The truth about the Clinton Foundation's history
CFMEU Sparkles & star TURC witness "no English" Zhou pro-China demo outside Channel 7

Bill Clinton's a lucky bloke, he might avoid a fraud conviction in Australia. Maybe.

I'm dealing with a number of people and offices in the United States about Bill Clinton ripping us off for millions.

I'm a bit nocturnal communicating with the US people in their time zone but it makes for frank emails and honest exchanges.

I get enough alerts from my various security helpers to know that the people we least want to read our confidential stuff are the ones most likely to have it on their desk first thing in the morning.

So I thought I'd just show you some of the stuff that has been going back and forth tonight.

This note is from me to 'A Few Good Men' in the US.



We have a new Parliament-elect which is yet to be formally commissioned by our Governor General.  It's the result of a double-dissolution of our House of Representatives and Senate at the behest of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.  Hubris is his name - it's rare for us to dissolve both houses and Turnbull created the arcane circumstances that would allow him to advise the GG to do it because Turnbull believed that once the people were shown the true Turnbull during the protracted campaign, opposition parties wouldn't bother turning up.  Needless to say the result for Mr Turnbull is the one unchanged since the Greek tragedies.
Now what that means practically is that a range of political all-sorts has been elected to our Senate.  Rather than the preponderance of our equivalent to your Dem/GOP there's now a substantial group of senators in between who wield now the power over the life or death of any legislative program.  They also have unimaginable individual power to hold enquiries, compel witnesses etc.
I am in dialogue with a couple of angry Senators with something to prove, in fact there's an embarrassment of riches so far as Senatorial friends are concerned.  I'm thinking about putting my request for the honour of conducting a Senate enquiry into the Clinton Foundation and Australia's payments to it out to tender!
To follow on from XXXXX's note - there are two broad categories of disquiet for us in the dealings with Clinton et al.
The first is the singularly criminal conduct.  We are a common law country but most of the relevant common law offences I think Bill Clinton has committed here have been made statutory and the points of proof aren't too hard to get your head around.  The second is the broader question of corruption, influence peddling, favours for mates, secret commissions etc.
Let's do the simple thing first.  For us the offence of fraud is pretty clear cut.  I was a policeman in the state of Victoria so I'm familiar with the legislation there - but it's almost identical in NSW where Clinton's relevant conduct or actus reus occured.
So here's the law

 Victorian Current Acts

[Index] [Table] [Search] [Search this Act] [Notes] [Noteup] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help]


Obtaining financial advantage by deception

S. 82(1) amended by Nos 9576 s. 11(1), 49/1991 s. 119(1) 
(Sch. 2 item 40), 48/1997 
s. 60(1)(Sch. 1 item 59). 

    (1)     A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains for himself or another any financial advantage is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum). 

    (2)     For purposes of this section deception has the same meaning as in section 81.

S. 83 amended by Nos 7184 s. 2, 7705 s. 10, 7876 s. 2(3), 7994 s. 5, 8280 s. 11(1)–(3), substituted by No. 8425 s. 2(1)(b).

Here's the more run of the mill fraud offence including the legislative definition for "deception" which I think will be important for the prosecution of Clinton here.

 Victorian Current Acts

[Index] [Table] [Search] [Search this Act] [Notes] [Noteup] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help]


Obtaining property by deception

S. 81(1) amended by Nos 9576 s. 11(1), 49/1991 s. 119(1) 
(Sch. 2 item 40), 48/1997 
s. 60(1)(Sch. 1 item 59). 

    (1)     A person who by any deception dishonestly obtains property belonging to another, with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum). 

    (2)     For purposes of this section a person is to be treated as obtaining property if he obtains ownership, possession or control of it, and "obtain" includes obtaining for another or enabling another to obtain or to retain. 

    (3)     Subsections (12) and (13) of section 73 shall apply for purposes of this section, with the necessary adaptation of the reference to appropriating, as it applies for purposes of section 72.

S. 81(4) substituted by No. 36/1988 s. 6.

    (4)     For the purposes of this section, "deception"— 

        (a)     means any deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to fact or as to law, including a deception as to the present intentions of the person using the deception or any other person; and 

        (b)     includes an act or thing done or omitted to be done with the intention of causing— 

              (i)     a computer system; or 

              (ii)     a machine that is designed to operate by means of payment or identification— 

to make a response that the person doing or omitting to do the act or thing is not authorised to cause the computer system or machine to make. 

S. 82 amended by No. 7876 s. 2(3), substituted by Nos 8280 s. 10, 8425 s. 2(1)(b).

Let's take one example of Clinton's conduct.  This photo was the best of a bad lot of shots of a guilty-looking Clinton and the Minister for DownUnder's Foreign Affairs Alexander "downer" Downer.
Screen Shot 2016-08-10 at 12.28.15 am
Here's the document they signed
Screen Shot 2016-08-10 at 1.39.36 am Screen Shot 2016-08-10 at 1.39.45 am

I think Clinton obtained a financial advantage by deception when he signed that document.
To prove a case against him the first hurdle is dishonesty.  Did Clinton act dishonestly?   He put himself forward as able to bind the Clinton Foundation to an agreement - is that truthful Bill?   Is that the way the regulatory authorities in the US record the names of persons able to direct the affairs of the Foundation?  Where are the board minutes to show that the information given to the IRS is deceptive and misleading and that in fact it really was you Bill who was running the show.  Why do you call it your Foundation Bill?   Are you the proprietor?  "Whereas William J Clinton has made the fight against AIDS a major focus of his Foundation" - where are the records to prove that claim Bill?  When last we checked the disclosures made by the Foundation to the IRS etc don't say anything at all about you exercising any control at all in the Foundation's affairs.  Is there a secret Deed of Control Bill?  You might be in trouble if you can't produce it old mate, because on the face of it we have been deceived - and as a result of that deception you have obtained a financial advantage for the Foundation that we wouldn't have given to "Bill the Bullshitting disbarred carpetbagging barrister" who deceived us into believing he was a person of good standing and character duly authorised by the good offices of the United States and her solid probity tests for fit and proper persons entrusted with managing the affairs of charitable corporations.
I wrote to the Chief Commissioner of Police in Victoria alleging a serious series of frauds against our then sitting Prime Minister Julia Gillard.
Amongst other things that resulted in a police raid with a search warrant on her former law offices - this took place while she was in the House of Representatives as Prime Minister.
These things can happen in our jurisdiction, it just takes a bit of poking and prodding to embarrass the authorities into action.
Look forward to Hillary's Attorney General authorising our police to put the stainless steel bracelets on her husband Bill for his extradition to Sydney to face charges.