@ Cohenite:
"The real issue about which you are obfuscating is that the PM misrepresented the purpose of the association to the commissioner who by his own admission would not have registered the association if the ostensible 'real' purpose had been disclosed because it would have been in conflict with the real AWU."

Not so.

The issue was not whether the new association was misprepresented. Not even nearly. Further, the aims of the association have not been shown to "put it in conflict with the AWU" as you state repeatedly, in some vain hope that repetition will turn lack of evidence into a certainty. The issue was that registration of a new association to represent employees, a union, came under separate (industrial) legislation. That was the nature of the question and of the answer.

Where did you get the notion that the Commissioner suspected that there was a conflict between this association and the AWU? Alan Jones, perhaps? Gerard Henderson? Bolt? Some other high profile researcher and fact checker?

Nothing was misrepresented. There was no "conflict with the AWU", at least not until somewhere down the track when funds held in trust in accounts opened by the new association may have been diverted to a private purpose... about which the answer has been on the public record for weeks. Julia Gillard knew nothing about the diversion of funds by others, played no role in this diversion and did not benefit from the funds in question. Read the previous sentence through several times if needed, but make sure to finally understand that there was no misrepresentation and no conflict at the relevant time. No porkies. And no prior knowledge of wrongdoing because the wrongdoing had not yet occurred.

There's nothing to see here... move on, folks.

@ Shadowminister:
"...if a defendant can show reasonable cause for his belief there is no case for a law suit, and why Cohenite is likely to be safe.

Two points:
1. To presume that Cohenite holds "reasonable beliefs" is a step into the dark. Beliefs, yes, but reasonable?
2. Cohenite is precisely the one who bangs on loudest and most often about Gillard's supposed criminality. Thus, even by your own standards, our PM is entitled to a presumption of innocence which Cohenite has repeatedly and wilfully avoided displaying.

John Nennetts

Where have I said Gillard isn't entitled to a presumption of innocence in a criminal court?
Where have I defamed her?
What charges have I suggested she face?

I have simply given my opinion.

You have given yours.

It seems to me that you've name called, abused and said I should face the threat of defamation actions simply because we have different opinions.

Well well how typically leftie and what a terribly clumsey attempt to silence criticism or discussion.

Are you proud of youself?

Time is something Julia might find herself doing if Abbott follows through with his intention and the courts judge her guilty of supplying incorrect information to the WA authorities.

Alan Austin

I see Foyle has made your list. Could you please prompt him to asnwer my latest querry of him.

This
"how do you reconcile

'The comment by the future PM when she described the fund as a slush fund was made about three years after the association was established. She stated what the associations accounts had become, not what the applicants had claimed was intended for the association.'

And Gillard's oft stated claim she had no knowledge of the workings of the association?

Those statements are contradictory. One is a lie. Which one do you think is a lie ... or are both lies?"

In response to my original question, Shadow Minister and fellow travellers - including the author - have failed to answer the basic question: what law has Gillard broken.

The answer is none.

All that Mr Cox and Shadow Minister have done is claim she has broken a law, and have compiled a lot of conjecture to make this claim.

Little wonder ordinary voters don't regard this issue as worthy of their time. They don't see any evidence. What passes for smoke is mist and misty-eyed Liberals, pining for the days when a 'real man' is in the Lodge, are clutching at any Gordon Grech that moves to drag them centre stage.

As for the use of "Juliar" I think, Shadow Minister, you need to examine the behaviour of your leaders and how such terms of abuse reflect on yourself before you cast such stones.

Abbott has consistently lied to us about climate change (a load of crap), the carbon tax (which he supported until Gillard did), and so on. As for your mentor, Alan Jones, he has issued yet another public apology, this time for lying about the woman who told us she was intimidated by Abbott when he bashed in the wall next to her head.

Ask my friend Amanda Vanstone what she thinks of Jones and his attitude towards women.

JohnBennets and the deceptively jovial Alan show an agglomeration of errors, deliberate or otherwise.

Wilson and Blewitt could not have set up their bank accounts without reference to a legal entity which is why the association was crucial. Go into a bank and try and set up a bank account titled CMFEU without an authorised legal entity. The sequence is crucial and the association must come first; the association IS the slush fund by virtue of its ostensible 'real' purpose as admitted by the PM; the bank account is the mechanism by which the slush fund, the association, processes its revenue.

To argue otherwise is just bush lawyer crap by these 2.

We know the commissioner would not have accepted the first application for association because he has said so;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/investigations/union-name-would-have-triggered-queries-registrar/story-fng5kxvh-1226527047365

This information is from the horse's mouth; not Jones, Bolt or any of Austin's evil media sources. Even Bill Shorten said the 'slush fund" was “inappropriate” and “unauthorised".

The PM had to misrepresent the purpose before the commissioner would grant the registration. I repeat she has admitted that.

That is just black and white. It is evidence to sustain a S.170 case to answer; whether the PM is guilty or not would still have to be determined by due process so when JohnBennets says I am denying the PM a presumption of innocence he doesn't know what he is talking about; she has a case to answer on my reading of S.170. That is different from saying she is guilty.

Perhaps Bennets and Austin should read S.170 instead of writing speculative rubbish.

Bennets and Austin are simply in denial.

There is no doubt that this a smelly,putrid affair.If Julia goes down,so does Labor and we can see all the hangers on,defending the indefensible,fearing that their safe little nook in the tax payers pocket will soon end.

It is all about money and security and to hell with the truth and integrity that makes our society function.