Previous month:
February 2016
Next month:
April 2016

March 2016

Hizb ut-Tahrir ordered not to segregate men and women at meetings - Ismail al-WahWah personally liable for unlawful conduct

Screen Shot 2016-03-04 at 5.28.31 pm

Ismail al-WahWah loses big time - he (R6 below) was found personally liable for the unlawful discriminatory conduct that has been a normal part of Hizb ut-Tahrir gatherings.

Men up the front - women down the back - no more!

Screen Shot 2016-03-04 at 5.33.04 pm

 

NSW Crest

Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:
Bevege v Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia [2016] NSWCATAD 44
Hearing dates:
21 October 2015
Date of orders:
04 March 2016
Decision date:
04 March 2016
Jurisdiction:
Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:
M Hitter, Senior Member 
J Newman, General Member 
A Limbury, General Member
Decision:

Unlawful discrimination in the terms of the provision of a service on the grounds of sex pursuant to section 33 (1) (b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)

Catchwords:
Less favourable treatment in the provision of a service 
Unincorporated associations
Legislation Cited:
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) 
Associations Incorporation Act 2009 (NSW) 
Corporations Act 2001 (Cmth)
Cases Cited:
Waters v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 173 CLR 349 
IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1 
Commonwealth v Humphries (1998) 86 FCR 324 
Haines v Leves (1987) 8 NSWLR 442 
New South Wales (Department of Education) v Purvis (2001) 186 ALR 69 
OV & OW v Members of the Board of the Wesley Mission Council (2010) 270 ALR 542 
Smith v Anderson (1880) 15 Ch D 247 
Leahy v Attorney-General (NSW) (1959) 101 CLR 611 
Jones v Bible Believer’s Church [2007] 148 FCR 276 
Bradley Egg Farm v Clifford [1943] 2 All ER 378 
Ward v Eltherington [1982] Qd R 561 
Peckham v Moore [1975] 1 NSWLR 353 
Baker v Jones [1954] 2 All ER 553 
Smith v Yarnold [1969] 2 NSWR 410 
Cooper v HR&EOC (1999)93 FCR 481 
Elliott v Nanda (2001) 111 FCR 240
Category:
Principal judgment
Parties:
Alison Bevege (Applicant) 
Respondents: 
1.   Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia 
2.   Uthman Badar 
3.   Wassim Dourheihi 
4.   Ashraf Doureihi 
5.   Hamzah Quereshi 
6.   Ismail al-Wahwah 
7.   Public Forums Incorporated
Representation:
A Bevege (Applicant in person) 
File Number(s):
1510236
Publication restriction:
Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. This is a complaint of sex discrimination in the provision of services. The event leading to the complaint is the Applicant’s attendance at a lecture staged by Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia on 10 October 2014 (the lecture). The Applicant complains that she was required to sit in an area set aside for women and children, which was behind seating designated for male members of the audience.

  2. The Applicant complained about this to the President of Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW (the ADB). The matter was not resolved and the President referred the complaint to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal). In doing so the President referred a complaint of sex discrimination in the provision of goods or services pursuant to sections 24 and 33 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (the ADA).

  3. The Tribunal’s reasons are as follows.

Complaint to ADB

Continue reading "Hizb ut-Tahrir ordered not to segregate men and women at meetings - Ismail al-WahWah personally liable for unlawful conduct" »


Bill Clinton's Articles of Impeachment - and the alternative offered by his friends, The Democrats

A pattern of false statements and obstruction.

This is the censure motion put forward by Clinton's own party The Democrats to save him from Impeachment.   This horrible statement was as good as it would get for Bill.

Joint Resolution

That it is the sense of Congress that –

1. on January 20, 1993, William Jefferson Clinton took the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States faithfully to execute the office of President; implicit in that oath is the obligation that the President set an example of high moral standards and conduct himself in a manner that fosters respect for the truth; and William Jefferson Clinton has egregiously failed in this obligation, and through his actions has violated the trust of the American people, lessened their esteem for the office of President, and dishonored the office which they have entrusted to him;

2.
          (A) William Jefferson Clinton made false statements concerning his reprehensible conduct with a subordinate;

          (B) William Jefferson Clinton wrongly took steps to delay discovery of the truth; and

          (C) in as much as no person is above the law, William Jefferson Clinton remains subject to criminal and civil penalties; and

3. William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, by his conduct has brought upon himself, and fully deserves, the censure and condemnation of the American people and the Congress; and by his signature on this Joint Resolution, acknowledges this censure and condemnation.

It was rejected on a 22-14 vote in the House Judiciary Committee.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/censuretext121298.htm

 

Articles of Impeachment

Articles of Impeachment and 
Judiciary Committee Roll Call Votes

Updated Sunday, December 19, 1998

Following are the text and roll call votes for the four articles of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee on December 11 and 12, 1998. Also see the text and votes on a censure resolution.

  • UPDATE: The Full House's Impeachment Vote
    1The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. 
    House: Passed 228-206
    Committee: Passed 21-16
    Full Text
    Roll Call Vote
    2The president provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in the Jones case in his answers to written questions and in his deposition. 

    House: Failed 229-205
    Committee: Passed 20-17
    Full Text
    Roll Call Vote
    3The president obstructed justice in an effort to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence related to the Jones case. 
    House: Passed 221-212
    Committee: Passed 21-16
    Full Text
    Roll Call Vote
    4The president misused and abused his office by making perjurious, false and misleading statements to Congress. (Amended by a 29-5 vote. See draft version.)
    House: Failed 285-148
    Committee: Passed 21-16
    Full Text
    Roll Call Vote

    (Editor's Note: Members' names link to their Congressional Guide profiles, which contain their e-mail and other contact information. Also see profiles of Judiciary Committee members.)

    Resolution Impeaching William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

    Resolved, that William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

    Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.


    Article I

    In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administra tion of justice, in that:

    On August 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury concerning one or more of the following: (1) the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee; (2) prior perjurious, false and misleading testi mony he gave in a Federal civil rights action brought against him; (3) prior false and misleading statements he allowed his attorney to make to a Federal judge in that civil rights action; and (4) his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of witnesses and to impede the discovery of evidence in that civil rights action.

    In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

    Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.


    Article I passed on a 21-16 vote.
    Voting Aye

    Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
    James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
    Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
    George Gekas (R-Pa.)
    Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
    Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
    Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
    Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
    Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
    Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
    Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
    Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
    Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
    Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
    William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
    Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
    Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
    Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
    James Rogan (R-Calif.)
    Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
    Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

    Voting Nay

    John Conyers (D-Mich.)
    Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
    Barney Frank (D-Mass.
    Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
    Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
    Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
    Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
    Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
    Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
    Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
    Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
    Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
    Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
    William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
    Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
    Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)

     

 

Article II

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administra tion of justice, in that:

(1) On December 23, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton, in sworn answers to written questions asked as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him, willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning conduct and proposed conduct with subordinate employees.

(2) On January 17, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton swore under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in a deposition given as part of a Federal civil rights action brought against him. Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony in response to questions deemed relevant by a Federal judge concerning the nature and details of his relationship with a subordinate Government employee, his knowledge of that employee's involvement and participation in the civil rights action brought against him, and his corrupt efforts to influence the testimony of that employee.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.


Article II passed on a 20-17 vote.
Voting Aye

Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
George Gekas (R-Pa.)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
James Rogan (R-Calif.)
Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

Voting Nay

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)

 


     

 

Article III

In his conduct while President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

(1) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to execute a sworn affidavit in that proceeding that he knew to be perjurious, false and misleading.

(2) On or about December 17, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony if and when called to testify personally in that proceeding.

(3) On or about December 28, 1997, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly engaged in, encouraged, or supported a scheme to conceal evidence that had been subpoenaed in a Federal civil rights action brought against him.

(4) Beginning on or about December 7, 1997, and continuing through and including January 14, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton intensified and succeeded in an effort to secure job assistance to a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him in order to corruptly prevent the truthful testimony of that witness in that proceeding at a time when the truthful testimony of that witness would have been harmful to him.

(5) On January 17, 1998, at his deposition in a Federal civil rights action brought against him, William Jefferson Clinton corruptly allowed his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit, in order to prevent questioning deemed relevant by the judge. Such false and misleading statements were subsequently acknowledged by his attorney in a communication to that judge.

(6) On or about January 18 and January 20-21, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton related a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness.

(7) On or about January 21, 23 and 26, 1998, William Jefferson Clinton made false and misleading statements to potential witnesses in a Federal grand jury proceeding in order to corruptly influence the testimony of those witnesses. The false and misleading statements made by William Jefferson Clinton were repeated by the witnesses to the grand jury, causing the grand jury to receive false and misleading information.

In all of this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.


Article III passed on a 21-16 vote.
Voting Aye

Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
George Gekas (R-Pa.)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
James Rogan (R-Calif.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

Voting Nay

John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)

 


     


Article IV

Using the powers and influence of the office of President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office, impaired the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, and contravened the authority of the legislative branch and the truth-seeking purpose of a coordinate investigative proceeding in that, as President, William Jefferson Clinton, refused and failed to respond to certain written requests for admission and willfully made perjurious, false and misleading sworn statements in response to certain written requests for admission propounded to him as part of the impeachment inquiry authorized by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States. 

William Jefferson Clinton, in refusing and failing to respond, and in making perjurious, false and misleading statements, assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives and exhibited contempt for the inquiry. 

In doing this, William Jefferson Clinton has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States. 

Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. 


Article IV passed on a 21-16 vote.
Voting Aye

Henry Hyde (R-Ill.)
James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
Bill McCollum (R-Fla.)
George Gekas (R-Pa.)
Howard Coble (R-N.C.)
Lamar Smith (R-Tex.)
Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.)
Charles Canady (R-Fla.)
Bob Inglis (R-S.C.)
Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.)
Steve Buyer (R-Ind.)
Ed Bryant (R-Tenn.)
Steve Chabot (R-Ohio)
Bob Barr (R-Ga.)
William Jenkins (R-Tenn.)
Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.)
Edward Pease (R-Ind.)
Christopher Cannon (R-Utah)
James Rogan (R-Calif.)
Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
Mary Bono (R-Calif.)

Voting Nay

John Conyers (D-Mich.)
Thomas Barrett (D-Wis.)
Barney Frank (D-Mass.
Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)
Howard Berman (D-Calif.)
Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.)
Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
Mel Watt (D-N.C.)
Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.)
Maxine Waters (D-Calif.)
Martin Meehan (D-Mass.)
William Delahunt (D-Mass.)
Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)
Steven Rothman (D-N.J.)

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/impeachvote121198.htm


Vale the late Sean Fisher. He lived to make others happy.

Screen Shot 2016-03-03 at 10.38.20 pm

There's no trust like the trust you have with the bloke on the other end of the rope when you're 30 feet up a eucalypt operating a chain-saw.

For a few happy months in 2014 I had the privilege of working on large country properties near Wollongong with the late Sean Fisher.

Sean was programmed to bring happiness to others.   He was often frustrated, regularly stupendously drunk, sometimes off with the fairies - and always the loveliest bloke you could ever hope to meet.

Sean was a very trusting soul.   His trust in others - as a mutual mate would say - saw him "ripped off deluxe".   But I don't think Sean was used to being trusted himself by other people.   That's why those months working in the trees, lantana and blackberries together were so special.

I'd look Sean in the eye and say, "Mate, you and that rope are the only thing between me, and face-planting with a chain-saw.   We can't ever do this if you've had a drop of grog or anything else, right?"

And Sean never, ever let me down.

Sean was a descendant of Prime Minister Andrew Fisher.   He was invited to prime-ministerial events as the representative of the Fisher family.   I wrote about Gough Whitlam's state funeral service courtesy of Sean and I know he'd be chuffed to see this photo of a very dapper Mr Fisher with the toffs in print!

Screen Shot 2016-03-03 at 5.56.19 am

Screen Shot 2016-03-03 at 9.01.04 pm

Nearly three weeks ago, Sean dropped me a note to say that he was very depressed and finding life quite difficult.   We messaged each other about life, pressures - and the grog.   It amazes me still today that Sean wrote "I know, of all the people I met over the last few years, (you were the) only one (who) had concerns over my drinking. I will be okay enjoy your trip..."

NSW Police were very helpful that weekend as we tracked Sean down and he later told me he'd been back to see his doctor and was feeling much better.  

We should all learn to speak up a bit more when we see others heading towards a bad crash.

It was a terrible shock - but not all that great a surprise - to hear that gentle, beautiful Sean died yesterday.   There's been a lot of interest in Sean's death because of the house he died in at Wombara.  I can't add anything to those stories - you can read them in the papers today.

But I did want to write something about the man.   I'm glad Sean's pain is over.   He was too good for the world he lived in.

Screen Shot 2016-03-03 at 9.22.07 pm

I hope they have plenty of animals and mathematical problems in heaven Sean.   And a nice washing machine surf like on the beach at Wombara so you can entertain the little kids with the beached whale routine.   I can still hear their glee and your unbridled fun and loveliness today.

Rest in Peace old mate.

If you are depressed or contemplating suicide, help is available at Lifeline on 131 114


Bangladesh considering abandoning Islam as state religion in wake of revulsion at the acts of Mohammedans

This video from Bangladesh is quite distressing - as much for the violence implicit in it as for the message it conveys about Islam's response to websites like ours

This from the UK's Daily Mail

Bangladesh considering abandoning Islam as its official religion following wake of extremist attacks 

  • Supreme Court is considering dropping Islam as country's state religion 
  • The move is being backed by leaders of minority faiths in the country 
  • It comes after a string of terror attacks against Hindus and Christians

Bangladesh could drop Islam as the country's official religion following a string of extremist attacks against people of other faiths.

The supreme court in the South Asia nation has began to hear arguments which challenge Islam's status as the official state religion.

It comes after a spate of attacks against people of other religions such as Hindus, Christians, and minorities Shi'ites, which have been blamed on Islamic extremists.

Demonstrators protest against an extremist-related attack in Bangladesh. The country is now considering dropping Islam as the state religion 

Demonstrators protest against an extremist-related attack in Bangladesh. The country is now considering dropping Islam as the state religion 

When Bangladesh was formed in 1971 after the nation split from Pakistan, it was declared a secular state.

However, in 1988 the country's constitution was amended with Islam declared as the state religion. But this is now being disputed as illegal in the latest court battle and is being supported by religious minority leaders.

Meanwhile the US has also warned that ISIS is stepping up recruitment in Bangladesh, even though the government says the extremist problems are home grown.

There have been a spate of attacks against people of other religions such as Hindus, Christians, and minorities Shi'ites, which have been blamed on Islamic extremists.

In a written testimony to the U.S. Senate James Clapper noted the claims of responsibility from ISIS for 11 high profile attacks on foreigners and religious minorities, and claims from the Ansarullah Bangla Team and al-Qaida in the Indian Subcontinent for killing at least 11 progressive writers and bloggers in Bangladesh since 2013.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3473136/Bangladesh-considering-abandoning-Islam-official-religion-following-wake-extremist-attacks.html#ixzz41oxmp6gd 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


US Justice Department grants immunity to Clinton staffer who set up private email server - criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton

This from the Washington Post today.

 

Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server

 
 March 2 at 8:20 PM 

The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked on Hillary Clinton’s private email server, as part of a criminal investigation into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement official.

The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.

As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server, how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information in emails, current and former officials said.

The inquiry comes against a political backdrop in which Clinton is the favorite to secure the Democratic nomination for the presidency.

So far, there is no indication that prosecutors have convened a grand jury in the email investigation to subpoena testimony or documents, which would require the participation of a U.S. attorney’s office.

Spokesmen at the FBI and Justice Department would not discuss the investigation. Pagliano’s attorney, Mark J. MacDougall, also declined to comment.

In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said: “As we have said since last summer, Secretary Clinton has been cooperating with the Department of Justice’s security inquiry, including offering in August to meet with them to assist their efforts if needed.”

He also said the campaign is “pleased” that Pagliano, who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before a congressional panel in September, is now cooperating with prosecutors. The campaign had encouraged Pagliano to testify before Congress.

As part of the inquiry, law enforcement officials will look at the potential damage had the classified information in the emails been exposed. The Clinton campaign has described the probe as a security review. But current and former officials in the FBI and at the Justice Department have said investigators are trying to determine whether a crime was committed.

“There was wrongdoing,” said a former senior law enforcement official. “But was it criminal wrongdoing?”

Clinton has since apologized for what happened: “Yes, I should have used two email addresses, one for personal matters and one for my work at the State Department. Not doing so was a mistake. I’m sorry about it, and I take full responsibility.”

Any decision to charge someone would involve Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, who told Congress when asked last month about the email inquiry: “That matter is being handled by career independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents, as well as the career independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence, they look at the law and they’ll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate.”

She added, “We will review all the facts and all the evidence and come to an independent conclusion as how to best handle it.” 

ENDS

'You've got to stand up to it': what Hillary Clinton told Gillard on public scrutiny

July 5, 2013
Stephanie Peatling

 

Former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton told then prime minister Julia Gillard she had to stick up for herself in the face of events from her past being dredged up and used against her.

Ms Gillard and Mrs Clinton had a private meeting in Perth late last year which Ms Gillard recounted to journalist Anne Summers in a piece published on Friday afternoon.

In what would turn out to be Ms Gillard's last in-depth interview before she lost the prime ministership, she revealed to Dr Summers how she had spoken about the added pressure of being 'The First' with Barack Obama, and how Mrs Clinton had discussed with her the issue of being a high profile woman.

"We did have a discussion about where our media cycle was stuck then, which was this relentless opposition questioning about events the best part of 20 years ago," Ms Gillard said in the interview, which took place on June 10 this year.

At the time the pair met Ms Gillard was facing questions over her role in the AWU affair dating back to her time as a lawyer with Slater and Gordon in the 1990s.

Mrs Clinton told Ms Gillard that she had ''seen this movie before'', a reference to the questions the Clintons faced over the Whitewater development scandal.

Mrs Clinton offered Ms Gillard the following advice: "You've got to stand up to it and be clear about it and name it for what it is because the temptation is to say, 'Look this is so absurd, it'll die a death', whereas these things unfortunately don't die a death."

The then prime minister also revealed how she discussed race and gender with US President Barack Obama saying the two shared a bond based on their unique understanding of what it was like to be the first to reach high office.

Ms Gillard said Mr Obama's experience as the first African American president and her status as Australia's  first female prime minister helped them to understand each other.

"I think there is a little bit of a spark there about the sense of being 'The First' and consequently having to deal with things that someone else who's in your position has never had to," Ms Gillard said.

Although Ms Gillard said she admired Mrs Clinton for being "very fearless in putting forward her values" she was ambivalent when asked whether or not the former secretary of state should run for the presidency in 2016.

"I almost don't know what to wish for her," Ms Gillard said.

ENDS

And Ms Gillard is correctI think there is a little bit of a spark there too.


Michael Lawler resigns his commission, tenders letter to Governor General Sir Peter Cosgrove

Michael Lawler quits Fair Work Commission 

Michael Lawler, partner of Kathy Jackson, has resigned from the Fair Work Commission.
Michael Lawler, partner of Kathy Jackson, has resigned from the Fair Work Commission. Supplied

Fair Work Commission vice-president Michael Lawler has resigned. 

The Australian Financial Review has been told the controversial partner of former union leader Kathy Jackson tendered his resignation to Governor-General Peter Cosgrove on Thursday.

Employment Minister Michaelia Cash is due to make a statement after question time on Thursday about Mr Lawler.

His resignation came 24 hours before he was due to respond to a report by former retired Melbourne judge Peter Heerey​ into Mr Lawler's use of sick leave while on a $435,000 a year salary. Mr Lawler was allegedly assisting Ms Jackson with a legal battle over stealing union funds.

His resignation also followed a 40-year-old man being found dead in Ms Jackson's home on Wednesday.

Mr Lawler's decision is likely to be a relief for government ministers, given the long-running controversy over his conduct,

If he had not quit, a vote by both houses of Parliament would have been required to remove him from the commission.

It is not known at this stage if Mr Lawler will seek to receive a taxpayer-funded pension.

He would be potentially entitled to a pension if he said his resignation was due to a permanent incapacity to perform his role. Any decision on his pension would be at the discretion of Senator Cash.

Mr Lawler appeared on a bombshell Four Corners episode where he demonstrated how he made covert recordings of Fair Work Commission president Iain Ross.

A spokeswoman for the Fair Work Commission declined to comment on Thursday. Mr Lawler could not be reached for comment.



Read more: http://www.afr.com/news/michael-lawler-quits-fair-work-commission-20160303-gn9dsd#ixzz41oFhdbOQ 
Follow us: @FinancialReview on Twitter | financialreview on Facebook


White refugees - not welcome in Australia

 

 

White Refugees not Welcome in Australia

White refugees fleeing racist murderous violence in Zimbabwe are not welcome in Australia—unlike the 12,000 “Syrians” which that country’s government has announced are welcome, proving once again that the “refugee” issue is not about genuinely helping people in need, but only about flooding white nations with nonwhites.

Eddie-Vermaak

The latest example of anti-white establishment hypocrisy has been highlighted with the case of white Zimbabwean refuges Edward (“Eddie”) and Audry Vermaak.

The Vermaaks were farmers in Zimbabwe when the black government there decided to violently expel the last of the whites. They were subjected to violent attacks, beatings, and extended periods of persecution.

With their lives clearly in danger—and many other white Zimbabweans having been butchered by black mobs—the Vermaaks decided to apply for asylum in Australia, where they have extended family members.

According to a petition started by family member Cathy Vermaak, the two whites were “threatened that they would be found and killed for a number of years by three rogue CID officers in Kariba, Zimbabwe, right up to the day before they managed to leave Harare and come to Western Australia on a 457 Business Long Stay Visa, as this was the quickest way for them to leave.”

The Vermaaks managed to escape Zimbabwe four years ago, and have been living in Western Australia ever since. They have applied for a Protection Visa—which, according to the Australian government’s own definition, is granted to anyone who is a “refugee as defined by the Refugees Convention”—which the Vermaaks clearly are.

The petition points out that if the Vermaaks are returned to Zimbabwe, they would be in “fear for their lives” and that they have many family members in Australia, including grandchildren, son and daughter-in-law, brother and sister-in-law, mother, sister, cousins etc., who are all residing in Western Australia and are citizens of Australia.
READ  African Rioting Tears through Melbourne

“If our parents return to Zimbabwe this will be devastating to the whole family as the likelihood of them being murdered is extremely high. They also fear they will never see their grandchildren or any of their family again,” the petition reads.

However, the Australian government has now formally turned down the Protection Visa application.

“They are currently appealing to the Immigration Tribunal in the hope that they will understand the horrific ordeals that they have been through, and that it is extremely unsafe for them to return to Zimbabwe,” the petition says, ending with an appeal for signatures to be presented to the Australian government to ask that these “hardworking, law-abiding people be allowed to stay in Australia.”

The disparity in approach to white refugees genuinely fleeing for their lives and the “open welcome” granted to thousands of “Syrians” who are already safe in third countries—where they are under no threat at all—illustrates perfectly the establishment’s anti-white nature.


Australian Army continues to oppose a merit review of awards for Harry Smith's Long Tan veterans

Department of Defence opposes retrospective recognition for Vietnam veterans involved in the battle of Long Tan

Retired Australian Army Colonel Harry Smith at his Pacific Paradise home. Picture: Lachie Millard

 

THE Australian Army could stand in the way of medals for up to 13 Vietnam soldiers on the 50th anniversary of the war’s most iconic battle.

Veterans are pushing for Jack Kirby to be awarded a Victoria Cross medal.

The Department of Defence yesterday told a review into the men’s battlefield actions during the battle of Long Tan that it opposed retrospective recognition.

Veterans are pushing for a Victoria Cross medal for Warrant Officer Jack Kirby and upgraded or fresh honours for another 12 soldiers they believe displayed outstanding bravery on August 18, 1966.

However, Defence representative Gillian Heard told the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal the army opposed a merit review.

“We’ve done a process review and as far as we’re concerned there is no requirement for these awards to be reviewed any further,” said Ms Heard.

“That’s the army’s position and that’s the position the chief of army has taken.

“Army will only conduct a merit review if the process review shows maladministration. We’ve had no evidence of that.”

Vietnam veteran Harry Smith, who instigated the review, told the panel that superior officers had prevented his men being nominated for the honours they deserved.

Harry Smith about to receive the Military Cross in Vietnam in 1967. Picture: Supplied

Lieutenant Colonel Smith, who led the troops that day, said he had wanted to nominate Jack Kirby for Australia’s highest military honour after the battle but was told he couldn’t.

“I was told ‘There were no Victoria Crosses awarded in Korea. This is Vietnam, not Lone Pine. I will only sign a DCM’,” he said.

Lieut. Col Smith said he reluctantly nominated Kirby for the Distinguished Conduct Medal but had regretted it ever since.

Two soldiers were honoured with Mention in Despatches while the other 10 got nothing.

Lt-Col. Smith is lobbying for Gallantry Medals and Commendations of Gallantry for them.

CSM Jack Kirby and Harry Smith with a captured machine gun from North Vietnamese Army. Picture: Supplied

He told the panel his soldiers had won a victory in that rubber plantation even though they were outnumbered 108 Aussies to more than 2000 Vietnamese. (Captured documents and information from prisoners suggested that D Company had faced some 2,500 Vietcong.)

“My company (D Company 6RAR) inflicted horrendous casualties on the enemy; it was an outstanding victory,” he said.

“We turned a possible defeat into a victory.”

Harry Smith (left), Jack Kirby and members of D Company 6RAR on medal parade in 1967. Picture: Supplied

Lt-Col Smith said Big Jack had “displayed enormous heroism” putting his life on the line to distribute ammunition to inexperienced troops and boost their morale.

“If he can’t be awarded (for a Victoria Cross) on heroism then he should be on the second criteria for extraordinary service in the performance of duty,” he said.

Many say Vietnam vets, many of them conscripts, have received scant recognition for their efforts in the war generally and the Battle of Long Tan specifically. Picture: Supplied by Ray Chapman
The cover of Harry Smith’s book on the iconic Vietnam War battle. Picture: Supplied

“I had 68 young national servicemen who had only been in the army 12 months and had seen no major contact with the enemy until Long Tan.

“They were inspired by Jack Kirby who performed with outstanding heroism and gallantry.”

The review continues on the Sunshine Coast today.