AA,

The verbal gymnastics you need to be an apologist for Juliar are extraordinary, especially given the flimsiness of the evidence on which you convict Abbott, Jones, Murdoch etc.

As far as the intention to mislead is concerned, there was nothing stopping the establishment of a legal entity titled "Wilson and Blewitt re election association", which would have been completely above board. The use of the AWU name, and workplace reform association, was completely unnecessary if it was an election slush fund, and unless Juliar is a complete idiot, this must have occurred to her. The misleading name was fundamental to it being used for fraud.

Company procedures are not criminal Acts, but are put in place to protect the management / partners, and with the requirement to open a file on work done, the more the senior the person, the greater the liability the company faces in the case of a misstep, and the more important the requirement to have a file open for scrutiny by the other partners, even for pro bono work. I used "forgot" to open a file sarcastically. Because of the obvious conflicts of interest Juliar had every intention of not opening a file for scrutiny by her partners.

The excuses being proffered for her complete ignorance would require her to be moronically stupid / incompetent, which I doubt are attributes required of partners in law firms.

Alan what she told Gordon and Slater was not consistant with the stated objectives of the Association.

Besides just saying it is consistent you should show us that slush fund for re-election of association's members is consistant with Development of changes to work to achieve safe workplaces.

Alan you made statements that showed Gillard must have known of the workings of the association.

You've backflipped on that now but haven't withdrawn your original argument. That's consistent backflipping behaviour on your part.

Now you are claiming She knew nothing and set up a legitimate association.

'There is no evidence that she had any other involvement, is there?'

Yes.

If she set up the AWU Workplace Reform Association for Development of changes to work to achieve safe workplaces.

Whyever did she use the term 'Slush Fund'.

Hi Alan,

I don't quite know what you mean by "any flaw in the documentation". Of course there wouldn't be any 'flaws' in the documentation presented to the relevant authority, that's not the point.

A more important point would be whether the purposes as spelt out in the documentation - I presume you mean the articles and memorandum of association - were logically consistent with the 'real' aims of the Association in the first instance (to get two union people fre-elecgted, ather than any others),

AND in the second,

whether those purported aims, of promoting workplace safety, could somehow be squared with the purchase of a house in the name of an 'associate' of her boyfriend's.

After all, Julia did not wash her hands of any involvement once the papers had been lodged - she was involved in the purchase of that house for her boyfriend. and as Cohenite suggests delicately, they must have talked about something in their post-coital moments, people do.

And through all of this, Julia was a partner in a firm whose major client was the AWU, her boyfriend's employer. I'm rusty on Commercial Law but I do recall that there is something in the Law of Partnerships about full disclosure between partners, which might have required at least the setting-up of relevant files, not to mention conferring with more senior partners on potentially dodgy issues, especially those partners who may have been working for and with the AWU for decades.

This tale has a lot of legs yet :)

Joe

Julia Gillard won't answer the questions.Julia Gillard used her power to silence the media and get Michael Smith sacked.

Julia Gillard should be facing a criminal investigation but no senior police official will put their reputation/career on the line for fear of re-criminations.

When high profile people face criminal charges the elites close ranks for fear of us investigating their criminal activities.The pressure to stop this investigation came from powers far greater than the Labor Party.ie if the puppets are rotten to the core so must be their puppeteers.

Hello all,

@cohenite, re: “That contradicts both 'purposes' of the association and bank account[s].”

No. Why, Anthony? The bank accounts were to facilitate funds in and out, including for long-term investments, such as property. No?

@Shadow Minister, re: “there was nothing stopping the establishment of a legal entity titled ‘Wilson and Blewitt re election association’."

Sure. But why did Wilson and Blewitt want to be elected? What was their platform? If it was workplace reform – which seems the case – then equally there was nothing stopping the title “Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association”, was there?

@imajulianutter, re: “Whyever did she use the term 'Slush Fund'.”

It’s a term Aussies commonly use for bank accounts for contingencies, or for miscellaneous, or for a rainy day.

Our church has what we call a slush fund, our cricket club has a slush fund and we have one in our family. It's a common slang expression in several countries.

Keith, it seems you are still confused as to what Gillard referred to with that term. It was the bank account(s). It was NOT the association Gillard helped incorporate. This is a significant distinction.

@Loudmouth, re: “whether those purported aims, of promoting workplace safety could somehow be squared with the purchase of a house in the name of an 'associate' of her boyfriend's.”

Those questions seem to relate to the performance of the conveyancing paralegal. That was not Ms Gillard, was it?

Re: “After all, Julia did not wash her hands of any involvement once the papers had been lodged - she was involved in the purchase of that house for her boyfriend.”

What involvement? Besides being at the auction? Any evidence? Pretty sure that’s not true, Joe.

Re: “they must have talked about something in their post-coital moments ...”

And you know this how, Joe ..?

@Arjay. No, Michael Smith was sacked for the same reason Glenn Milne was sacked and Larry Pickering can’t find paid work. They are nutters.

Cheers, AA

So, now you're saying Blewitt and Wilson did nothing wrong and everything the association was used for was above board?

Bank accounts, like associations, do not do anything illegal in themselves; but when their purpose is misrepresented as the PM did when she admitted it was a "slush fund", and when the funds moving in and out of them are not accounted for then they become part of a potential wrongdoing.

I don't recall any mention of "long-term investments" before; how does that tally with the non-profit status of the association? Were taxes paid on the sale of the house? What happened to those proceeds? Who did the conveyancing for that? Typical of the high and mighty to blame the lowly conveyancer and not the supervising solicitor.

It's a cesspit really and money properly belonging to union members has, as usual, gone down the gullets of someone else.

Good on you for defending it Alan.