The plot thickens..
Will this AWU scandal,that so many people have tried to sweep under the carpet,ever be solved.!!!!!

Isn't it astounding that people who had knowledge of how the system worked were not called to the Royal Commission.!!

I am still smelling that RAT...It just won't go away!

Just another quick thought or two. Is it possible that Ray Neal's letter was a forgery, created after event. Can Ray Neal actually remember signing it? Wilson/Gillard were so desperate to bank some cheques from Theiss. They started a bank account for the AWU-WRA illegally with the assistance of a compliant local Commonwealth Bank Manager. So the registration of AWU-WRA via Ministerial approval was an afterthought. No wonder the file in WA is empty. The contents would definitely throw Gillard under a bus.

Just wondering if anyone knows how Vic Pol are going? I know putting this enormous case together with all it's entanglements would be a huge task. I just hope the new Police Minister in Vic has not been up to the normal Labor mischief.

It's a proven fact that the former Prime Minister Ms Julia Gillard is a lair.
There will be No Carbon tax under a government I lead.
The lies told to her partners at Slater & Gordon in her exit interview.
The lies exposed in her book My Story.
Lied to Ben Fordham in his radio interview with you and deliberately avoided answering a direct question about the POA to him when asked.
The lies told to the Federal parliament when questioned by Julia Bishop.
The lies told at her almost hour long press conference stage managed by her to try and circumvent those questions by Julia Bishop.
The lies she told about myself at that press conference...
Who do you believe the person standing before you or a self confessed fraudster.
Julia Gillard I know you read this blog site if what I am saying about you is defamatory then please sue me for defamation.
But you won't do that because you know I am the more truthful of the two of us.
The lies told to the Royal commission into Trade Union Corruption & Governance.
You called me a sexist pig in your press conference took the high moral ground yet you slept around with married men cum-on give me break.
Lets face it you are a person of No morals and an habitual lair who defrauded the Australian public of good government.
You should be ashamed of yourself along with your other criminal mates that you protected so as to stay in power... Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper.

Ralph Blewitt.

His name is Noonan!!!!!

I would have thought her evidence was unbelievable but the Commissioner said otherwise.
As it was an interim report he can still retract the statements made, now in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
If not, has a Royal Commissioner ever been taken to the High Court on a Writ of Mandamus?

Hi Ralph,

Agree with all you said, hope you and Ruby are fine!

There is more to this than meets the eye, and Michael keep plugging away so that the name of the Minister of the Crown who authorised the incorporation is revealed.

Well penned Ralph...with you all the way.

The only work going on here is
the Old "Boys" NetWork.

I will bet that Julia and Carmen know who the Minister was.

Hi St.George. No mystery about Gillard's missing letter. It's on Gillard's AWU-WRA file at Slater & Gordon where it's been since first written. Gillard made sure her partners never saw it for over three years and her partners have made sure no one outside their firm has seen it in the ensuing twenty years.

It shows the depths to which Labor law firms and the legal and justice systems have sunk in Australia, that no one has ever subpoenaed the principal document containing details of the setting up of the vehicle used in a case which several investigations have all found to be a matter of fraud.

You reckon, it just sounds like bureaucracy.

HB33 - My pet high horse - S&G why weren't they on the stand. Why weren't they asked about the AWU WRA check - just amazing. IMO

Yes! The feminist (Gillard friend) and also Brian Burke's friend and former class mate, she was filling in for the absent minister and was a great adviser to Carmen Lawrence..Her name is Marcelle Anderson..

The Vic. Govt, may be able to intervene with the police, but the Royal Commission is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Govt. And we still have Michael Smith keeping things alive, for which we are at least grateful.

The ALP is simply not fit to govern at any level.

Did Ray Neal deny signing that letter? I don't recall that we have heard Ray Neal deny it, and I can't believe MPS didn't ask Ray Neal about that letter?

If I notice anything odd about this, or notice anything others may have overlooked, I probably will let you know, PSB.

9 June 1992] GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, WA 2387
PR4O1
MINISTERIAL ACTING ARRANGEMENTS
It is hereby notified for public information that His Excellency the Governor has approved the
following temporary allocation of portfolios during the absence of the Hon. Y. D. Henderson MLA
for the period 6-21 June 1992 inclusive:-
Acting Minister for Productivity and Labour Relations: Hon. J. A. McGinty.
Acting Minister for Consumer Affairs: Hon. J. Watson.
M. C. WAUCHOPE, Acting Chief Executive,
Department of the Premier.

Hi St. George,

Consumer Affairs covered Corporate Affairs Commission.

The Ministers involved were Yvonne Henderson (whose husband
Jeremy Henderson worked for the Western Australian Trades & Labor Council) and Judyth Watson, who relieved Yvonne while she was overseas for that two week period. Yvonne was back as Minister at the date of incorporation.

The Western Australian Trades & Labor Council gets a mention in the AWU WA Branch Minutes a number of times under its initials TLC.

How does forging that letter from Ray Neal help them get the Association incorporated? They show it to Ray Neal and say, "See you promised, so you must incorporate"??? Yes Baldrick, a cunning plan.

Of course they would except less, they had got their union boss and his mates in to power.
I am still staggered has to how this union could use public vehicles as a means of advertising for Labor.

Just a reminder of her dictionary entry (not the Macquarie of course) which perhaps the RC and CA should have referred to in the proceedings and report—

1. Julia Gillard
1. A liar.
Julia Gillard: Good morning, everyone.
Rest of the room: *checks watches to confirm that it is, in fact, morning*
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Julia%20Gillard

There might be a long standing historical association with perfidy—

"Gillard—Name Meaning (English): from a pejorative derivative of the personal name Giles. English and French: from an assimilated form of the personal name Gislehard, a compound of Old High German gisel ‘hostage’, ‘pledge’, ‘noble youth’ (see Giesel) + hard ‘hardy’. This name is also found in Switzerland, whence it may have been brought to the U.S.

TLC
Tender Loving Corruption.
Says it all.

It's a very big dead rat and with our help the smell should get much worse! Edward James on the long paddock

I'd like to see Gillard end up her Gillard "arse".

"The Gillard "arse" controversy began in March 2012, when on On the ABC's Q&A, Greer mocked Prime Minister Julia Gillard's figure, saying she should face the fact she has a “big arse”." - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/germaine-greers-big-mouth/story-e6frg6n6-1226459624896

I bet that the god damned TURC couldn't care less????

For some god damned reason, the TURC are not interested to know?????

As you well know M(TDA), we've been through all this before and it was very unusual and definitely not normal!

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2014/08/it-will-take-a-brave-police-commissioner-to-go-against-3-qcs-opinions-that-gillard-has-a-prima-facie.html?cid=6a0177444b0c2e970d01a3fd446d3e970b#comment-6a0177444b0c2e970d01a3fd446d3e970b

'Union name would have triggered queries: registrar'
Hedley tThomas and Paige Taylor | The Australian | November 30, 2012 12:00AM

Mr Metaxas said: "If we were made aware of something misleading, we would investigate and go through the steps that were specified.

"I would have thought that a union had to be registered under its own different industrial relations legislation and that's why the application by this one triggered our response."

"Having the union name in it would have triggered a letter from us asking the applicant: 'What is the purpose of this entity? Is it union-related?'

"I do not know of any other unions or union-related entities being registered under the Associations Incorporation Act.

"And this one was not brought to my attention.

"The first thing we would do is find out what the intent is. You would say, 'Well, hang on'. But I don't think anyone (applying) is going to tell you, 'It's a union slush fund'. I think they would give some purpose to it and say, 'The thing is bona fide, it's not misleading, it is eligible'. We would have said: 'We think there's a problem here. What is this?'

"You couldn't be a trading organisation under the Associations Incorporation Act. The act was just not intended for that purpose."

Under the legislation that applied at the time, Mr Metaxas was not permitted to incorporate an association that in his opinion was likely to mislead the public as to the object or purpose of the association.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/union-name-would-have-triggered-queries-registrar/story-fng5kxvh-1226527047365

Again , you attack with the Biased pre-ordained automatic premis that Gillard is always innocent ,and Minief therefore must be automatically wrong and now be investigated for accusing Vic Pol of "fabrication" of statements

Mr Manief only said he had never seen the statement and was never interviewed , Has it occurred to your legal mind that Mr Manief could not possibly have provided a statement ,if he had NOT actually been interviewed ?? .There could be a perfectly rational explaination .

Or is he just automatically a Liar , just because you have decreed it so .

'From the WA Police subpoenaed records on this fraud. Det Sgt David McAlpine typed entry - "28/1/1997 Statement from (redacted) of Min of Fair Trading regarding Associations Incorporation Act."'

It that is true it doesn't say much for Mr Mineif's memory of events of the 1990s does it? Mr Mineif said "But I can’t remember ever making a statement to any police officer."

I am not criticizing Mr Mineif - I would hardly expect anyone to remember much about what happened at work in the 1990s, but perhaps a visit by the police might stick in the memory.

Here is the article Michael done on her last Sept..
http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2014/09/background-on-was-commissioner-for-corporate-affairs-and-chronology-re-awu-wra-incorporated.html

Hey Ralph ..... Why don't you just write direct to JG . What proof do you have that she reads MSN ????
Her contact details are easy to find .... If you have trouble let me know and I will send it thru to you .
If you have a legal beef with her ... Get cracking and do some thing in the Courts .

I don't know Michael. On memory, one would have thought your idol Princess Pureheart Gillard, might have remembered on 14/8/95 when Geoff Shaw and Nick Styant-Browne came to see her specifically for the purpose of checking whether she had set up a dodgy association to allow her lover to embezzle money and launder some of it through their firm to purchase a love nest, that a file she had opened only three years before, containing details of the bogus entity she had advised and assisted her lover to set up for those purposes, was actually - surprise, surprise, in the filing cabinet where such files were usually kept.

When Geoff Shaw said it would be easy to check whether it had been opened on the system, one might even have thought Miss Innocent would have immediately walked a few metres to do that check or had her secretary Leesha do so.

However, here's that paragon of virtue and truth, the Princess herself to explain what actually happened!

"In the surrounding chaos, I must admit I didn't do anything to check whether or not I opened it on the system. I subsequently but relatively quickly thereafter went on a period of leave and, whilst I was focused on the issues surrounding this, I wasn't particularly focused about the file.

I said when -- to Leesha -- when I went on leave was one of the things I was doing when I was packing up, did she remember this file at all? And she said she did and when I came back from leave she said that it was, that it had been in the cabinet, that she'd found it, did I want it?"

Hallelujah! Who could ever doubt her innocence? LOL

Never in doubt. like you say...Nudge, Nudge...wink, wink. LOL

A trove article mentioning Yvonne Henderson and the Mark Royal Commission..
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/127283203?searchTerm=Yvonne Henderson&searchLimits=

Right on, HB. I think Gillard went on forced leave for a fortnight late August before her return on Monday 4 September 1995 then had a week to sort out her files before the exit interview on Monday 11 September.

As soon as Leesha informed her that she remembered the file, why didn't Gillard instruct Leesha to search for it and hand it to Geoff Shaw as he required it? Why did she wait another fortnight before handing over the file and explaining her involvement to Paul Mulvaney just a few days prior to the exit interview? It would have given the three Partners doing the investigation a fortnight within which to conduct their own enquiries, instead of relying on her explanations at the exit interview. S&G could have contacted the WA CAC and requested that they copy them by fax with all correspondence on the Commission's records for the AWU-WRA Inc to and from Ms Gillard as a representative of the firm and solicitor for the applicant. They would have been aware of the requirement of an undertaking to the CAC from Ralph Blewitt and her necessity to inform him of this undertaking requirement.

It would have made a lie of her reply at the exit interview

PG: “Can I ask you then following the last thing that we did to setting up the incorporation which appears from the file to be a letter arguing that it ought to be not construed as a trade union, did you have anything personally to do with that incorporated association afterwards.”

JG: “No I did not.”

Another question arises from the questions concerning the AWU WRA Inc, is how did the Partners know of the existence of this Association before being made aware of Ms Gillard's personal file containing its papers in the back of a cabinet? What were the circumstances that caused them to enquire specifically about the AWU-WRA Inc? From all our research, it would seem that S&G only knew of its existence via an entry on the trust account for Blewitt's purchase of Kerr St. An entry that was later changed to reflect Ralph Blewitt's name to divert examination by authorities of S&G and the firm's involvement in the AWU-WRA fraud at that time.

St George. While I expect these Ministers kept diaries. Would it be too much to expect her to have incriminated herself in some way? Edward James on the long paddock

Another Trove article from 1993 mentioning Yvonne Henderson..
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/127226890?searchTerm=Yvonne Henderson labor&searchLimits=
And announcement of the new Cabinet 0n 19 Feb 1990 under Carmen Lawrence.. Yvonne Henderson was the minister for Housing and Consumer Affairs
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/131180100?searchTerm=Yvonne Henderson labor&searchLimits=

So Mr Minefif doesn't know what he's talking about, is that your point?

And by the way, I think Mr Mineif may have been talking about whether it was a union, not whether it had a misleading name, which seems to be your point. But the questioning was the usual extraction of what MPS wants the interviewee to say, not an exploration of what the interviewee meant, so maybe we will never know.

I think you have completely mis-read paragraph 377. Heydon is saying that even if you accept what she said in evidence there are still criticisms that have can and have been made of her - that she did not meet the standards she should have met.

What part of that do you think is "arrant" nonsense. The fact that he there and then doesn't say "these criticisms are 100% right" but goes on to consider those criticisms (as though there might be two sides to the story)?

Keep digging Michael. :) This is another facet that is beautiful to look at in the scheme of this fraud. Well done. Something strange certainly happened here.

"Has it occurred to your legal mind that Mr Manief could not possibly have provided a statement, if he had NOT actually been interviewed ??"

Yes, something like that did indeed occur to me.

"There have been rumours about the TURC..."

This report by Lucille Keen in the Australian Financial Review 3 days ago seems to have gone under the radar.
If true, it will have repercussions on the future of the TURC.
(Unfortunately, report is behind a pay wall).

LABOR FEEDS VICTORIA TO ITS LABOR MATES:

During its three months in power the new Victorian Labor government has implemented five policies that directly benefit unions and is considering a law that would allow it to alter the scope of royal commissions, INCLUDING THE ONE IN TO TRADE UNIONS initiated by the federal government. (My caps)

Since being elected on November 29 the government has abolished the state’s building code, introduced legislation to drop move-on laws at picket lines, declared a public holiday on Easter Sunday, has said it will not adhere to the 2.5 per cent wages limit of the previous government and abolished drug and alcohol testing on building sites…

THE GOVERNMENT'S APPROACH TO THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON TRADE UNIONS ALSO HANGS IN THE BALANCE, with suggestion it will fold the unit established within the Department of Premier and Cabinet that was established to deal with the inquiry. It is also suggested the government will resubmit its submission to the inquiry after the current submission was devised by the former government and requested the CFMEU be deregistered.

This week it will introduce legislation to change the Parliamentary Committees and Inquiries Act in which relevant letters patent can be “updated”, potentially allowing the terms of reference for the royal commission to be changed or refuse for the inquiry to be lengthened.

Michelle,

The answers to your questions are to be found in Murphy's statement to TURC -

http://www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Hearings/Documents/Evidence9September2014/MurphyStatement.pdf

M(TDAS). It was Wilson who approached Gillard and four years too late, she finally "discovered" a conflict of interest.

From that stage on, all the fraudsters realised the game was up. Self-protection became the catch-word for S & G partners, Union officials and all others involved, and in particular for Gillard trying to salvage some hopes for her burning "whatever it takes" ambition of political career.

10/9/14 (9) Page 846 J.E.Gillard (Mr.Stoljar)
(On events around July/August 1995.)

29. Q. Yes, because Mr.Wilson came to you first did he not?
30-31. A ...Yes, that's right. I received some instructions from Mr.Wilson.
33. Q And you declined to act for him?.
34. A. I referred him to Mr.Murphy. I thought that was the appropriate course of conduct.
37. Q. Why did you regard that as the appropriate course of conduct?
39. A. I thought, given the nature of what he was telling me that it was a more appropriate matter for Mr.Murphy, given our personal relationship.
43. Q. Did you regard yourself as in a position of conflict between a duty that you might owe to him, personally by reason of his being your client in respect of the association and the duties that you owed to the AWU by reason of they being Slater & Gordon's client?
Page 847
1. A. You have made an assumption in that question Mr.Stoljar which isn't right. The instructions that Mr.Wilson provided me were about the Members Welfare Fund and it was having received those instructions that I referred him to Mr.Murphy.
11. Q. That may be so, that he gave you instructions about the Members Welfare Account. But in any event, he had been your client in his personal capacity in relation to the Association matter?
15. A. Yes, but in my mind at that time, receiving those instructions, there was no connection between the two.

Page 856
38. Q. When Mr. Wilson first approached you about this matter, was he talking to you in the context of his relationship with you? Was he seeking out your legal advice?
42. A. When Mr. Wilson came to discuss with me the Members Welfare Account, he came to Slater & Gordon. He was raising it with me in my capacity as a solicitor. I felt uncomfortable about acting on the matter; I referred it to Mr.Murphy.

More than passing strange that not one of the S & G solicitors saw fit to do their duties as officers of the court to report any of this to either the AWU they knew were investigating, or to any other appropriate official, despite their knowing a fraud had taken place.

The fact the Jonathan Rothfield managed S & G mortgage arm had placed a condition on the $150,000 85 Kerr St., mortgage, that it could not be repaid within three years, may well have played a large part in that joint decision to stay 'silent'.

Michael Smith did indeed interview Reay Neal and if I recall, he said he has no memory of ever writing or signing this letter.

MPS, where is that interview for all to see, please post it again.

I hate to tell you this Mike,but they are ALL tared with the same brush.You know,people keep saying that they will be voting for"Bonking Billy Shorton Brains,instead of ScoMo as a protest that the Liberal(sic)party has gone feral.Unfortunately that makes We the PEOPLE pay anyway.And a Donkey vote still goes to either party anyway.I will be researching who will benefit ME well before I go to the polling booth and I can guarantee that the Uni-Party will NOT benefit at all!!!!!

Roger, here's my transcript of the interview with Ray Neal, of which you speak.

RN .. what I do know is I didn’t write the letter, and that’s for sure but, cause it’s not even my, the way I phrase letters, y’know. It looks like it’s been done by a solicitor meself, you know that’s why I said Gary (bleep) did it. Especially the last paragraph ..
MS Well the last paragraph hang on a sec [Michael Smith here advances his theories, while Ray Neal says "yeah um"]
RN: There’s two things. One, I didn’t write the letter because I never sign my name just Ray Neal any way, you know. All my letters are done Ray R P Neal so and then the way, you know you’re talking about twenty four years ago, but I don’t think I .. well I know I don’t sorta phrase letters like that, the way that’s been done so I didn’t sorta do that letter
MS: OK, one last question Ray, if you don’t mind. Um ah, would you have incorporated an association on the condition it changes its rules thirty days down the track
RN: Ah no, definitely not, I’d .. that done first you know, so that’s the third thing un…
MS: Mate, sorry. You go first.
RN: Unless on legal advice, I was told to do it, I wouldn’t do it, but I like I said. Most of the legal advice with respect to associations was done by Ralph. He’d handle that little section there you know.
MS: I have spoken to Ralph, and Ralph is um, and Ralph is um, he sounds certain that it went up to the Minister’s office and ah that as a result of a direction from the minister the commissioner, which was you acting at the time, signed it or incorporated it. Does that ring any bells at all.
RN: No, not at all. Some, you know, some were referred to the Minister but ah certainly I wouldn’t have referred it, um, it’d have to be through, to start off through with legal advice, you know
MS: Yeah, yeah
RN: but it does it certainly, that last para, the way it’s phrased looks like it’s done by a solicitor, you know. That’s my interpretation of it anyway.
MS: If I can, screaming out for attention to me. If I could um ask you in a non-leading way, I’m trying to think of how to phrase the question. If it was a solicitor who wrote it, um, were you aware of a solicitor in your office who would make the error of calling it a Commission?
RN: No, not really but that (bleep) would have been the one who usually handled those but I presume it was that time. They may have called it a Commission you know, but it’d be unlikely …