Bernard Murphy testified that the events transpired in the opposite order: Bernard Murphy, 9/9/14, T:587.10-12. But he was not in the best position to know.

Had he exercised the open unclouded mind we paid for he could have settled the conflict in the evidence he had before him.  Evidence he had a duty to consider and Stoljar had a duty to guide him to.

At the tail end of this post I will give you some of that evidence.

It was simple intellectual laziness that allowed HEYDON to resolve the central matter of how Wilson engaged Gillard to act for him, a low level employee, in an act of sabotage against Joe Keenan who by popular vote exercised only the year before came to be the democratically elected office holder and thus the only authorised contact so far as acting in the union's interests is concerned.

John Heydon was negligent in allowing the central question of who paid to be settled by "it's unclear".  For a Commissioner with his powers directed by our head of state to enquire into these things and paid by us handsomely for that work to:

1.    dismiss Judge Murphy's evidence because he wasn't in the best position to know

2.    fail to take into account the records procured and maintained over the years at cost and personal risk to Ian Cambridge

3    to allow further unsatisfactory answers to questions from Gillard to pass without comment or more importantly analysis like this is inexplicable.

Coming down the page, this is page 133, you say:

Yes, that's right.

He introduced Mr Wilson to the firm as a client?
Mr Droppit worked in Western Australia.  He was

He was at that point basically stalking the
then WA secretary with a view to getting
him out and taking his position, and he
needed some legal advice about arrangements
to do with that.

11
12
13
14
15
16

38       A.
39
40       Q.
41

Yes, that's right.
Then you mention further down the page.

... when Bruce came to Victoria ... he came
alone ...

42
43
44
45       This again is on 133:
46

47            He was subsequently joined by an organiser

 Yes.  I will just call it the interview.  In any
42       event, you say in paragraph 13 of your statement that you
43       provided advice to Wilson and Blewitt in relation to the
44       setting up of an incorporated association.  That was some
45       time prior to April 1992, was it?
46       A.   Yes, that's correct.
47

    .10/09/2014 (9)             770     J E GILLARD (Mr Stoljar)
                     Transcript produced by Merrill Corporation

He was an organiser, I believe.

Did he report to Mr Wilson?

Mr Wilson was Acting Secretary and then subsequently

5       Q.
6       A.
7
8       Q.
9       A.

So that came up after he had moved to Melbourne?
It came up in 1992, not 1991.

Mr Wilson raised it with you?

              Mr Wilson raised with me wanting to have a fund in
10       Western Australia that would support him and his team and
11       their re-election in Western Australia and, you know,
12       regularising arrangements amongst the team.
13
14       Q.   Could you come to page 134 in the bottom right-hand
15       corner.  You are dealing with this sequence of events.
16
17       MR CLELLAND:   What is the page of the document?  We don't
18       have the folder yet.
19
20       THE COMMISSIONER:   Page 4 at the top.
21
22       MR CLELLAND:   Thank you, Commissioner.
23
24       MR STOLJAR:   Mr Gordon says:
25

Heydon did not examine and report on the court proceedings of the time.  They were many and they were illuminating.  They describe in exquisite detail what Gillard did and when.

So do several magazine and newspaper reports of the time.

Not a scrap, not a shred, not an iota of independent evidence exists to support Gillard's claim to have met Wilson for the first time in April, to have assisted him in the stalking of Keenan, to have been introduced to Wilson by Graham Droppert and to have been there because of a full bench hearing in which the clothing union was involved.

Had His Honour done his job he would have found

Further he would have found the April event she was perhaps most conscious of was this one

He would have noted the Caveat placed on that property on the same day.

This property was conspicuous in the circumstances leading to Heydon's appointment.

It was a part of the central and long standing allegation against her - that Wilson was the conduit for the money that went into it.

Had he turned his mind to other events brought into scope by her own evidence - ie that she was engaged in acting for the branch in 1991, he might better have explored this announcement

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2014/12/new-original-documents-from-wa-in-1993-tell-more-of-the-wilsongillard-awu-story.html

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2014/12/20-minutes-with-ralph-blewitt-on-being-team-gillardwilsons-stooge-in-wa.html

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2015/12/an-extraordinary-level-of-coordination-between-julia-gillard-and-bruce-wilsons-visits-to-western-aus.html

And he might have discovered the cheque from Thiess made out to the AWU WRA Inc but banked into the Members Welfare Association account. That gave the whole game away.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2015/11/the-idiots-guide-to-understanding-the-conflict-of-interest-case-against-gillard.html

But put all that aside.

He had before him a forgery incapable of explanation.

If he had no regard for the truth or the pain caused to so many or the expense, I had hoped the one remaining motivation left unexercised would engage him.   That is his duty to the law and his brethren to deal with this premotivated act of a contempt so wantonly - well to quote John himself, of such insensate folly as to render it beyond imagining.

The forged letter wasn't necessary to Wilson and Gillard or Ludwig.  I don't know who else was sitting on the sidelines holding it, having been presented with it at some time convenient, but it wouldn't surprise me one bit to hear that Martin Ferguson had it put before him too.

As briefly as I can, this is the relevance of the forgery.

On 23 April 1992 the Application to Incorporate the ineligible incorporation was lodged with the Office of State Corporate Affairs.  Each of the Application, the Certificate accompanying it and the first page of the rules was stamped and by deduction the first of a series of numbers was written thereon.

Those numbers tell the true story of the Application which the failed Heydon Commission didn't come close to.

Firstly to the knowingly false and misleading evidence from GILLARD.

And that's a lie.

I thanked Blessed Mary of the Cross, Mary MacKillop last time we had a breakthrough.

Well we held on to this one for a little while.

You have bullshitted your last Ms Gillard.

Every touch leaves its trace.

To our beautiful modest reader Seeker of Truth it was just a matter of time.

Seeker had the patience to find the truth.

And here it is.

On 23 April the application went in.

We knew that. Guess who was incorporated on that day.

You see Ms Gillard, the numbers don't lie.  The times, the dates, the places don't lie.  Eventually the truth catches up with you.

While they share the same date of lodgement one was incorporated and the other stopped.  Rejected.

And a stopped file does not generate Enquiries.  

The Act says a few things. Where upon the application he is satisfied.

Associations are incorporated upon the application. On the day the application is made.  If it's knocked back, like your sham was, twice, then it's:

1.    Goodnight nurse

2.    Memorable - and unlikely to trigger the successive repetition of your "inquiry" instead of "rejection" that really happened, and 

3.    The reason this is empty:

Files don't empty themselves.  People do that. With memories. 

Ignore the letter at the end, that has to do with the activity the association was under taking.

See they're the same number?  That's because this second time with the same name and objects didn't last one second before it was, as intended, knocked back.

But the gang was all there by that time. Ralph with the cheque for $22 for it to go up to the Minister.

Some members of the staff there have good memories too. Not fond, not fond at all, but good.

Ralph Minief's already on the tape recorder, crystal clear, this one's going up to the minister.

Thiess too with the letter to the BCITF.

And the MOU with Michael Forshaw and Martin Albrecht.   Coming back now?

No it's not "coming back now" because no one whose house depends on it forgets that stuff.

There was never any inquiry.  You made that up.  You made that up because when the sham was eventually incorporated:

And Yvonne was the friendly Minister.

This extract from the WA Government Gazette tells us that old mate Yvonne Henderson was away from her job until  21 June, 1992.

On 23 June 1992, Yvonne Henderson convened a meeting between representatives of the government, the company and the union to find a solution to the Hamersley dispute.   As discussed in the previous article, it's reasonable to infer that Ms Gillard was present during those discussions.   Bruce Wilson remembers Ms Gillard arguing the case for incorporation.........

On 24 June, 1992, after the application was lodged in April and after the May payment of a fee for Ministerial Review (just before Yvonne went on leave), the AWU WRA Inc was finally incorporated.

This 14 July, 1992 press release from the same Minister Henderson noteworthy.

Campaign for health and safety representatives

Tuesday, 14 July 1992

 

'Every workplace should have one' - that is the slogan that will be on billboards all around Perth from today.

 

The billboard goes on to say: 'Elect a health and safety representative'.

 

Workplaces in Western Australia have the right to a health and safety representative, but there is a serious lack of them.

 

Today Productivity and Labour Relations Minister Yvonne Henderson helped paste the first message on a billboard in Yokine.

 

"This striking message is part of the Government's campaign to encourage the appointment of health and safety representatives, who play a vital role in making workplaces safe and healthy," Mrs Henderson said.

 

"It is the right of every workplace to have a representative, and when this right is not exercised, the health and safety of those in the workplace is not fully guarded.

 

"Among other things, health and safety representatives help consultation between workers and management. They alert management to possible problems and help to resolve the problems through consultation.

 

"It is easier for workers to understand health and safety laws through these representatives.

 

"There can be many reasons why some workplaces do not have health and safety representatives, including management which does not give sufficiently high priority to these concerns, and workplaces which have a big number of workers whose first language is not English."

 

Department of Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare figures show that, out of some 80,000 workplaces in this State, around 6,200 health and safety representatives have been trained.

 

"There are more representatives in unionised workplaces, but non-unionised workplaces need to be aware that they, too, have a right to representatives," Mrs Henderson said.

 

"The law provides protection for workers and supports their requests for health and safety representatives.

 

"The Government is keen to support the representatives in their efforts to lessen the incidence of injury and disease in the workplace, and supports approved training once those people are elected.

 

"WA's occupational health, safety and welfare legislation is working well, but thousands of workplaces could be safer with an on-site representative.

 

"Once workers at any worksite request a health and safety representative, the process of electing one is mandatory."

 

Because with amazing prescience, the AWU WA Branch knew all about the campaign in June, 1992 and was there ready to back Yvonne up to the hilt!

You just forgot about all that did you?

That's why the file was filleted. The nerves.

But what the missing files meant, was that some story for someone at some point had to be supported by at least something.

And the forgery doesn't correlate with anything.   Except a long sentence.  Starting with will the prisoner please rise.

Every touch leaves its trace.