As many would know, much discussion takes place 'off blog' between those who have established contact and are deeply interested in establishing the truth. Here is one such instance from a person of undoubted intellect and integrity and whose opinion I greatly respect. IMHO, the well-considered thoughts provide a great base for an intelligent debate, and deserve a separate permanently linked thread.

'For purposes of future discussion in 2017, my "single point" is that your entire case turns on Gillard KNOWINGLY assisting in the establishment of an unauthorised association whose reason for being right from the outset was to perpetrate fraud on a grand scale. If Gillard assisted in such a venture, and in such a manner, then I would say H/B is 100 percent correct, and my alternative case collapses completely.

Note, however, that my comment above signals TWO components:
(1) an unauthorised establishment, and
(2) subsequent fraudulent use.
I argue that both components would need to be present in order to conclude Gillard is guilty of criminal activity . For instance, even a wholly above board authorised establishment can subsequently result in the association being used fraudulently in the future. There is nothing inherently "evil" about creating a vehicle that is subsequently used in the commission a crime. On a related note, even if the establishment was indeed unauthorised, this does not, of itself, automatically imply subsequent criminal use. For instance, even if Gillard had wrongfully established the association, IN THEORY Wilson could have simply allowed the vehicle to lie dormant, or have used it for good rather than for evil. In this circumstance, Gillard's wrongdoing would have been restricted to an unauthorised establishment only.'

These thoughts raise several important issues so I hope Michael will oblige with a new, separate thread. Whatever results, I think a truly and demonstrably independent court of law is the proper place to determine the many issues..
So as not to risk 'contaminating' or be seen rightly or wrongly as trying to influence the point of view of others, I'll keep my thoughts to myself until the thread is well-established.

Michael. If you don't feel it is worth a new thread, would you kindly publish where you see fit with my request to all those who have e-mail contact with me and wish to discuss it further to contact me privately.

If the thread is established, I would request that as far as possible, comments be kept on topic and any replies to individual posts address the specific points raised.

BTW. From my point of view, this has nothing to do with whether H/B is correct or not. Like most on Mike's blog I'm seeking to establish the truth and make it public. If we can do that, even if it proves me 100% wrong, I would be satisfied and feel the last five or six years of investigative work has been well and truly justified.
Cheers to all H/B