Hi again Anthony,

Yes, I share your outrage at the actions of Blewitt and Wilson, along with all unethical union activities.

But the quest has been underway for years to find actual illegality on the PM’s part. Except in the mind of the internet nutjobs it appears to have spectacularly failed.

Pretty sure I’m in the majority of reputable journos here, Anthony. I’m not declaring Ms Gillard innocent. Just observing there is no evidence of wrongdoing – despite concerted attempts to find it for decades.

But you really do need to think through the difference between the association and its bank accounts, Anthony. Yes, they are connected. They were started by the same union officials. But they remain different entities.

Here’s an example of why the distinction matters, where you claim:

“The fact that the PM had to correspond with the WA Commissioner to vouch for the association would tend to lend weight to the claim that the declared purpose of the association was a "material particular" because if the ostensible real purpose of a "slush fund" had been declared, or even the more benign and preferred "re-election fund", the Commissioner would not have registered the association.”

Anthony, the letter to the commissioner concerned his or her decision to incorporate the association. Opening the bank accounts had nothing whatsoever to do with the commissioner.

They were established at another time and place with another organisation altogether.

No?

Cheers, AA

PaulR

Yes I do use the term Juliar, and first did so shortly after she lied to Rudd and rolled him, though more frequently since it became the hallmark epithet of her treachery and deceit, since its adoption by Allan Jones. While it includes only a small change to her name, it manages to convey both the essence of her character, and the contemptuous regard in which she is held.

I assume that your attempt to link my values with that of Alan Jones based on a single shared term is not driven by the IQ of a squirrel, but because of a feeble attempt to get me to stop using the term. Unfortunately as a left whinger, your discomfort simply makes the use of the the term that much sweeter.

AA,

Your comment "The key problem with the article seems to be the author’s confusing the association started by Wilson and Blewitt with the “slush fund”. A “fund” is an account with a bank or other financial institution into which monies are placed for later disbursement" is wrong. It is clear that the association was to be the vehicle for the slush fund.

As per the transcript:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/what-julia-told-her-firm/story-e6frg6z6-1226455281078

" so it was better to have an incorporated association, a legal entity, into which people could participate as members, that was the holder of the account."

Alan, it would appear that you and not the author are confused.

@ShadowMinister:

This is getting sillier and sillier. Now we have a situation where the presumption of innocence is presumed to apply only in criminal cases. Well, wasn't the root of this discussion, as presented from the noisy corner, an accusation that somehow what has taken place was actually beyond just being a civil matter but one that extended into criminality?

Of course it was, but now we hear that... really it wasn't, because that would require DUE PROCESS and the PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, neither of which should be available to Julia, because... well... just because we don't think that she deserves them because she is as guilty as sin, because someone said that she is and that's the end of that.

At least the crazy-brave Cohenite has the guts to say that criminal matters are at foot, even to specifying parts of the WA Criminal Code that he thinks have been broken. He can expect a letter from Julia's lawyers some time soon.

Come on guys; you are making the accusations. Put them, civil and/or criminal, in print and see where they get you. Put up or shut up. In the meantime, the PM has no case to answer and no need to play this game.

Quotation:
"Firstly the presumption of innocence exists only in the criminal court... "

Whose stories are continually changing? I think that Julia is going to be a very difficult fish to land, especially when the head fisherman in the boat is himself very familiar with his own slush fund, which was used to great effect in an electoral contest much more recently than Julia's claimed indiscretions. Pot, Kettle, Black?

You are being disingenuous Alan.

The distinction between a slush fund, that is an association osensibly set up to raise funds to enable re-election of union officials, and bank accounts set up in the association's name to deposit the funds raised by the association, is an irrelevant distinction.

It is irrelevant because the association must be set up before the consequent and related bank accounts can be established.

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.

The term slush fund in this context is a generic term, which, according to the PM, everyone is doing, means an organisation, usually an association, which raises money pursuant to its purpose of getting officials elected. Any bank accounts set up are merely the means by which the association processes the funds raised for the purpose.

There is no meaningful distinction as you purport. I have wasted enough time on your spurious point.

The facts remain:

The PM misrepresented the purpose of the association.

There is strong evidence that ostensible 'real' purpose of the association being a slush fund was not true as a large sum of the association's money was used to purchase Blewitt's house.

AA,

Again you say "there is no evidence of wrongdoing" Which is patently not true unless you narrow the definition of wrongdoing to only criminality. There were a number of safeguards that Juliar blithely disregarded.

JB,

The presumption of innocence legally only applies in criminal cases. However, a person has the right not to have his reputation impugned without reasonable cause (giving rise to actions for libel and slander). However, there is no assumption either way, and 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.

On the other hand, the complete absence of evidence by Labor when attacking Abbott (ie he is a misogynist because he stands near someone displaying a sign etc) shows that labor's definition of the presumption of innocence applies only to them.

@Shadow Minister,regarding your penultimate post:

Yes, that is exactly the point I’m making:

“so it was better to have an incorporated association, a legal entity, into which people could participate as members, that was the holder of the account.”

It’s quite clear the incorporated association held the account, or slush fund. One entity opened and then operated another entity. The association and the account are not the same thing, are they?

The commissioner incorporated the association. The bank opened the accounts. Correct?

We don’t know from the transcript what the time gap between the incorporation of the association and the opening of the accounts was, though, do we?

@ Cohenite: No, Anthony, the distinction is not irrelevant. It’s probably the key error being made by Andrew Bolt, Michael Smith and the other internet nutjobs. And is probably the main reason their efforts are so far failing spectacularly.

Yes, we know about Ms Gillard’s role in assisting the commissioner to set up the association. But do we know about her involvement setting up the bank accounts? Or in the subsequent use of the accounts for improper purposes?

To claim that a lawyer who assists a commissioner in legally and properly setting up an association is forever culpable for the actions of the association is ludicrous, isn’t it?

But if it’s any consolation, Anthony, you are not alone in making such a dopey error.

Cheers, AA