Alan

Julia used the term slush fund in a formal interview with her senior partners. It wasn't in some informal chit chat about the local church cake stall or cricket club booze up or even a discussion about home finances.

It was in a discussion about the activites of her client, Slater and Gordon's client and the finances of one of Australias major unions.

Can't you understand it is utterly irrelevant whether Julia was talking about a bank account of an Association or the Association. She said she hadn't any knowledge of the workings (Any of the workings) of the Association.

You now seem intent on claiming Julia didn't know anything at all about the Association or it's accounts apart of advising on it's set up and yet you cannot explain why she termed part of the associations activities a 'slush fund'. I repeat Gillard has claimed she didn't know of any of it's activities. You backflipped to agree with that.
Don't you see the idiocy of your position?
What's wrong with you?

Hello again,

@Shadow Minister, re: “the fact that the fund had nothing to do with workplace reform and was an election fund made it illegal.”

No, you are still confusing the association with the fund. They are not the same. The association was formed to get officers elected to the union on a workplace safety platform.

To achieve this, they needed funds.

There was nothing illegal in establishing either the association or the bank accounts.

Re: “This is why Juliar was effectively fired.”

No. According to all involved, she left to pursue a political career. Arguably, she has succeeded.

@Loudmouth, re: files and paper trail.

It depends on the lawyer-client relationship, Joe. I’ve bought three houses in my time. Conveyancing for the first was done gratis by the groomsman at our wedding. For the second I used a mate in Brunswick who was happy with a contra deal. The third required a notaire in France who was paid on invoice by direct deposit. The files in each case were quite different.

Have you read the transcript of the September 1995 interview, Joe? There clearly was a conveyancing file. It was tabled during the interview.

No-one claims papers were thrown away. They were there in 1995. If they are not there now, they were probably shredded as is routine for old closed files. (But who is the mysterious Leesha?)

There is no evidence of any corruption on Gillard’s part, Joe. She never lived in that house. Both Wilson and Gillard have affirmed she visited occasionally, but never moved in. Don’t believe the internet nutjobs.

@imajulianutter:

No, I don’t think I’ve changed position, Keith.

Re: Gillard “said she hadn't any knowledge of the workings of the Association.”

Correct. Probably a bit like the church account we call a slush fund. I know it’s there. But don’t know anything about what goes in and out. That’s the treasurer's responsibility.

@David G, I think you have got to the nub of this issue.

It’s not really about application forms, house auctions or contingency funds, is it?

Some people just don’t like Julia.

Cheers, AA

At least Alan is now prepared to concede that Wilson and Blewitt did something wrong.

Alan is putting the best possible gloss on the PM's activities and statements; for this intrepation to be true the PM would have had to be both a paragon and an idiot; it is simply unrealistic.

There is no distinction between the bank accounts and the association; the PM was not distinguishing between them at either her exit interview or at the press conference; however if Alan offers his slant I would expect her to pick up on it; why don't you suggest your idea to the PM about the difference between the bank account and the association Alan?

Anyway, at this stage we can say the association was misrepresented in a material particular and there is a case to answer pursuant to S. 170.

In every other issue raised, such as the house purchase and its sale Alan hasn't had much to say.

It would be interesting, given Alan's use of varied coveyancers, to know who did the conveyancing for the sale of Wilson's property; maybe the PM could shed some light on that because at the time it was sold she would have had time on her hands.

it would also be interesting to know about Wilson's other, if any, dalliances in real estate; those records stay around for along time.

AA,

One common definition of a fund is:

An organization established to administer and manage a sum of money. /an organization administering a special fund.

Given that the sole purpose of the WRA was to manage the election money, it was by definition a fund. Your linguistic gymnastics have no foundation in reality.

Juliar established the AWU WRA knowing it was a slush fund, as she said in 1995. This was at the very least unethical, and certainly contrary to the legal requirements for establishing a legal entity.

Good morning,

@cohenite, re: “There is no distinction between the bank accounts and the association”

Just nonsense. Have you ever incorporated an association or a business, Anthony? And then opened a bank account in the organisation's name? They are not the same entity, are they?

If you still can’t see this, ask a lawyer or accountant you trust to explain it.

@Shadow Minister, re: “Given that the sole purpose of the WRA was to manage the election money”

That “given” is just not true, is it, SM? All the evidence is against it.

Re: “Juliar established the AWU WRA knowing it was a slush fund”

Again, just no foundation in reality, SM.

There seem two errors – maybe not glaring errors, but errors nonetheless – in the case advanced by Julie Bishop, George Brandis, the media hacks and the internet nutjobs:

1. They claim the bank accounts are the same as the association. Just foolishly false.

2. And they assert that the purposes of the organisation were sham. Yet there is plenty of evidence – documentary and testimonial – that the stated objectives were substantially pursued by the association’s members. Even Michael Smith’s bizarre website contains such evidence.

Pretty sure, Anthony and SM, no-one will never get a barrister to go to court against Julia with “an association was set up in 1992 with several stated purposes. Some time later they opened a bank account. There is no distinction between the two.”

Indeed, one of the obvious weaknesses in the voluminous “evidence” amassed by Michael Smith is that he does not have a competent independent lawyer who agrees with him.

There are no legal problems here for Ms Gillard. A “case to answer” exists only in the minds of the internet nutjobs, one discredited Fairfax writer and the several discredited Murdoch writers.

Even the federal Opposition last week backed off claiming any illegality, didn’t they?

Political problems, perhaps. But not legal. Though even the politics appear now to be favouring the PM and damaging her critics.

We shall see if this has further to go. I doubt it.

Cheers, AA

Alan,

Something must have rubbed off from your time with the Jiminy Crickets...your performance on this thread is reminiscent of Geoff Boycott.

Off the back foot through the covers....carry on : )