set it up....
http://www.afr.com/p/national/gillard_cut_and_pasted_slush_fund_xeS8RbK8FfuaCQv1xWccbJ
Posted by: Jollybagman | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 12:27 PM
A great article from Hedley Thomas for those that haven't seen it : http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/who-knows-pm-julia-gillard-is-under-investigation/story-e6frg6z6-1226630319702
But did Blewitt really receive the proceeds from the Kerr St sale? I thought he had denied it!
Posted by: martinR | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 12:35 PM
Thanks Seeker - I'm sure that, like many others, I assumed the multiple applications differed in some way in an attempt to satisfy the Commissioner.
We assumed too much. How enlightening that the Short Order Cook has proven himself to be a liar - again.
If just a few Vic Fraud Squad officers could keep abreast of this complex issue, then justice will ultimately be done.
It is my fervent hope that this 'new broom' will assume the proportions of an industrial-strength vacuum cleaner and ALL the trash will be removed - from the Federal Court, the Labor Front Bench and the Union Thugs who have ALL sought to 'pervert the course of justice' and conceal their own involvement in fraud, theft and money laundering - on a grand scale.
Saw a report that a married couple had been convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to two and a half years jail, while their tricky accountant got five years in the slammer.
Let us hope that the Justice System maintains some consistency and 'our' den of thieves get sentences commensurate with their crimes and its cover-up.
Posted by: Blackswan | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 01:35 PM
Gee whiz!
If nothing substantial was changed other than the dates & the missing letter of comfort did the trick, you would have to wonder if there may have been some other influence brought to bear.
I wonder if there may have been some other "Emily's Listers" in positions of influence in WA around that time?
Posted by: pattoh | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 01:56 PM
If this same document was lodged three times, shouldn't there be three date stamps from the Commisioner of Corporate Affairs, not just one?
Posted by: michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 03:46 PM
Seeker of the truth, you have done a wonderful job sharing your skills to the people who follow this blog, thank you.
I would like to know the whos whos, who were running WA at the time, could it have been WA Inc?.
Funny that.
Posted by: Mon | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 04:04 PM
@ pattoh | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 01:56 PM
Q:
"I wonder if there may have been some other "Emily's Listers" in positions of influence in WA around that time?"
A: CARMEL LAWRENCE was Premier of W.A. from Feb. 1990 until Feb. 1993, and was an Emily's List(er) from 1994.
Carmen Lawrence was the first female Premier of an Australian State. However, she was not the first female head of government of a province of the Commonwealth of Australia; being preceded by Rosemary Follett, who became Chief Minister of the ACT on 11 May 1989.
On 19 November 1990, Lawrence called a Royal Commission into matters related to the WA Inc deals, after considerable public and media pressure. The commission hearings began on 12 March 1991, and within months, the Labor party became a minority government as three left-wing MPs left the party to sit as independents. Coverage of the commission hearings dominated media headlines for most of the period from then until the 1993 election.
Source: Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Lawrence
The EMILY's List journey began in 1994, when the ALP National Conference passed an Affirmative Action Rule requiring women be preselected in 35 per cent of winnable seats at all elections by 2002. Among the progressive women who drove this change were Julia Gillard, Deputy Prime Minister, former Premiers Joan Kirner and Carmen Lawrence along with Helen Creed, Candy Broad MP, Kay Setches, Leonie Morgan, Judy Spence, Meredith Burgmann, Jan Burnswoods, Carolyn Pickles, Sue Mackay and Fran Bladel.
Source:
http://www.emilyslist.org.au/about-us/our-history
Posted by: Anna | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 04:05 PM
is it a coincidence that the ABC dont cover this?
or is it their judgement that its not true based on their in depth research into the affair.
serious questions must be asked of the ABC.....Who was asked to cover it? if no one was asked, which editors decided that this should not be covered?
I have relatives who say none of this could be true because A. the police havent charged her and B. the media is not reporting it.
By that they mean the ABC are not reporting it.
Posted by: andrewe | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 04:07 PM
Based on what Ralph Blewitt and Wilson have said and what Gillard said in her recorded interview at S&G at S& G I think a possible sequence of events is as follows:
1. Blewitt and Wilson attempted to set up an association but it was rejected because, in Ralph Blewitt’s words, “it sounds too much like a trade union”.
Then Blewitt and Wilson went to Gillard (http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2012/10/the-awu-scandal-ralph-blewitt-talks-about-the-power-of-attorney-transcript.html)
2. Gillard drew up rules (having no rules may have been the technicality Wilson referred to in his ABC interview).
3. Gillard changed the name so that it wouldn’t sound too much like a union, and wrote the name herself since the exact name was important.
4. Gillard possibly wrote a letter to accompany the application (the application we have now) arguing that the name and rules made it clear the association was not a trade union and did not sound like a trade union
In the S&G interview it was Peter Gordon, not Gillard, who said the Commissioner had written back after the application she helped prepare was lodged with the objection that the association “might be a trade union”. Gillard was equivocal in response, saying “I wouldn’t want to be held to those dates without looking at the files” but accepted Peter Gordon’s version, as has everyone else it seems.
Note that “sounding like a union” is different from possibly being a trade union. It suggests the association had a name which was misleading and deceptive, something the Commissioner would be quite likely to object to. If so, the misleading potential of the name of this association should have been pretty clear to Julia Gillard.
Of course, all the above is conjecture – I have no clear proof that this was the sequence of events. And I don’t know why there are three hand-written file numbers on this application and only one date stamp.
Posted by: michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 04:49 PM
@martinR | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 12:35
Ditto, re house payment.
Posted by: Jay | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 05:08 PM
Let's be clear about the original Mike Smith allegations. Julia Eileen Gillard is the No.1 suspect in this case. The frauds,POA and AWU-WRA Incorporation Applications were all her handywork, and the embezzlement of AWU funds for renovations was for her donger, nobody elses.
"While I was away Bruce just went ahead and did it, nothing to do with me".
Pigs Ar....
Posted by: Alf Welch | Saturday, 27 April 2013 at 07:38 PM
Re: michael (Tango, Delta, Alpha)
Part of your comments, copied and pasted here:
In the S&G interview it was Peter Gordon, not Gillard, who said the Commissioner had written back after the application she helped prepare was lodged with the objection that the association “might be a trade union”. Gillard was equivocal in response, saying “I wouldn’t want to be held to those dates without looking at the files” but accepted Peter Gordon’s version, as has everyone else it seems.
What files? The ones not on the record at S&G? The ones that were found whilst she was on 'holidays'? Where are those files?
So, as you say you have no idea why there are 3 handwritten file numbers on the application, and only one date stamp. Perhaps the first two didn't pass muster.
I don't profess to know how Corporate Affairs in W.A. operate, but I am sure there are a number of people out there who do. Perhaps one or more of them could answer your question re one datestamp.
Posted by: havago | Sunday, 28 April 2013 at 05:42 PM
"What files? The ones not on the record at S&G? The ones that were found whilst she was on 'holidays'?" Posted by: havago | Sunday, 28 April 2013 at 05:42 PM
From my reading of the transcript I think Peter Gordon and Julia Gillard were referring to the files found whilst she was on holidays.
Posted by: michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Sunday, 28 April 2013 at 06:18 PM
A date stamp was not used on the application until the documents were accepted by the counter clerk as being suitable for lodgement and ready to proceed to the next level of scrutiny then eventual incorporation. The counter clerk does not interest himself with the Rules of the association, just so long as Rules do accompany the application documents. His concerns are that the documents have been completed and signed, that the Notice has been published with a copy accompanying the forms and that the documents are being lodged in the time period specified in the Notice (ie on or after 6 April 1992). The counter clerk will firstly give the documents an association number then proceed to check through the documents. If they pass his inspection, he date stamps them, lodgement fees are paid and the papers are then passed to the next level at the CAC’ being the associations section for further checking. In this section requisitions are raised if there is a problem with the documents. Thus the requisition sent to Ralph Blewitt as the lodging party and passed onto Julia Gillard to answer. She did provide a letter of comfort to the WA CAC under Slater & Gordon letterhead which created a problem for S&G when discovered in her file.
Note the number of the third handwritten number on the AWU-WRA documents. It is A1002262E. Then note the registered number for the AWU-WRA as appears on the Certificate of Incorporation. It is 1002262. The purpose of the numbers on the AWU-WRA documents is now obvious in the light of the Certificate of Incorporation. The number represents the incorporated associations registered number. There were two failed attempts at the counter to have the documents accepted and thus the numbers were ruled through but Blewitt, Wilson & Gillard were successful on the third attempt with A1002262E and the documents were passed along the chain for processing and eventual registration under that number. A search of the ASIC register shows that the other two numbers on the forms (being 1002116 and 1002203) have not been allocated by the WA CAC to any incorporated association nor other corporate entity.
As for the handwritten number 1917188 appearing above $75 paid, this is a receipt number written by the cashier.
Posted by: seeker of truth | Monday, 29 April 2013 at 02:43 AM
"The counter clerk will firstly give the documents an association number then proceed to check through the documents. If they pass his inspection, he date stamps them, lodgement fees are paid and the papers are then passed to the next level at the CAC’ being the associations section for further checking." Posted by: seeker of truth | Monday, 29 April 2013 at 02:43 AM
Can you say how you know so much about the procedures used?
I would have thought giving out an association number without a date stamp was rather odd. If you are going to check it and reject it, why not hold off allocating an association number until after you have checked it?
However, if you know for sure what was done, and can say how you know, then with that established we could move on to other questions.
Posted by: michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Monday, 29 April 2013 at 11:00 AM
"We can therefore assume that Julia Gillard was involved with the incorporation of the AWU-WRA right from its inception"@seek of truth
Only if you ignore what each of Blewitt and Wilson said independently - that they went to Gillard after their attempt to from an association had failed. Maybe this application was submitted three times as you say the file numbers prove, but that doesn't prove Blewitt and Wilson are lying. We may not have the copy of their failed application.
Posted by: michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Monday, 29 April 2013 at 11:15 AM
"There were two failed attempts at the counter to have the documents accepted and thus the numbers were ruled through but Blewitt, Wilson & Gillard were successful on the third attempt with A1002262E and the documents were passed along the chain for processing and eventual registration under that number."
Where are the changes made to the document to get it accepted the third time, after being rejected twice at the counter?
Posted by: michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Monday, 29 April 2013 at 11:52 AM
Hi Michael
Through you please to Michael TDA 11.52
Maybe the letter of comfort Maybe a new staffer on the counter Maybe a forwarning of its impending third lodgement. I like you look forward to the answer Not sure if we are looking for the same answer though
Posted by: @Laborpains | Monday, 29 April 2013 at 03:07 PM