Weighing the cases for and against GILLARD
Monday, 27 February 2017
If she had failed to notice these matters, she would have been careless.
If she deliberately ignored the matters described, she was party to Ralph Blewitt’s deceit.
Commissioner Heydon, Trade Union Royal Commission on GILLARD's role in the incorporation of the AWU Workplace Reform Association.
"Bruce, I got a new client today."
"Good onya. Who is it?"
"The imbecile. You know, the sexist pig, the liar - it's Ralph, the bloke who reports to you. He came to see me separately in his personal capacity to instruct me on creating a separate legal entity in the name of the AWU. He wants to be the person who'll be responsible for your slush fund if anything goes wrong."
"Oh that's big of him. Thanks for letting me know. Now stop stealing the doona and get your contacts out of me beer".
The AWU frauds involve more than $1M in today's value.
There are plenty of records.
All we need now are indictments and a jury.Yesterday StephenJ dropped us a note on how the court will weigh the two cases - the prosecution's and "I did nothing wrong".
"Evidence and Advocacy" Butterworths 1988
W A N Wells, former Supreme Court judge in Sth Aust.
It is well worth reading in relation to the inferences to be drawn about Gillard's knowledge.
A very brief précis.
1.Evidence is weighed not according to its intrinsic worth in isolation.
2.It is weighed as part of the whole body of evidence.
3.Part of this involves a matching of the two cases. Prosecution and defence.
4. In doing this the powers and access to information of the parties is a factor.
5.In the great proportion of criminal trials no direct proof of the crime can be given.
6.If a conclusion of guilt is available and no (convincing) explanation or contradiction is offered a guilty verdict is available.
7. Re the extract on page 55 about denial and explanations re allegations - how many times has Gillards story changed? Recognition of conscious guilt?
"what is revealed when an unsatisfactory attempt is made to contradict or explain, may bridge, or help bridge, the gap between what is, and what is not, positively and explicitly revealed by the evidence." Eg the "election slush fund" excuse can not survive any reasonable examination; the failure to refer to ministerial approval anywhere (interview , RC, press conferences, Parliament).
8. There is a summary starting p 56.
If you are waiting for Wilson or Gillard to give you hard evidence being a confession and the truth you are not going to get it, with souls like them it will never be forthcoming not after hiding it since the inception of the scandal it was hidden from everyone unless they were a part of it and got some sort of payoff from it and then following in the coverup.. A lie is fear energy and souls are not set free from that fear or lie until they face and admit to the truth.. Fear energy is like a blanket on your soul and it smothers you and makes you act out and make following choices from the guilt and knowing you have a big dark secret that becomes a part of you so you are always rationalizing your bad behaviour or shifting the blame to others just so that blanket doesn't get lifted and the truth gets out, and your truth over your choices which you consciously knew to be wrong it never goes away until you free your soul from that fear energy and the lies that were created around it or them as lies once you cover the first one with another the fear energy within only grows..
Posted by: Michelle Two | Monday, 27 February 2017 at 10:35 AM
Logic tells me, that she must have her denials tested in a court of law. But, then again I probably should stay out of it.
Posted by: Truth_Will_Out | Monday, 27 February 2017 at 10:42 AM
Everyone knows that ex-pm Juliar Gillard committed fraud whilst employed as a partner with Slater & Gordon and thats why she was unceremoniously booted out the back door with a recorded dismissal interview by Slater & Gordon, back in those days that would of been a huge thing for her be recorded like that. Gillard was so spooked that she never worked in the legal profession again and then became a corrupt lying politician and ran amok again.
Obviously certain people have serious dirt on people in high places, thus the blatantly perverted matter has never progressed into the criminal courts? A letter should be sent to PM Turnbull about all of this, he is a very skilled lawyer and should want to see the wheels of justice work, knowing that perverting the course of justice is like a cancer spreading in the legal process.
Posted by: Jonathan | Monday, 27 February 2017 at 12:31 PM
She's got more protection than Donald Trump.
Posted by: John Thomas | Monday, 27 February 2017 at 01:26 PM
Anything is possible once she is put in a Courtroom but getting her there is the greatest hurdle to overcome. It doesn't seem to be a priority for the Police Forces of WA or Victoria or for the Commonwealth Attorney General's Dept.
Posted by: seeker of truth | Monday, 27 February 2017 at 03:02 PM
I am afraid that Malcolm only thinks about Malcolm, he totally ignored The Royal Commission into the governance of Unions during the election, so he certainly would not get involved in this case.
Posted by: Liz of Vic | Monday, 27 February 2017 at 03:28 PM
Its diabolical how 'framed' Craig Thomson aka Jeff Thomson's lawyer kept him out of the witness box and the court allowed it? Thompson also blatantly lied to parliament a criminal offence in itself and all the pollies, most of them lawyers like Thomson, they bloody well turned a blind eye to it?
Posted by: Kelly | Monday, 27 February 2017 at 04:26 PM
Being a whilstleblower can be a health hazard...
Posted by: underminder | Monday, 27 February 2017 at 05:34 PM
Because like all liars, cheats and criminals, they ensure that others on both side of politics, judiciary and police are treated to nights out with the boys, and then ensure that they have photographic evidence so mouths are closed tightly. Gillard made a practice of sleeping with married men who were so enamoured with 'their 'conquest'failed to realise they had been sucked in by a 'Black widow spider. And once ensnare too scare to admit it and by that time Julia knew all the dirt on every one of her future 'friends' and enemies.
She is a predator par excellence
Posted by: Rose4U | Monday, 27 February 2017 at 08:05 PM
I see a lot of before and after the fact arguments going on in the other thread but you have to put yourself in the shoes of the trio at the time to gauge their intent, and the current situations they were in as lovers and partners as solicitor and client as well it is not either or it was a fact and the situation of Wilson and Blewitt and their relationship at the time they were mates so Wilson would of told Blewitt bits and pieces of what was going on but he was also a witness to the lovers bit and all the goings on when he was in their vicinity as a trio...
Also the intent behind each document and signature at the time not after the fact of how the AWU WRA Inc was created and the Power of Attorney as that was the original document and complaint tendered by Michael but then there are the other Ray Neal documents following so they turned up at the Royal Commission so no one knew about them previously so you have to take yourself back to the time of creation to get the intent behind why they were made and for what purpose, one was to put Blewitt's name on documents as were the cheques tended for the Kerr Street property which goes back to the POA and its creation..
So each souls role will be questioned at the time, then what followed in the cover ups..
Posted by: Michelle Two | Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 12:09 AM
When humans make choices in life they come from two energies either out of love or fear.. to get the intention of a choice they made it will go back to one of them soul energies lies are created out of fear so the intentions and following actions behind a lie is a subconscious choice you will continue to make until the truth you admit to yourself because of your actions at the inception and start of the first lie and why you created it.. because behind the lie is also what you gained personally from the lie as they are created out of fear it is a self serving energy so the lie is always going to benefit the soul or souls in someway that helps them because there was and is always an intention behind our thoughts but moreso our choices and actions if we follow through on the thoughts, because we don't always act out our thoughts for most of us our conscience and moral fibre wouldn't let us..
Posted by: Michelle Two | Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 10:42 AM
Clients engage solicitors to represent them in legal matters.
The relationship is contractual with the lawyer acting as the fiduciary agent of the client.
A solicitor acts only with the authority of the client and on the client’s instructions.
The Solicitor owes a number of duties to their client, including a duty to act in the client's best interests, a duty of competence and diligence and a duty to avoid conflicts. These duties are underpinned by their common law obligation to exercise reasonable care and to observe the contractual terms of their engagement.
For their part, Solicitors must verify their client’s identity and be certain they are taking instructions from a lawful entity and for a lawful purpose. See the Law Institute of Victoria’s guide “Why do you need to verify your client’s identity?” at https://www.liv.asn.au/livpresblog2015/october-2015/why-do-you-need-to-verify-your-client-s-identity-
Ms Gillard claims she was acting as an instructed solicitor in the incorporation of the AWU-WRA Inc. She claimed that Ralph Blewitt and Bruce Wilson were her instructing clients. They were not on two counts:
1. Under Section 5 of the WA Associations Incorporation Act 1987 only ONE person could be authorised by an unincorporated association to make the application for incorporation;
2. Neither Ralph Blewitt nor Bruce Wilson were authorised by an eligible unincorporated association because no eligible unincorporated association existed at all.
Further, she opened no file on the Slater & Gordon system; has produced no letter of engagement; charged no fees; sought no information of any authorisation to either Blewitt or for Wilson from the supposed unincorporated association; and she sought no information about the supposed unincorporated association’s foundation, purpose, rules, committee of management, membership,activities or any meetings and resolutions supporting an application for incorporation, as any solicitor would have done.
Moreover, she did not fulfil a solicitor’s duty to give the best advice to a client by asking her firm’s expert Tony Lang to handle the matter.
It would seem to follow that Ms Gillard was NOT acting as a Solicitor in the matter of the incorporation of the AWU-WRA Inc, but simply as a participant in the process with Blewitt and Wilson.
Posted by: Marmion | Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 04:10 PM
I think this is brilliantly thought through by you.
Posted by: Truth_Will_Out | Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 04:37 PM
I think this is brilliantly thought through by you.
Posted by: Truth_Will_Out | Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 04:39 PM
"1. Under Section 5 of the WA Associations Incorporation Act 1987 only ONE person could be authorised by an unincorporated association to make the application for incorporation;"
That would explain why only one person made the application, I guess. Why you think this means Gillard had only one client is not so clear.
Posted by: Michael (Tango Delta Alpha) | Tuesday, 28 February 2017 at 11:14 PM
Justice Heydon said Ms Gillard might have prevented the registration had she asked whether Blewitt was authorised to make the application.
Indeed, a Solicitor approached to act in the matter would have sought information on:
1. What Blewitt and Wilson wanted to achieve and why; asked they had done already and asked for details of the lodgement already made and a copy of the advertisement preceding their application;
2. The name of the unincorporated association seeking incorporation; their roles in it; copies of its rules, membership, committee of management, minutes, notice of meeting to resolve to seek incorporation and appointing the one person to make the application and giving them authority to engage a solicitor for the purpose.
A person acting as Solicitor on hearing their answers would have noted no unincorporated association existed and likely advised on the requirements of the Act and sent Wilson and Blewitt away.
Posted by: Marmion | Wednesday, 01 March 2017 at 08:49 AM