ABC News is looking for people with unflattering nude shots and a story to tell.
Qn for police on this FBI report into Hillary Clinton. Would you have her charged, or committed?


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

MikeT (WA)

Surely this proposed meeting with Vic Fraud Squad could either be very embarrassing for certain people or Ralph might find the door to the Offices are locked


The only way the truth will ever see the light of day on the AWU-WRA saga is if Ralph is charged with fraud or some such charge. Then the bean bag will rip and the beans will spill on Julia and burger flipper.
Just don’t hold your breath.


Blewey's return!

Roy Folley

Fantastic news MPS and GOM.
Had to read it twice and kick myself
to make sure I was not dreaming.
Best wishes.


Margaret  Gallin

That reads as Ralph has made the appointment not the police. So don't get hopes up.


Good luck Ralph, our thoughts are with you.

Mike G

Good luck Ralph I hope your not the one that get hung out to dry while others are ignored at best.

Perhaps I need a tin foil hat but recently the Victorian government has a few embarrassing moments.

The premier Andrews made some ugly remarks re the former member for Carrum and her cancer battle which both major papers investigated and went to print with the detail.

Andrews is also up to his neck in bad press over his forced take over of the country fire authority by the united fire fighters union.

The then emergency services minister resigned over that issue and was allegedly threatened.

Lastly Andrews is traveling overseas at the time a supreme court challenge is being mounted to his abominable Sky Rail and the Frankston line decision on rail under road or sky rail is expected this week.

I can't help but wonder if getting Ralph back now might be to create a media distraction.

Hope I am 100% wrong it would be great to see justice come to these who have tried to cover this up.

Maggie G

"To get an update from DPP on the AWU fraud case" ...

Remembering that John Cain is now head of the DPP, what's the bet that "things are progressing, but the DPP is not yet in possession of enough material on which to base a case" or some such delaying drivel?

Michael (Tango Delta Alpha)

Can we ask who is funding this trip? I can't, on the face of it, see that there is much in it for Mr Blewitt, unless he was coming anyway. Strange.


Well, we are all reasonably sure that you are not funding the trip TDA....I doubt you could handle seeing your hero, the " Bogan Queen" behind bars.

Edward James

I can't believe the super efficient and effective Victorian police fraud squad would be calling Ralph down to Melbourne to tell him they have got nothing. Unless they are just faffing about. Unless Ralph has gone down on his own for a face to face. My money would be on him and hopefully others being charged. Perhaps Michael you could ring Wilson and ask him how its hanging for him? I wonder if it would be a good thing for the MSM chooks to be given a heads up? Edward James from the Dolls House

Edward James

Committed and quickly before she gets elected! Edward James from the Dolls House


What a farce it is, what can only be seen as Commissioner Heydon's attempted whitewash of Julia Gillard!

Chapter 3-2 Interim Report.
Para 326. "So far as the crime allegedly committed by Ralph Blewitt and Bruce Wilson concerns a false representation that there was an unincorporated association in existence at the time application was made for the incorporation, there is insufficient evidence to establish that she KNOWINGLY permitted Ralph Blewitt to file the Application in the manner he did and to establish that she knew what was in the Certificate."

H/B. Bear in mind Heydon's Report was written in full knowledge of Gillard's confession she knew from the time she first suggested an association to Wilson, at all times she gave advice and assistance, no eligible unincorporated association ever existed as required by the Act.

Julia Gillard 21 May 1992 Memorandum to Ralph Blewitt.

Para 90. On 21 May 1992 Julia Gillard sent the following memorandum to Ralph Blewitt.

TO Ralph Blewitt FROM Julia Gillard

"I have received a letter from the Office of State Corporate Affairs regarding the Association.
To finalise the Incorporation, you now need to write to Mr. Ray Neal. Assistant Director, Office of State Corporate Affairs, Box W2072. GPO Perth 6001 on Association letterhead with the letter to read as follows.

'Dear Mr. Neal.

I refer to your letter dated the 15th May 1992.

On behalf of the Association. I undertake that the Association will amend its rules within thirty days of being notified of its incorporation to include a new Rule 3A as follows:

The Interpretation of the Objects of the Association.

The objects specified in sub Rule 3(1) must not be interpreted as meaning that the Association aims to seek to regulate the relations between workmen and employers, or between workmen and workmen, or between employers and employers, or aims to impose or have imposed by others any restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business.'

I look forward to promptly receiving the notification that the Association has been incorporated.

Yours faithfully
Ralph Blewitt

'This should finalise the incorporation but if there are any further difficulties, please give me a ring.

Para 88. "The expression 'existing rules' indicates that Ray Neal, unlike Ralph Blewitt, Bruce Wilson and Julia Gillard, was assuming that the association to be incorporated actually existed. There is no record of communication advising him of this divergence from reality, even though Julia Gillard at the time of giving evidence at least, was conscious of it."

H/B. From Paras 87-98, Commissioner Heydon is absolutely scathing of Gillard's actions in relation to her treatment of Ralph Blewitt and others after "The Office of State Corporate Affairs raises query".

What in essence she had Blewitt undertake to do, required the setting up of an unincorporated association from scratch, through to lodging a lawful Application to Incorporate, a task she knew was impossible. It had taken her with considerable assistance from others, some 17 months to achieve incorporation of the socialist activist group, Socialist Forum Inc., where she served as Public Officer/Secretary from 1985 right through her legal career which was cut short by her partners over her role in the AWU-WRA Inc Affair and associated frauds.

"insufficient evidence to establish that she KNOWINGLY permitted Ralph Blewitt to file the Application in the manner he did?"

Bovine Manure Commissioner Heydon!!!

BTW Ralph. Good luck. I don't think you've really got too many worries. There will be a lot of strings pulled and many favours called in to prevent this ever going to court, Too much potential collateral damage for too many prominent but corrupt people across many professions!

Cheers H/B

Margaret  Gallin

I would hope Vicpol were paying. But unlikely.

Liz of Vic

Why do you want to know Who funds this trip?

Ralph is a private person he can do whatever he likes, without having to tell you 'who pays'.

This happens to be none of your business.


Maybe John Cain Jr has told the pliant Police Commissioner, who has an Andrews plant sitting in his office, that no charges will be laid. They have stonewalled for 2 years. Maybe they think they can get away with pulling the plug now with little blowback.

The Viking

Thanks for the succinct summation H/B, you have really put the issues together.

Could I offer a suggestion to GOM?

If any of the prominent, corrupt people in many professions, now in positions of power in Victoria, prefer charges against you.........plead "Not Guilty!!" and don't plea bargain.


Any one of a number of private individuals could be paying for Ralph's trip. But you are correct, Michael TDA, to observe that there does not appear to be a great deal in this for Ralph.

Indeed, there are enormous risks in this for both Ralph and his wife, Ruby. Risks that I know for certain both Ralph and Michael Smith are well aware of, but that are probably not as well known by at least some of his avid supporters on this website.

Ralph, an Australian citizen, is currently resident in Malaysia on an extended visa that allows him to live in that country. The particular visa Ralph holds is one that needs to be renewed by the Malaysian government every few years or so. Taking the worst case scenario, if Ralph is convicted in Melbourne of the crimes that he has admitted to (crimes he seems all too eager to be found guilty of) then the question then arising is whether the Malaysian government would allow him to continue living in Malaysia. And, for the sake of argument, suppose Malaysia shuts the door on Ralph. The heart-breaking question then arising is what happens to his wife, Ruby? Would Ruby be permitted to stay in Australia close to her husband?

I sincerely hope that Ralph has carefully thought these issues through amongst all the "encouragement" he has been getting from readers on this website. In my view, Ralph has done the right thing regarding his admissions, but I am not so sure he should have engaged in his "come and get me" strategy promoted by him and this website. Having spoken up, if authorities do not wish to take further action, then that is something for the authorities concerned. In making his admissions, Ralph has done his bit, and should leave it at that and accept whatever comes. Ralph seems unwilling to accept that trouble has a way of finding you - you don't need to go out and actually search for it yourself.

I only hope Ralph has followed the private advice he received several years ago, and that he has made contingent plans for Ruby in the even he is charged, found guilty and sentenced for his admitted crimes. This is the flip side to all the camaraderie, back slapping, general bonhomie and military nostalgia that has arisen on this website and that Ralph often seems to thrive on. True friends, Ralph, are not necessarily the people who tell you what you want to hear. True friends are people who tell you what you need to hear.

Eternal Optimist

Thinking of you,Ralph. Best wishes.


Best of luck Ralph. Hope there will be progress at last.


If you think this is going anywhere you are kidding yourself. The birds have flows the coup.

Ralph, you beauty, it seems you beat the system with a confession. Are we talking law here or religion?


Sleazebag Sam Dastyari's fortune cookie mates?


Hi Roger. In a different way, Gillard beat the system with a confession to knowledge of everything Commissioner Heydon set out in Para 59 of his Report, in particular, "she also accepted that on her instructions at the time there was no unincorporated association".

Heydon then stated in Para 60 that: "If she knowingly permitted Ralph Blewitt to file the Application with all its falsehoods, she would have either failed to notice or deliberately ignored the requirement for an association to exist before incorporation and the substantive considerations underlying that requirement".

Further, "If she deliberately ignored the matters described, she was party to Ralph's deceit".

In Para 95, Commissioner Heydon, after airily "Putting aside the practical difficulty that the Association never had the five members it was supposed to have had", said: "there is no reason to suppose that Ralph Blewitt unaided could have navigated the dangers created" by named sections of the Act......."

"She said she 'provided advice to Mr. Blewitt about the resolution of the issue. Whether he accepted that advice or acted on it is entirely a matter for him.' Heydon asks: "But by what means did he know how to act on it?"

Para 96. "There is an analogy with lawyers giving undertakings to a court on behalf of their clients. It is vital to ensure that the client understands what the undertaking calls for and what the consequences of breach are.....
Dealings with government officials who have power to make decisions creating new legal persons should be conducted in accordance with standards of the utmost punctiliousness. Ralph Blewitt was not the man to meet them unaided."
Para 97. "Advice by a solicitor to a man like Ralph Blewitt to give an undertaking to an important government official on an important matter was to set him on a path which he lacked the capacity to meet. To advise in that way was not to treat that official with respect."

In para 98 Heydon referring to Gillard's 21 May 1992 memorandum, states: "It was not good practice to have failed to warn Ralph Blewitt of the seriousness of giving an undertaking to government officials and not complying with it, and to have failed to spell out in detail how it was to be complied with. Julia Gillard here incurred a duty to act, however narrow her retainer. The conduct of those involved widened the retainer."

Gillard has admitted that in full knowledge of the fact there was no existing unincorporated association as required by the Act, she created the 21 May 1992 memorandum to Ralph Blewitt with the word for word undertaking she alone composed and caused him to forward to Ray Neal.

This was the final link in what Heydon found was the "fraudulent misrepresentation" to the CAC leading him to grant a Certificate of Incorporation creating a third WA AWU but bogus entity, albeit bearing the unauthorised and therefore unlawful use of the AWU corporate name, that as engagement solicitor for the two AWU branches she had a fiduciary duty to defend as set out by Heydon in Para 55.

The sham Association was Gillard's 'baby' from start to finish. She alone suggested its formation and the totally unsuitable non-industrial Act to be used. Certainly from around April 20 1992, she had Wilson and Blewitt totally dependent on her advice, guiding and assisting them every step of the way in the "fraudulent misrepresentation" to Ray Neal.

Commissioner Heydon knew all this when compiling his Report but as a final insult to peoples' intelligence in his considerable extensive attempted 'defence' of the pivotal role played by Ms. Gillard, in Para 430 he described Union reps Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt as "sloppy and unlawyerly"!

To be fair, Commissioner Heydon did say in Para 57 that "Ralph Blewitt may not have appreciated he was making any fraudulent misrepresentation".
(But the evidence shows Ms. Gillard certainly knew at all times!)

Sorry Commissioner Heydon. In all matters pertaining to the sham association and creation of the bogus entity, the evidence seems to clearly indicate that certainly from April 1992 at least, they were following Ms. Gillard's 'lawyerly' advice to the letter in the creation of what Chief Magistrate Lauritsen agreed with Sgt Ross Mitchell of the Victorian Fraud Squad, were documents prepared for fraud!

What further proof is needed of Gillard's culpability?


The scales of privileged justice and the political elite in perfect harmony.
I hear no I see no I speak no.
Therefore i am free to sin.


Now, we [just] need deliberation and deliverance [for justice] in a court of law.

john greybeard

Be careful Ralph.

Liz of Vic

Hello, how are you, see you are just as on the ball as
I just hope we may see your writings again perhaps during or after Ralph's visit.


"What further proof is needed of Gillard's culpability?" Just a small matter of INTENTION. And not just "intention" but PROVEN intention. Perhaps I missed it, but I cannot recall ever seeing this matter addressed anywhere in your meticulous and numerous analyses. Maybe that's because you regard the matter as insignificant?

[In a conspiracy to cheat and defraud, the essence of the underlying offence is related to getting your hands on money or a obtaining for yourself or someone else a financial advantage including to reduce evade or defer a debt. In any theft or stealing there is a point of proof that includes intent - that point of proof is for the prosecution to show beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had "the intention to permanently deprive the other" of the property including cash. Putting someone else's cash into your home renovations is pretty good proof that intended to keep it. MPS]


MPS - granted in the case of a conspiracy to "cheat and defraud". But how does one establish the existence of such a conspiracy in the first place? Suppose a talented motor mechanic is approached by someone (complete stranger or known acquaintance) to seriously "soup up" a car. The motor mechanic does a fantastic job. But the car is subsequently used in a bank robbery. Does that mean the motor mechanic should be charged with conspiracy to rob a bank? How does one establish what the motor mechanic knew, or did not know, when initially approached?


Hi Pegasus. If you enter 'hillbilly33 intent' in Mike's search box you'll find where I've addressed this many times. As you know, I'm not a lawyer, but IMHO, her deliberate choice to become involved at all combined with every one of her actions in this matter that followed, most of which breached all her obligatory fiduciary duties as an officer of the court, to her AWU clients, her partners, the public and the court, will go a long way to proving her intent if it ever gets before a judge and jury.

I have previously issued a challenge no one has yet answered. I repeat it at the end of this post. Feel free to have a shot at it yourself, but please don't bother repeating the best your new ally Michael TDA, Gillard's leading apologist, could come up with, which was a repeat of the only reason given by Commissioner Heydon at Para 430 of his Report.


Commissioner Heydon Chapter 3-2 Interim Report

Para. 430. 'Her duty was to set up an incorporated association with the purpose of operating a re-election fund'.

How does Commissioner Heydon reconcile this extraordinary 'finding' with his unequivocal statement in para 55 of her position of conflict of interest in relation to the duties he outlines, that she had to all the affected parties?

Para 63: "The purpose of the Australian Workers' Union - Workplace Reform Association Inc. was perceived by Julia Gillard to be to 'formalise arrangements between a team of officials who had an intention of running together at the next election [and] enable them to fund raise to support that re-election campaign'."

"There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of her perception."

In relation to Julia Eileen Gillard and her pivotal involvement in the AWU-WRA Inc Fraud, Commissioner Dyson Heydon has chosen to stake a lifetime of credibility on his words in that paragraph and in particular, his last eleven words.

"There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of her perception."

On the evidence, there is every reason to doubt her perception and Commissioner Heydon's professed belief in it.

Stripped of his puerile excuses for her and his many arguable assumptions as to what she did or didn't know, most of those reasons were provided by Commissioner Heydon himself throughout his Report.

The first glaring attempt at deception is that as Julia Gillard and Commissioner Heydon both know, an incorporated association was not required for Wilson's team to "enable them to fund-raise to support that re-election campaign".

Stoljar Opening Address 9 April 2014.

"The legal structure of such funds could be infinitely various. A fund could be an incorporated body, such as a company. It might be an organisation, which could include a group of individuals assembled in an unincorporated association. It might be no more than a bank account. Indeed the terms of reference say that it might simply be a “financial arrangement”."

Indeed, Ms. Gillard stated that her "understanding" was that funds would be raised by the usual (formal) mechanism of officials contributing by way of regular payroll deductions paid into a bank account for the purpose of re-election.

As an experienced industrial solicitor, Ms.Gillard also knew that, as happened and was publicly confirmed in 2012 by Wilson team member Russell Frearson, establishing a payroll deduction scheme was one of the first tasks undertaken by the leader of any new union faction gaining power.

It is bad enough Gillard claiming that nearly a year after she had assisted him and his 'Reform Group' to oust the former elected secretary and take over the branch, she was being asked by this 14-year veteran of many elections and many other slush funds, how to set up a 'slush' fund.

It is even more ludicrous to suggest that he was conveying concerns from his team members about what would happen to moneys accumulated, if the leadership team fractured.

She knew a payroll deduction scheme provided a permanent, easily accessible, audited record of member contributions, which required a bank account be established by team members, into which the paymaster could transfer the deducted money.

Despite their own findings that the bogus entity Australian Workers' Union - Workplace Reform Association Inc never even existed as an unincorporated association as required by the non-industrial Act selected by Ms. Gillard, let alone in a form eligible for incorporation under the provisions of that Act, CA Jeremy Stoljar and Commissioner Heydon went through the motions of investigating the various steps taken to achieve the granting of a Certificate of Incorporation to the sham association, by what Heydon found was "fraudulent misrepresentation", first to the public and then to the WA Corporate Affairs Commissioner.

I challenge anyone, including any Judge, QC or solicitor in Australia to give one valid, plausible, innocent reason for Gillard to have had any involvement in this matter at all.

A reminder of Gillard - Version 1 of her excuse.
"My understanding is the purpose of the association was to support re-election of a team of union officials and their pursuit of the policies they would stand on.
It was my understanding the association would engage in fundraising activities, including there being regular payroll deductions from union officials putting their money together to support their re-election, may well have other fundraising activities where it would be transparent to people the money was going to support their re-election campaign.
My role was I provided advice as a solicitor I am not the signatory to the documents that incorporated this association. I was not an office bearer of the association. I had no involvement in the working of the association. I provided advice in relation to its establishment and that was it."

Edward James

Using the mechanic example, Gillard being the licensed professional. With all the knowledge to know legal compliance is integral. The vehicle is registered for use on a public road. And the mechanic, licensed to do vehicle inspections. Paralleling Gillards involvement with Wilson who need her professional help to create a way to get money from Theiss independently of the official AWU. The vehicle which was used as a getaway car. The AWU/WRA Inc was used to commit fraud. The evidence of conspiracy may be the illegal modifications which the mechanic made, like Gillard ignoring the laws and regulations to help et the AWU/WRA up and running. To a vehicle which must be as built to comply with registration and insurance. Claiming she was young and naive doesn't cut it with me. Would be like the mechanic claiming he didn't understand 'souping up' a car to such an extent that it was not complying with the law was wrong. Edward James from the Dolls House

Edward James

A bit like George Kastanza, telling Jerry Sinefield 'Its not a lie if you believe it!' Edward James from the Dolls House


If it smells like conspiracy, then surely it must be a conspiracy. Ergo!


Edward - I never said the "soup up" modifications were outside the law. This was something you merely assumed and then used as the basis of your rebuttal.

But if the modifications were indeed "outside the law" then, yes, I would agree with you that the mechanic would have known (or ought to have known) this. But what if the modifications were within the law? In this event, on what basis can one automatically assume the mechanic is guilty of conspiracy to rob a bank?

The mechanic might well be guilty of such conspiracy, but this would need to established beyond a reasonable doubt. A case that relied on assumption and/or mere inference would not meet the high standard of proof required by a competent legal authority. Furthermore, what does, or does not, "cut it" with you (or anyone else for that matter) is no substitute for evidence-based proof.


TWO - do you really think a Court of Law would entertain such an argument and then deliver judgement in accord with such an argument? If so, you would be a dream client for any unscrupulous QC or SC!


".... but please don't bother repeating the best your new ally Michael TDA, Gillard's leading apologist, could come up with"

Really, H/B, I expected better from you than this! I have known you for a long time now, and this is the first time I have seen you "play the man" rather that focus on the substantive argument at hand. But never mind, I do not feel the need to reciprocate.

Contrary to your repeated claims, people (including me) have actually answered your challenge. But you seem to have not recognised this - presumably because you do not like the response, or perhaps because the response does not accord with your favoured viewpoint. As I have indicated to you on many occasions previously, Gillard could be (and possibly is) the most sloppy, incompetent and unprofessional lawyer ever, but of itself this does not make her guilty of criminal conduct. Being sloppy, incompetent and unprofessional would get you struck off a professional roll, but these things are not breaches of the Crimes Act. It is not against the law to be sloppy, incompetent and unprofessional. For Gillard to be found guilty of a crime or crimes, would require criminal intent to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. It would require criminal intent to be overlaid on an already existing ample foundation of unprofessional conduct.

For you (and other like-minded contributors to this website who shall remain nameless) to round on someone simply for having the sheer gall and temerity to pose reasonable and valid questions about the case against Gillard, is unseemly at best and outrageous at worst. I can see that I am going to have to pop down to Salamanca before it's too late and soothe your ruffled feathers lest you lose them all! :-)


Hi Pegasus. Sad you think I was "playing the man" and "rounding on someone" etc.,etc., and you do know me better. Sounds like I had better beware of s18C which has given people the right to feel offended even though no offence was intended! LOL!

The substantive argument in my post was that I posed what I consider to be a reasonable and valid question: "give one valid, plausible, innocent reason for Gillard to have had any involvement in this matter at all."

Gillard gave her reason, unsupported by any evidence.
Commissioner Heydon's answer is as stated in para 430:
Michael TDA echoed that in reply to me some time ago.
I have given the reasons, mostly in Heydon's own words, why I believe that is not supported by any evidence.

For the life of me, I still can't see where you or anyone else has ever responded to that challenge by answering that one simple question.

In Paras 102 - 104, by restricting what she'd done as merely breaching s43 of the Act, Commissioner Heydon sought to trivialise her role in the 'fraudulent misrepresentation' to the public and the WA Corporate Affairs Commissioner, part of the already existing ample foundation of unprofessional conduct totally out of character compared to her work before hooking up with Wilson, and documented by Commissioner Heydon in many of the Paras I've highlighted numerous times.

Para 102: "Another possible criticism is that Julia Gillard was knowingly concerned in or party to deceiving a public authority, the Corporate affairs Commission of Western Australia, by the preparation and lodgement of documents which were false or misleading.
Section 43 of the Act provides etc., etc..........".

George Brandis, Julie Bishop and other solicitors:

"We say that she broke the law because the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association was established as a sham to facilitate a fraud and by her participation in its establishment, Julia Gillard was a party to that crime.

Now, it is against the law of every Australian State, including the law of Western Australia, to provide a materially false statement when a person is under a statutory obligation to provide information to an authority. That is the effect of section 170 of the Western Australian Criminal Code in the terms in which it was drawn at the time of these events in 1992.

It is also, of course, a crime to participate in a conspiracy to defraud – that is also a statutory offence under Western Australian criminal law."

"Then that, in the Opposition's view, in my view, in the view of Julie Bishop ... that is a breach of the commercial laws of Western Australia – that is section 43 of the Association's Incorporation Act – but it is also a breach of section 170 of the Criminal Code.

If that were the end of the matter, it would be enough but there is more because the Workplace Reform Association didn't just solicit contributions from individual members of the Australian Workers Union, it also solicited contributions from external contributors."

"I'm saying that, on the documentary evidence and her
own admissions, there appears to me, and appears to the Opposition, to have been a breach of the criminal and commercial laws of Western Australia – of the Criminal Code, section 170 in particular, and of the Association's Incorporation Act."

Heydon Report
Para 103 contains some brave assumptions by Commissioner Heydon about Gillard's perceptions;
"There is no doubt the Application and the Certificate contain little else but false and misleading statements.
However, it is very doubtful whether Julia Gillard could be said to have prepared or lodged the Application or Certificate.
All she did was place two pieces of information on the Application in her handwriting.
The first piece of information, 'Australian Workers' Union - Workplace Reform Association' was false or misleading in two respects.
One was that it suggested that the purpose of the Association was workplace reform, when it was not - but she did not know that.
The other was the name falsely suggested a connection with the AWU - but not to her perception and hence not to her knowledge.
The second piece of information placed on the Application by Julia Gillard was 'Section 4(1)(e) of the Act'. It was false or misleading, but not as far as she knew."

Para 104. "Julia Gillard did prepare and submit to the Commissioner a letter of 13 May 1992, but since it is lost.....",
H/B. Peter Gordon confirms the letter and that as at 11 September 1995 it was on the AWU - WRA file Gillard had opened but kept secret from her employers for over three years. The last known location was at Slater & Gordon.

There is no record of the file ever having been produced to assist authorities with any of the known AWU, WA and Victorian Police Fraud Squad or any other investigations. Current Managing Director of the ASX listed Slater & Gordon not only claimed in 2012 that it was "missing", but also claimed the firm had never held it.

"It is impossible to say whether it contained any false or omitted something without which the document was misleading."

H/B. On the contrary, it omitted the vital fact that no association existed. In Para 88, Commissioner Heydon acknowledged this:

" There is no record of any communication advising him of this divergence from reality, even though Julia Gillard at the time of giving evidence, at least, was conscious of it."

H/B. You will find similar opinions on this site from QC's and other lawyers as to whether Gillard should face charges and surely you'd agree the only proper place to determine the truth is in court.

Sorry Pegasus, but I think that Poggi may once again be at play in your mind. Let's do have that Salamanca coffee soon and we'll discuss it further.

Cheers H/B


"....give one valid, plausible, innocent reason for Gillard to have had any involvement in this matter at all."

The reason I give is this: a client (Wilson) asked a lawyer (Gillard) to give advice on, and subsequently establish, an incorporated association.

What is improper or sinister about this? People consult lawyers all the time on all manner of things. And lawyers respond by doing what the clients ask. If I want to establish (or even purchase) a shelf company, then I am free to do so. It is not for the lawyer (or the seller) to know or ask for what purpose I want the shelf company. And even if the lawyer (or seller) did happen to ask, and I was willing to answer, the lawyer (or seller) really has no choice but to accept my answer at face value. Of course, if I was sleeping with the lawyer (or seller), then that would raise a whole raft of additional issues. But these additional issues would, in my view, be largely to do with matters of professionalism and competence, rather than crimes. Of course, I can predict you will now counter with the "she knew it was a crime" argument. Such argument is, I suggest, at the very nub of the (intellectual) differences between us. Just as predictably, my response would be "How do you know this? Do you know for certain, or you proposing this on the balance of probabilities?" And if you are proposing criminal activity "on the balance of probabilities" then, I would suggest, at least some doubt exists, and other people might well draw the opposite conclusion, also based "on the balance of probabilities".

Edward James

Yes Pegasus. I understood you didn't say the 'soup up' was to an extent it would be outside the law. The thing is here in this court of public opinion there is enough information and documents available to convince me that Gillard did assist /conspire with her boyfriend Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt to create the AWU/WRA Inc. In this court of public opinion what has been published by Michael Smith is enough for people to consider and pass their judgement. I expect many if not all of us would like to see Gillard, Wilson and Blewitt charged and taken before a court in another place, sooner rather than later. Where evidence based proof can be tested. Just like it was for Craig Thomson, Michael Williamson, and soon Kathy Jackson. But even after she has her time in court. Gillard will still remain a lying shonky cheat, in my opinion! But then thats just politics Pegasus. Edward James from the Dolls House

Edward James

Well its five fifty five am. I have just finished reading the very informed exchange between Pegasus and hillbilly33. And almost finished my last largie. What a night! One thing which is clear to me there are a lot of well informed and knowledgable people posting on I like to thing most of them are all about getting rid of the shonks and cheats damaging our country. Sadly amongst the MSN Crew there are people, entitled certainly, to be rusted on Labor, Liberal, National or whatever. Who will not let the obvious shonky cheating activities of party members and supporters influence a shift in their rusted on party political status. Oh well its been interesting. Edward James from the Dolls House

Edward James

It just occurred to me Margaret I got a bill for the ride of my life in an ambulance last month, 61 kilometers five hundred and sixty dollars. That is probably more than Ralph's return ticket.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)