Your Statement ...

"Contrast this with the extraordinary coverage over several years now of the empty allegations relating to Julia Gillard and a boyfriend back in the early 1990s, long before she was even in Parliament. Just count the articles raking over old relationships, speculating about possible jail time, and generally trashing the PM's character. Yet with not one single item of plausible evidence, let alone a judge's decision on a further court appearance"

As an ABC viewer, I appear to have missed this Story....

AA,

Subjecting OLO to another dish of tripe?

Your comment WRT the Ashby case "So judges seem quick to spot and to quash abuses of process for political ends." Is complete rubbish given that the judge only made his pronouncement at the conclusion of the trial many months later.

You drawing a conclusion that there is a solid case based on Applegarth's comment of "I'm not encouraging you to think you've got a case,".."Quite frankly you're not at first base yet in complying with the civil procedure." Is drawing a very long bow.

Abbott did not de register One Nation or convict PH, the Judge of the court did after following due process and weighing the evidence.

Even if Abbott loses this case, it is not a criminal case and will have no effect on his career.

empty allegations relating to Julia Gillard and a boyfriend back in the early 1990s

Yes well, I don't believe there is much doubt she was out of order at the very least & more likely knowingly involved. Note that her employer took the matter seriously enough to dispense with her services & the 'boyfriend' turned out to have a very 'interesting' career.

Tony Abbott - the Defendant, again.

Gillard has cogent complaints to answer; these complainst are partially sustained by her own statements:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14428

The jailing of Ettridge and Hanson was a miscarriage but Abbott did not prosecute the case against them or find them guilty; he was not part of the case.

Ettridge has every right to feel aggrieved; but the contrast with Gillard could not be more stark. Despite her own admissions and considerable evidence and statements from other diverse people she has had no complaint brought against her.

Unlike Austin who only has one eye in these matters I would endorse the notion that every citizen from the PM down should be treated equally before the law. That includes Abbott.

Neither Abbott or Gillard has had to face charges yet; Ettridge's proposed claim against Abbott is not a criminal matter and anyone,however badly prepared and ill-informed, can bring a civil claim as Ettridge is clumsily trying to do.

Gillard's situation is completely different; the issue with her would be criminal charges which go to the efficacy of the system itself.

I was quite astounded at the time of Mz Hanson's imprisonment and later case quashed release!
I didn't agree with her patently racist policies, but accepted her right to hold her own personal, if seriously misguided opinions/beliefs.
None of which should have been a hanging offence or resulted in jail time!
One also notes, much of which one nation announced as policy, was later adopted as coalition policy, starting it would seem, with the shameful treatment of asylum seekers, (human beings) aboard the Tampa.
We are all equal under the law, allegedly!
Even so, given the patently different treatment, and the fact that Mr Abbott was allowed to turn our parliament into a kangaroo court, has without any doubt, ended the careers of at least two politicians, well ahead of their day in court!
Slams home the fact, as nothing else can; that some are more equal than others.
Given that is so, one can safely predict that Mr Abbott will walk away, from his day in court, with both his bank balance and political career largely unharmed!
Rhrosty.

abbott, abbott and more and abbott and bar a tsunami after September more Abbott. Talk about phobias.

The RAbbott might well walk away from the court, however I have no doubt whatever that karma will follow the clown. He'll rue the day he resorted to his despicable activities in the One Nation affair. Slippery Pete played the same kind of game and look where it got him.

David Ettridge is suing Tony Abbott for an apology and
more than $1.5 million in damages, alleging Mr Abbott's
campaign was unlawful.

It will be interesting to see how all this pans out.
I suspect that Mr Abbott will simply walk
away from this with his usual shrug of the shoulders
and philosophic statement of "shite happens."

It's others who must be held to account, must resign
from their government positions. And must be smeared
in the press. There are certain rules for some, and
they don't seem to apply to others. It's definitely not
a level playing field.

Just once it would be heartening to see a political
leader being judged on their suitablity to hold the
highest office in the land - before they actually get
the job. Especially a political leader who's been so
vocal in demanding high standards of behaviour and
accountability from others - while damaging their characters
and reputations.

Quid pro quo.
Time to be held accountable.

Yes indeed

Combine the most avaricious species ever to evolve with human nature & a bit of power (thereby absolutely guaranteeing corruption), toss in a generous helping of ego & a bit of religious status for good measure. Stir vigorously and you'll end up with a perfect example of politigrub parasitus

Why do you think I'm so 'anti' the system ??

'Just once it would be heartening to see a political
leader being judged on their suitablity to hold the
highest office in the land - before they actually get
the job. '

Oh Lexi and this coming from someone who has consistently defended the sisterhood whose track record is appalling.

One minute the secularist say that one's private life should not determine one's public suitability (obviously held dearly by Gillard supporters) then they have the nerve to speak about the suitability to be PM. Could they be suggesting that private philosophy determines public performance (surely not)!

I see Lexi and the other labor tragics desperately hoping that this case is similar to the one Slipper and Thomson faced.

The sad reality for them is that legal case against the registration of One Nation is based on applying for registration and submitting a list of 500 names as members which was the prerequisite for registration. The evidence in the first court case showed that only a small fraction of the names had completed the forms, paid the membership fee and become full members. The remainder had not.

The conviction of PH was based on the accepting of commonwealth money based on the registration, which was prosecuted by the AG not Abbott, and found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

The appeal which overturned the conviction The Court's unanimous decision was that the evidence did not support a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the people on the list were not members of the 'Pauline Hanson's One Nation' party and that Hanson and Ettridge knew this when the application to register the party was submitted.

For Ettridge to succeed against Abbott, he will have to show that Abbott's original claim was baseless. Based on the facts, PH&E were acquitted on a technicality and the original civil judgement still stands against them, which neither of them have challenged. Considering that Ettridge has no legal representation, has stuffed up the original filing of the claim, and to continue needs to be able to show that he can cover the costs if he loses, I doubt that Abbott feels threatened in the slightest.

Shadow Minister, the fact is there was no crime at all. That is why the two were acquitted on appeal.

Good lord, do people read articles or just presume.

It's rather pointless to hold Abbott up as someone beyond reproach - although runner appears to think that near enough is good enough in the political pig pen.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/22/1061529330032.html

Regarding Ashby and Slipper:

http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2012/2012fca1411

Doesn't make for edifying reading.

'It's rather pointless to hold Abbott up as someone beyond reproach - although runner appears to think that near enough is good enough in the political pig pen. '

and so who besides Jesus Christ Himself do you regard as beyond reproach or are you again just demonstrating your Abbottphobia?

That's not the point, runner.

I was merely noting that you tend to excuse the fabulous Tony's exploits by referring to the deeds of others as just as questionable.

(However, I might be suffering from runnerophobia:)

It is interesting that the responses are so
predictable when one dares to question the
actions of certain political leaders. Or
even try to hold them to account.

The PM seems
to be fair game but the moment one tries to
do the same with the leader of the Opposition
then the labels come out. Things like, "Abbottphobia,"
"Labor tragics," "Sisterhood," "Secularists," are bandied
about and even "Jesus Christ" is brought into the mix.

Which proves the point that I was making earlier.
It is one set of rules for some, and a totally different
set of rules for others. "Don't do what I do. Do what
I say you should do."

How can one be expected to compete with "Big Party, Big Money,
and Big Media?"

The chance of having a sensible discussion on any issue
evaporates rather quickly under those circumstances.

But, on a public forum such as this - I guess it goes
with the territory.

I've managed to find the following link which gives an
interesting insight into this topic:

http://newmatilda.com/2012/12/11/how-abbott-funded-fight-against-one-nation

Of course the usual attempt will be made to claim this is a
"leftist" publication. When in actual fact
it is rational and principled without being biased to any
social or political postion and presents a variety of views,
and voices,
unlike the tabloid press.

The link points out that:

"Tony Abbott led the Liberal charge against One Nation.
Where did the money come from? The slush fund that
sustained the anti-Hanson fight."

It asks the question:

"Shouldn't Tony Abbott's slush fund be subjected to the
same media scrutiny Julia Gillard's has received over the
AWU scandal?"

Obviously not, according to some people.
Nothing new there.

Lexi says:

"Shouldn't Tony Abbott's slush fund be subjected to the
same media scrutiny Julia Gillard's has received over the
AWU scandal?"

I agree, it has been, and not only msm 'scrutiny, but other types as well; let Gillard's 'affairs' be simarlarly investigated:

http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/compliance/AEC_Advice/honest-politics.htm

Here's a more accurate perspective on the scrutiny applied:

http://newmatilda.com/2012/12/12/what-aec-knew-about-abbotts-slush-fund

Very interesting Lexi; Margo Kingston thinks the trust set up by Abbott was an "associated entity" and therefore bound by AEC disclosure rules relating to donation identities while the AEC doesn't think so because they were:

1 Hoodwinked

2 Collaborators

3 Stupid

4 All of the above.

In addition to that conspiracy the "little Guy" or "gal" in the case of Hanson is being squeezed out by the big guys and Chip's motto of "Keeping the bastards honest" is but a dim memory.

Is that it?

I just love this.

Hanson enunciated a xenophobic perspective, badly.

It reasonated with a large section of the community.

Abbott had a genuine repulsion to that view and he is pilloried for it.

Now, when I and other commentators note the insidious nature of islam we are pilloried!

You lefties don't know what you want except more pixie dust

cohenite,

"Abbott had a genuine repulsion to that view and he is pilloried for it."

More likely that Abbott had a genuine repulsion to the idea that Hanson was stealing a goodly swathe of the Libs voter base, and decided to do something about it.

Let's not beat around the bush.

More likely that Abbott had a genuine repulsion to the idea that Hanson was stealing a goodly swathe of the Libs voter base, and decided to do something about it.

EXACTLY

and the irony of the whole thing is that both Labour and Liberal have adopted Hanson's views. Most of them have also proven to be true despite the demonisation. Now we have Hanson the aboriginal hater, Abbott the woman hater and Gillard the lover of all. Hysterical! And people try and pretend that mankind is not corrupt.

"Let's not beat around the bush."

Abbott's work with indigenous societies I think proves you wrong; and he is a genuine beliver in a multicultural society.

What do you think of Hanson? Do you agree with her views, or is she just a convenient tool to go Abbott, Abbott, Abbott?

David Ettridge is now suing Abbott
That just shows that Ettridge hasn't got an ounce of concern for the country. To de-stabilise one of the most critical elections we'll ever have is worse than what they did to Hanson although that was an extremely poor act to say the least. I think Hanson's big mistake was Ettridge.

Whatever one's politics, it is concerning that a political leader such as Abbott or Peter Slipper can be dragged into an expensive legal battle by anyone who has a grudge. They can make up claims of sexual harassment, racial discrimination or whatever, sue them and then know they will be forced to go through drawn out legal process costing tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It is a danger to our political process. We already have poorer quality politicians than 20 years ago. This will just stop people considering a political career.

Indi,
I think you are too tough on Ettridge. He owes Abbott or Australia nothing. He, and Pauline, did the right things in registering One Nation and yet they ended up in jail. Wouldn't you be sour about that? Maybe some information has only just came to light that enables Ettridge to beleive he has a case. Terry Sharples was not the only ON member approached by Abbott. Perhaps he offered financial inducements to others for their testemony.

I think that after Abbotts claims to the Queensland Electerol commission were rejected he then went to Beattie, who had no love for ON, and that is why the criminal charges were made. The whole thing smells of collusion between Abbott and Beattie.

If Ettridge has a sound case then why is not Pauline in on the case. Afterall she went to jail as well and it knocked the stuffing out of her and she took a long time to recover. She still is not the same as before.

By the way neither Ettridge or Pauline have received any compensation for the wrongfull jailing and Pauline has not received the $500,000 back she repaid to the QEC. Newman should fix that.

cohenite,

Of course you're right, I'm sure Mr Abbott's prime consideration was protecting the social fabric of the country....hey, hey, chortle, splutter! ..... : )

Perish the thought that he was acting in an opportunistic fashion because One Nation had taken 11 seats in the 1998 Queensland election with 22.7 percent of vote - (more than either the Liberals and Nationals)

Gulp!.

I personally considered Hanson to be a redneck ignoramus, not unlike her US equivalent, Sarah Palin....but, of course, you already knew that : )

Abbott deserves all he gets from this lawsuit .

As much as I couldn't stand the ON political opinions, I didn't believe that Hansen and Ettridge deserved jail.

Abbott, and all other politicians, go into the political arena with the full knowledge that they are fair game for any legal challenges on their decisions.

He had no problems with trying to cause legal trouble for Gillard after all...

Alan Austin,you have to realise that both the Coalition and Labor have betrayed all Australians.They have sold us out to the concept of Global Governance by bankers and the corporations they control.

"Shouldn't Tony Abbott's slush fund be subjected to the same media scrutiny Julia Gillard has received over the AWU scandal?"

Considering that the media organisations are interested in news that sell papers, let's compare the two.

One had a major fraud perpetrated by a couple of individuals, one of whom was sharing a bed and more with Juliar Gillard. Juliar had helped set up the legal entity that the crooks used to perpetrate the fraud, deliberately falsifying the purpose of the entity on the documents. This along with allegations that Juliar personally profited, and Juliar's story being continuously modified as more information came out, is the very essence of a juicy public interest story.

Abbott set up a legal fund for the purpose of de registering One Nation based on One Nation's incorrect application for registration. The court action, which was open and reported at the time, succeeded and the judgement still stands today. The subsequent criminal action was driven by the AG of Queensland, and overturned on a technicality. The only new news it that Ettridge is taking court action against Abbott for being mean to him in a case that apparently no lawyer will touch with a barge pole.

Rehashing information from an open court case years ago does not make good copy, no matter how much the labor tragics would like to fan this tiny ember into something bigger.

Michelle Grattan, the highly respected political editor
for The Age wrote an interesting Opinion piece about
illegal behaviour. She makes the point quite strongly
that Mr Abbott "does not bring an unblemished record to
the argument..."

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/abbott-has-his-own-slushy-history-20121201-2anjy.html

We'll see what the court decides in June as to whether
Mr Abbott has a case to answer and whether his campaign
against One Nation was indeed unlawful.

There were three of them heading up One Nation, Hanson, Oldfield and Etteridge.
How did Abbott's 'ex' associate Oldfield escape being sent to jail?

both the Coalition and Labor have betrayed all Australians.They have sold us out to the concept of Global Governance by bankers and the corporations they control

VERY TRUE

Neither the ALP, the LNP nor the Greens have any acquaintance with honour / decency / fair play / accountability.

"I personally considered Hanson to be a redneck ignoramus, not unlike her US equivalent, Sarah Palin....but, of course, you already knew that : )"

So, you are just using Hanson to AbbottAbbottAbbott.

"Michelle Grattan, the highly respected political editor
for The Age wrote an interesting Opinion piece about
illegal behaviour."

That sentence contains more oxymorons, misrepresentations and Tinkerbellism than any other I have read lately

Lexi,

I think Abbott going through the courts to achieve his ends is as legitimate a vehicle as possible (with a court judgement) and is far more transparent than the skulduggery surrounding the AWA scandal.

As far as Abbott's actions wrt the slush fund, none of it was illegal in any manner, and none of it has any relevance to the case that Ettridge has brought. I think Ettridge has more chance of falling pregnant than winning this case.

As Michelle Gratin said:

"there were clear differences between Abbott's slush fund, which was aimed at a broad political purpose (the destruction of Hanson and One Nation) and the limited self-serving objectives of the AWA body, let alone the vehicle for illegal behaviour that it became."

Dear Shadow Minister,

You seem to have left out what else Michelle Grattan also
stated:

"The point is Abbott does not bring an unblemished record
to the argument."

He lied to the AEC that amounts to a criminal act under
Section 137.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code (1992).
The crime of providing false or misleading information
in compliance with the law of the Commonwealth.

The following links help clarify things:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/tony-abbott-and-his-slushy-question-of-character/

And:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/tony-abbott-the-aec-and-the-scent-of-corruption/

And this from a man who confessed on national television that
he has problems with the "gospel truth."
Now that's an oxymoron.

Lexi,

Actually I was pointing out the section that you selectively excised.

Secondly, Abbott did not lie to the AEC, as speaking to a lawyer is not "taking legal advice", which is defined as:

"In the common law, legal advice is the giving of a FORMAL opinion regarding the substance or procedure of the law, usually received from a solicitor, barrister or lawyer, ordinarily in exchange for financial or other tangible compensation."

When Abbott "spoke with one of Australia’s leading electoral lawyers", this did not constitute "taking legal advice"

So Lexi, the rag to which you refer actually got it wrong. Abbott spoke to a Lawyer before, and took formal advice afterwards. No lie, no crime.

As far as compared to Juliar who has lied and broken just about every promise she has made, Abbott is a pillar of honesty.

Dear Shadow Minister,

A few corrections need to be made.
According to the following facts:
Tony Abbott is a serial liar.

Here's why:

"In 1998 Abbott privately agreed to bank roll Terry
Sharples - a disaffected One Nation member to take
legal action against Pauline Hanson. Less than 2
weeks later, he categorically denied to the ABC
that he had done so. And 18 months later he repeated
the lie, this time to Sydney Morning Herald's Deborah Shaw
and when she confronted him with his signed personal guarantee,
he said that:

"Misleading the ABC is not quite the same as mis-leading the
Parliament..."

"Mr Abbott then created a slush fund he called, "Australians
For Honest Politics" (sic) and raised $100,000 for it from
12 people he declined to name. The fund began bank rolling
more court actions against Hanson and her partners."

"In a famous interview Kerry O'Brien demolished Abbott's
facade of "misunderstood nice," and proved to a much
bigger audience that Abbott was a serial liar."

"But there's more..."

"The Sydney Morning Herald's Mick Seccombe then reported that
in 1998 the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) asked Abbott
to disclose his donors as required by law."

"He refused - telling the Commission that before seeking
donations, "I spoke with one of Australia's leading
electoral lawyers who assured me that the trust would not
be covered by disclosure provisions."

"The AEC took him at his word and closed the file until forced
to open it in 2003."

"Abbott had lied again."

"When asked on Sept. 2003 why he took legal advice on secrecy
before soliciting for donations he said,

"I didn't take legal advice on disclosure till after I got
the AEC's letter. I sought legal advice and got oral advice
from a senior lawyer."

"In other words, he lied to the AEC."

And that not only makes Mr Abbott a liar but it amounts to
a criminal act under Section 137.1 (of the Commonwealth
Criminal Code (1992) the crime of providing materially false
or misleading information in compliance with the law of the
Commonwealth.

A "pillar of honesty?"
Hardly.

"The perils of Pauline: her breach of 'club' rules was technical rather than deceit."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/21/1061434983325.html

"Tony Abbott is a serial liar."

Great Lexi; keep quoting verbatim from Kingston and someone is going to notice the slander flying around. Truth, of course, is a defence to defamation; do you have a copy of Abbott's "signed personal guarantee"?

I'd really like to see that.

Abbott freely described the purpose and intention of his Trust, and I link to a site which is venomous in its leftism and which no doubt Lexi has been fortified from also reading:

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/21852/20040221-0000/www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/28/1062028274721.html

This is unmitigated bile reporting unmitigated bile but it is plain Abbott did not obfuscate; not that I would call lying to the abc lying.

Abbott did not lie about the status of the trust; the trust was not an associated entity; the AEC had read the Trust document, which still exists, which is more than we can say about Gillard's paper trail, and concluded it was not an associated entity.

If these reporters and yourself, Lexi, think otherwise, obtain a copy of the trust and prosecute your complaint; join with Ettridge, put your money where your mouth is.

The complaint about Hanson and Ettridge was they profited from an incorrectly registered politcal party; do you know if it was correctly registered? Has that status been overturned?

You wouldn't have a clue but that doesn't stop you parroting other nasty little leftie rants.

It wasn't Abbott who prosecuted Ettridge for criminal offences you fool, it was the State of QLD; can you understand that?

This is a distraction from the real, cogent complaints against Gillard and represents the left at its 'best'.

Role on September 14th.

Poirot,
The ruling of the case that Sharples won and the criminal case that followed and resulted in the jailing of Pauline and Ettridge was flawedon the basis that it ruled that ON members were not members but supporters. Yet each had signed on and had a receipt stating membership fee. They could form branches, participate in meetings and vote on resolutions and put forward candidates for selection. The ruling was political, with the object of making ON invalid.

If it had not been overturned by the appeal it would have meant that no one in Queensland could be deemad a member of a party, club or association by virtue of the fact of paid membership and meeting participation.

However I think that if Ettridge has a case against Abbott for some unlawfull action it will be to do with what took place between Abbott and Sharples and/or some other ON member/s, whom Abbott approached. I understand that Sharples was disgruntled because he did not qualify for electoral funding because he did not gain sufficient votes, as laid down by the AEC. He thought he still should be reimburst by ON.

Interesting to see if Ettridge can mount a case.

Cohenite "It wasn't Abbott who prosecuted Ettridge for criminal offences you fool, it was the State of QLD; can you understand that?"

Charming as always Cohenite...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if there is a court case coming up next month re Ettridge suing Abbott, then there must be a case to answer?

None of us can say how the case will go because none of us has the full facts about the contents of the allegations against Abbott except Ettridge and the lawyers.

I, for one, am not sure which of the fine opponents I want to see 'win'.

Tony Abbott denounced Julia Gillard as unfit for
office because of a slush fund she helped set
up in the early 1990s as a lawyer for Slater and
Gordon did he forget his very own slush fund?
And where did the money came from? He still has not
named the 12 donors. And he did lie to the AEC.
As quoted from the link given earlier.

Facts do exist no matter how some people choose
to ignore them. But it seems that slandering someone's
character and reputation is ok, but it's different if
someone attempts to call others to account - then it
becomes "slander" and "bile." No suprises there.
"Them" and "Us" all over again.

David Ettridge is correct in stating that before Mr
Abbott can become PM he needs to be judged on his
suitability to hold the highest office in Australia.
He can't judge others and not expect to be judged
himself.

As for articles printed by prominent Australian
investigative journalist Margot Kingston who's worked
not only for the Sydney Morning Herald, The Age,
The Canberra Times, A Current Affair, published books,
"Not Happy, John," in 20o4 - her reporting
is accurate. Any queries about Deborah Shaw's confrontation
with Mr Abbott when she confronted him with his signed
personal guarantee to Terry Sharples should be directed
to the Sydney Morning Herald.

The court case in June will be interesting to watch.
Will justice prevail, or will it again be swept onto
the dung-heap of history, as has been the case in the past.
We'll have to wait and see.

The issue of whether ON QLD was correctly registered was considered initially in Sharples v O'Shea(1) which found it wasn't:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Publications_Archive/CIB/cib9900/2000cib04

This decision was appealed by Hansen and the appeal was dismissed:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QCA/2000/23.html

There is nothing 'technical' about these decisions; the QLD SC in the first instance and the QLD CA found at law ON was not correctly registered; that's it.

Yet we have these ratbags saying Abbott has lied, perverted the system and influenced the political process through the courts and the AEC to achieve this result.

And then somehow influenced the subsequent criminal proceedings brought by the QLD AG and which was heard before a jury which convicted. This criminal conviction was overturned on the basis of the distinction of the standard of proof between the civil proceedings which is on the balance of probabilities and the criminal standard which is beyond reasonable doubt.

This distinction is also not a 'technicality'; it is common for people to have civil suits against them succeed which do not sustain a criminal conviction.

The initiator of all this was Sharples and Abbott's relationship with this person is neither Svengalic or dominant.

The preoccupation with this rubbish is just further evidence of the left and their lack of moral perspective.

Roll on September 14th.

Nice one, Mr Abbott,

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/26/1061663794315.html

reports from 2003. Must be desperate Poirot when you dig up an apology from Abbott. We are still waiting for one from Gillard instead of excusing her behaviour because in her 30's she was young and 'naive'. Talk about desperate.

runner,

He apologised for non-disclosure, not for setting it up.

"But last night's statement confirms that only two weeks after making that denial, he established a formal trust, Australians for Honest Politics, which collected $100,000 to funnel into anti-One Nation legal actions.

Mr Abbott confirmed that at the time of making the statements to 'Four Corners', he had already promised to underwrite the legal costs of disaffected One nation litigant Terry Sharples."

Australians for Honest Politics.....oh yeah!

Knowing what I do about the running of the legal / justice system (more correctly the 'IL-legal / IN-justice' system)). I don't have any confidence in reports supposedly revealing who supposedly said or did whatever. One thing of which I am 100% certain is that the RAbbott pulled whatever strings he considered necessary to remove Pauline Hanson & One Nation from the scene. Furthermore, he has undoubtedly done something comparable to discredit the red-headed witch, however in this case she provided a lot of the ammunition herself. Remember that both the RAbbott & the red-headed witch have legal backgrounds, consequently they would have relevant contacts and knowledge of what strings to pull. Whatever, the REAL story is undoubtedly much different to the various ones being spread around. Twisting words out of all recognition & 'adjusting' male bovine droppings to look like gospel truth are lawyers tools of trade, even more so when said lawyers are also politicians. If as it appears, karma has decided its time to re-visit the RAbbott, then so be it, I for one certainly won't be shedding a tear in sympathy for the clown.

Lexi,

My wife and i have a slush fund to fund unexpected expenses, my company has a slush fund for contingencies, and I doubt there is a single organisation that does not have one or more slush funds. The issue is what the slush fund was intended for.

The slush fund that Juliar set up as "Australian Workers Union, Workplace Reform Association", she did in the full knowledge that it was false, though to what extent she knew of the fraud it perpetrated is unknown, as is the amount that she financially benefited.

Abbott's fund was drastically different in that its purpose was legitimate, and the donors were fully aware of its purpose.

Lexi would also have appeared to have lied, by repeating the lie contained in the polemic blog to which she referred. (which has not been repeated by any reputable news organisation and was posted under the name admin presumably to avoid libel.)

Especially since both statements

"I spoke with one of Australia’s leading electoral lawyers who assured me that the trust would not be covered by disclosure provisions.’"

And

"‘I didn’t take legal advice on disclosure till after I got the AEC’s letter. I sought legal advice and got oral advice from a senior lawyer.'"

Are correct and don't conflict each other.

Shadow Minister "Abbott's fund was drastically different in that its purpose was legitimate, and the donors were fully aware of its purpose."

Really?
You don't know that for sure Shadow Minister.
Remember, you are talking about Lawyers and Politicians here.
Lying is part of their job description.

Is there a note of panic creeping into the posts defending the holy Abbott now?
I can't wait to see the outcome of the court case...

'Australians for Honest Politics.....oh yeah!'

Well Poirot, I suspect the way you vote we have little hope.

Why thank you, runner.

Australians for Honest Politics......

Abbott: - "I had promised that he [Sharples] wouldn't be out of pocket, but there's a difference between telling someone he won't be out of pocket and telling someone that you're going to have to pay him money."

I recommend folks here read this transcript of Abbott's interview with Kerry O'Brien on the matter.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s933489.htm

Abbott is spectacular in his ability to ignore the bald-faced imputations of his actions.

Apparently the rhetoric Abbott unloaded in this interview is representative of the man who set up the trust Australians for Honest Politics.

....which apparently, was not supposed to be satirical.

Hard to believe, but there you go.

Have a good long read,runner.

There's your hero doing what he does best.

I really think it likely both Gillard and Abbott will be successful in getting any court proceedings put off untill after the election.

It would also appear that the Thomson and Slipper matters are heading the same way. It is now only 4 months to go.

Dear Shadow Minister,

A couple of responses to your statements are necessary.

Firstly, it is an issue for what the slush fund was
intended, who donated to it and why the lies surrounding
it. The court will decide this matter in June and whether
its purpose was lawful. I don't doubt for one moment that
the donors to this fund were fully aware of its purpose.

BTW - this matter was covered by Michelle Grattan, political
editor of The Age newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald picked
it up, the ABC, covered it, as did the 7.30 Report with Kerry
O'Brien, to name just a few. They all repeated the same story.

In regards to your claim about the quotes from Mr Abbott -
they actually prove that he did lie. In 1998 he told the
AEC that he had consulted with leading electoral lawyers -
so the AEC took him at his word and closed the file until
they were forced to re-open it in 2003. Then in 2003 Mr
Abbott admitted, "I didn't take legal advice on disclosure
till i got the AEC's lett (in 2003)..." In other words he
had lied earlier (in 1998) to the AEC.

Here's the 7.30 Report link that Poirot gave in her post and
as she stated - read it and see what your "Pillar of Honesty,"
exemplifies.

Appaling.

Lexi,

You are being deliberately dishonest. The full context of his quote was:

"I didn’t take legal advice on disclosure till after I got the AEC’s letter. I sought legal advice and got oral advice from a senior lawyer."

In which he refers to his earlier conversation with a senior lawyer, but saying that he didn't "TAKE LEGAL ADVICE" until approached by the AEC, which if you had read my earlier post is not the same as a conversation with a lawyer.

There is no contradiction, no indication that what he said was not true, and therefore no lie. Unlike the lies that Juliar told with regards her dealing with the AWA, and the carbon tax.

As for the purpose of the fund, there is no indication of anything unlawful. Unlike Juliar's slush fund which threatened businesses to contribute and then stole the money, some of it possibly going to Juliar.

Lexi one can only assume you are either a dope or wilfully ignoring the facts; or both.

The AEC takes noone at face value; they looked at the trust document and engaged their own lawyers.

The trust was not an associated entity.

This is a beat up by the usuall leftie sources Grattan, O'Brien, who will be out of jobs when the abc is defunded and Fairfax goes under.

Susie; so you are willing to bet on who goes to jail: Abbott or Gillard?

so you are willing to bet on who goes to jail: Abbott or Gillard?

I suppose its too much to hope for that BOTH of them get assigned to the big house ??

Dear Shadow Minister,

Mr Abbott admitted that he did not take legal advice
on disclosure until after he got the AEC's letter in 2003.
It was then he sought legal advice and got it from a
senior lawyer. This means that he lied in 1998 to the AEC
when he told the Commission that he spoke with one of
Australia's leading electoral lawyers on the matter.
As a result of this lie the AEC closed the file in 1998.
They were forced to re-open it in 2003.
Mr Abbott sought legal advice only after the AEC's letter
to him in 2003.

I find it amazing how much lee-way you're willing to
give Mr Abbott and how little to the PM. Different strokes
for different folks. In any case the court will decide
the matter in June. However as Michelle Grattan pointed out
earlier, Mr Abbott does not bring an unblemished record
to his case.

And as Grattan summed up so well:

"Should we be surprised that Abbott calls on the PM to tell us all
but was reticent himself. Not really.
It's the old story of the boot being on the other foot."

Or in this case in his mouth.

Here's as Poirot pointed out earlier is the man doing
what he does best, being the "Pillar of Honesty,"
you admire so much:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2003/s933489.htm

isn't it amazing how telling the truth has become so important now that Mr Abbott looks like being PM. From the greatest moral dilemma this century to no carbon tax, to we will be fiscal conservatives, to we will oppose 'gay ' marriage, we will be in surplus, we never heard once from the rusted on Labour voters. Not to mention Slipper, Thompson etc etc. Good to know that truth does matter however rather pathetic that its been ignored for a good 5 years.

runner,

I believe I was erred slightly when I said that Mr Abbott had apologised for non-disclosure.

Apparently the "apology" was for making a "flippant" comment to the SMH.. as in...."Misleading the ABC is not quite the same as misleading Parliament as a political crime."

The assumption being that Mr Abbott was, in fact, apologising to himself for allowing the slip up.

Abbott: "It was a flippant comment and, as I said, I shouldn't have made a flippant comment in response to the 'Sydney Morning Herald'."

Abbott: "I thought it was a throwaway line, it was a flippant comment...."

............

O'Brien: "Well did you mislead the ABC or not?"

Abbott: "I don't believe I did."

O'Brien: "Well, why did you say you did?"

Abbott: "Well, I was making a flippant comment."

Glad we've got all that cleared up.

Lexi, you have them on the run : )
The Liberal supporters were rabid in their condemnation of the so called lies of our PM, but can't take the heat when the holy Abbott is caught being naughty himself.

Cohenite, I dislike both Gillard and Abbott, so there would not be any point in making any bets.
I must admit to disliking Abbott slightly more though, so I do look forward to that court case...

Poirot

'There's your hero doing what he does best.' Sorry to disappoint you but Abbott has never been my hero. He is just a thousand miles ahead of any emily's listers who have proven to be deceitful and incompetent. I think you know that.

Funnily enough, I'd never heard of Emily's List until I joined OLO.

I think I'm wtih Suse on this one, not being impressed with either Gillard or Abbott.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.....23 million people in a country and those two and their cronies are the best we can put up for leadership.....sheesh!

I must be a bit slow too Poirot, in that i first heard of Emily's List from the usual sermon from Runner on this site a few years ago.

I never had any compulsion to look it up until recently though...mainly because Runner was interested in it.

Now that I have, I must say I agreed with many of the women's issues they campaign for, except that it promotes Labor.

Abbott must hate that list...

Interesting discussion. Thanks.

Just a few observations:

Still confusion between associations and bank accounts. The term ‘fund’ refers to a bank account – not to the association which opened it.

Similarly, a trust is not an association. These distinctions are important.

@Arjay, re: “you have to realise both the Coalition and Labor have betrayed all Australians. They have sold us out to the concept of Global Governance by bankers and corporations”

Based on what, Arjay? This seems one area of significant difference between political parties.

No? Happy to discuss.

@cohenite, re: “It wasn't Abbott who prosecuted Ettridge for criminal offences you fool, it was the State of QLD; can you understand that?”

According to Anthony Green, “Hanson's criminal charges came about as a result of a civil action by an ex-One Nation candidate, Terry Sharples … After the civil finding of fraud, a criminal case on who perpetrated the fraud was always bound to follow.”

So Abbott was the initiator. Correct?

Re: “This is a distraction from the real, cogent complaints against Gillard and represents the left at its 'best'.”

Not according to Justice Applegarth, Anthony. Abbott has an actual case to answer. Unlike Ms Gillard.

Re: “we have these ratbags saying Abbott has lied, perverted the system and influenced the political process ...”

Abbott himself has admitted lying. Here, and elsewhere.

Whether he has perverted the system and exerted influence illegally is what Judge Applegarth considers worth exploring.

Re: “The initiator of all this was Sharples and Abbott's relationship with this person is neither Svengalic or dominant.”

How much money has Abbott’s slush fund paid to Sharples, Anthony? For what services rendered?

@Suseonline, re: “None of us can say how the case will go because none of us has the full facts about the contents of the allegations against Abbott except Ettridge and the lawyers.”

Precisely!

Finally, the PM has fronted exhaustive press conferences and answered endless questions from all comers. She has continued to answer them – even though repeated ad nauseum.

Why will no-one in the Press Gallery pop a question or two to Mr Abbott?

Cheers,

"So Abbott was the initiator. Correct?"

No. ON involved criminal and civil proceedings; I have linked to the initial civil proceedings and the Appeal from those proceedings; in both instances it was found that ON was not correctly registered. That is the end of that.

Abbott was not a party to either of those cases; whether he provided financial backing is irrelevant because the AEC has found his trust was NOT an associated entity. That is the end of that.

Ettridge and Hanson were prosecuted by the QLD AG in 2003 by the Beattie government, an ALP government! How could Abbott have influenced that?!

Hanson and Ettridge's criminal conviction was quashed because the court found there was doubt the standard of criminal conviction was satisfied.

So Ettridge and Hanson remain convicted by the civil proceedings but have had the benefit of doubt applied to their circumstances in the criminal proceedings.

An enquiry by the Crime and Conduct Commission in 2004 into whether due process had been met in the various ON proceedings found it had.

So, we have had 2 civil and 2 criminal proceedings and a commission enquiry as well as 2 AEC enquiries into the matter.

Abbott is legally clear; you might not like what happened to Ettridge and Hanson, and I'm sure the faux outrage here masks complete indifference but Abbott did nothing legally wrong.

Dear Alan's pathetic attempt to establish equivalence between Abbott and Gillard is both wrong and no doubt the last desperate attempt by rusted on ALP acolytes to mitigate the impending demolition in September.

cohenite,

"So Abbott was the initiator. Correct?"

"No...."

Perhaps you should tell that to Mr Abbott.

To take a quote from his O'Brien interview:

"Abbott: "If you go back, Kerry, to the parliamentary debate on 1 July, I think it was, of 1989--1998--Labor speaker after speaker were demanding, screaming, that the Government in general, but I in particular, do something to stop this terrible Hanson woman.

Well, I did."

So thank you for the soft-shoe shuffle, but Tony appears to believe that "he" stopped Hanson....

"Well, I did."

Poirot, you live in a parallel universe.

I have gone through chapter and verse why Abbott is legally clear; look at the civil cases; who was the plaintiff; was it Abbott? No.

Abbott had nothing to do with the criminal proceedings; that was the ALP!

This is a farcical attempt to wrap Abbott in a conspiracy, and, as I say, establish some sort of equivalence with Gillard where NO court action or response to the accusations has occurred against her except she saying she didn't do it.

Pathetic.

Exactly right Cohenite.
Gillard hasn't been made to answer to a court of law re these allegations because there was no legal case to answer.

Unfortunately for Abbott, the criminal justice system obviously believes there are reasons enough to try him in court.
There is no getting away from that fact, no matter how much the Liberal tragics protest.

I expect that by his very own standards, Abbott will be standing down any day now while this matter is in Court and not offering his "tainted" vote in Parliament.

This matter, as well as the Slush Fund he created was known about in the Blogosphere long before it was announced in the mainstream media.

If it involved Gillard it would have been screaming at us from the front pages of every newspaper but it's been quietly put to one side.

Funny that.

Lexi,

Are you lying or illerate?

"Mr Abbott admitted that he did not take legal advice on disclosure until after he got the AEC's letter in 2003." He had got verbal advice only.

"It was then he sought legal advice and got it from a senior lawyer." This you made up as he never used the word "then"

"Taking legal advice" is a technical term specifically referring to a written opinion provided by a legal firm upon which they stake their reputation. This is driven home by Abbott's specific use of the term " I sought legal advice and got oral advice from a senior lawyer"

AA,

The term ‘fund’ refers to any vehicle containing money which includes a bank account or the association which opened it.

Abbott initiated the civil case to de register One Nation. The criminal case was initiated by the AG of Queensland as a consequence of One Nation being found to have been registered and thus having obtained commonwealth funding using a false declaration.

To initiate requires specific action, not simply a consequence of other actions. I see AA's grasp of English is as poor as his grasp of Economics.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Why are you getting personal.

I'm merely quoting from the information available
and what Mr Abbott has himself admitted. Check again
the given links, especially the 7.30 Report.
Of course if you choose to believe something different
that's something over which I have no control. However
that does not change the facts. And as a librarian,
I simply supply the facts - I do not interpret them
for you. You may not like them but as they say -
stiff cheddar.

However, cheer up - I'm sure that with all of his influences
Mr Abbott will manage to find himself the best lawyers
who'll undoubtedly work pro-bono defending him in June.
Perhaps Christopher Pyne could start up another slush fund
for Mr Abbott's defence - who knows. His mentor Mr Howard
might even be willing to contribute to the fund out of all
the perks he's currently receiving as a former PM from the
taxpayers.

"It's as plain as the nose on your face
If you lie you'll end in disgrace
Unless you've got clout
Then of course there's no doubt
That you'll end up winning the race."

Rhrosty one can safely predict that Mr Abbott will walk away, from his day in court, with both his bank balance and political career largely unharmed!

I fear you are correct. Justice has been a purchasable commodity since legal leeches took control of both IN-justice & politics. The RAbbott having some kind of legal qualifications, would undoubtedly have contacts in high places. For that matter, so would most politicians but its probably the case that friends belong the Mad Monk are more influential than the others. That said, karma has a way of catching wrong-doers out when they least expect it.

The most despicable thing about the treatment of Pauline Hanson was that the issues she raised were conveniently swept under the carpet instead of being debated. This matter is simply another in the litany of cases where major party bloodsucking parasites have trampled roughshod over accountability. Personally I believe someone (or something) else was really pulling the strings .. probably the United Nations, because they tend to come up with plenty of off the planet nonsense (Agenda 21 being an obvious example).

Lexi
"It's as plain as the nose on your face
If you lie you'll end in disgrace
Unless you've got clout
Then of course there's no doubt
That you'll end up winning the race."

I like it :) :) :)

Lexi,

You are merely misquoting from the information available, which is lying. The original blog already selectively quotes Abbott, you however, add the word to it which changes the context.

"It's as plain as the nose on your face
If you lie you'll end in disgrace"

The problem here is Tinkerbell and the rest of the pixie queens don't understand that Ettridge is not bringing criminal charges against Abbott; they are an attempt to bring civil proceedings, presumably for damages.

He should be sueing the QLD government which jailed him, but first he will have to prove he is innocent and the civil convictions are a big barrier.

Not once in this whole rambling mess has dear Alan or any of the flock considered that ON, Ettridge and Hanson were found guilty in the civil courts.

That's not Abbott's fault.

I bet Ettridge doesn't get off the ground or has a big costs award made against him.

Like or dislike what Abbott did, which apparently is raise some money, it wasn't illegal.

Gillard on the other hand is yet to be tested.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You're not serious?

Read the 7.30 Report about who's changing words
and context and then try to justify it with a
straight face.

Although, that shouldn't surprise me that you'd
attempt it. Your leader is so good at doing
precisely that.

I guess there's no accounting for taste. But surely
the Liberal Party could do with a higher calibre of
leader. Someone a bit more competent.
Who has a clue. Although looking at their front bench -
I guess the choice is rather limited.
And don't get me wrong I'm not too thrilled with the
other side of politics either. Like most voters right
now - the political cupboard is bare.

Lexi,

I have read the report, and as far as the singular accusation you made about Abbott lying to the AEC, that is unfounded.

Everything you are saying about Abbott is the spin labor has been cranking out over 4 years. Funny how they also said similar things about Howards, and he proved to be the best PM in decades.

Abbott has far more acumen than labor anticipated. He has outplayed Juliar, Swan, Conroy and everyone else from the sordid left.

cont'd ...

Thanks for quoting my ditty but you left this out
(no surprises there)...:

"Unless you've got clout
Then of course there's no doubt
That You'll end up winning the race."

Appalling.

http://www.theglobalmail.org/blog/in-politics-slush-happens/505/

Why are Labour/Greens supporters still trying to tell the conservatives that they need a higher calibre of leader. Surely they can see by now that their judgement over the last 8 or 9 years has been atrocious. It would kind of like greater western sydney telling geelong who to choose as a captain. Surely they need to win some respect first.

runner Why are Labour/Greens supporters still trying to tell the conservatives that they need a higher calibre of leader

Well you can hardly argue that the statement is without merit. The conservatives most definitely DO need 'a higher calibre of leader'. The only point they have conveniently chosen to ignore is that **ALL** political parties need 'a higher calibre of leader', and the ALP / LNP most of all. I wouldn't worry about the Greens as they are never likely to amount to more than an ALP appendage.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You can't be taken seriously talking about spin
when you support a man who seeks to be PM by
destruction in the absence of any policy substance,
reform agenda or vision. He's a genuine hollowman
reducing complex issues to inane slogans and
negative rhetoric, lowering the national debate.
He doesn't have the character, maturity, nor
integrity to maintain his current position let alone
ascend further.

As for his mentor John Howard, who not only lost the
election but was only the second PM to get kicked out
of his own electorate. And who had the good fortune
to be PM during good economic times.

Whichever way you want to slice it the fact remains
that the difference between Julia Gillard's involvement
in the AWU affair has been thoroughly investigated over
the last 20 years with no evidence of wrong doing found.
Whereas there is evidence of Abbott's wrong doing as
many links provide. It shall
be interesting to see what falls out of the tree when its shaken.
How many monkeys are involved.
Slush fund, Ashbygate, Slippergate, Thomson - not to mention
now pending litigation.

The question that voters need to ask themselves is do they
really want lying, cheating, do whatever it takes,
morally bankrupt people, determining the future direction
of this great country of ours and representing us on the
world's stage?

I used to think that Malcolm Turnbull would make a great
PM, but I've had second thoughts since the Utegate and the
Goodwin Grech affair. Which went to the heart of "whatever
it takes" mentality and Turnbull's character/suitability
as not only party leader but also MP.

Not much of a choice amongst political leaders I'm afraid.
Unless a miracle happens between now and September.

I'll leave Lexi to you Shadow Minister, reading what she writes and obviously believes is like trying to resolve Escher in 3 dimensions.

In 1998 Abbott lied to the ABC about bankrolling Terry Sharples and then lied about it the the Sydney Morning Herald 18 months later.

His excuse to the ABC was ‘…misleading the ABC is not quite the same as misleading the Parliament as a political crime’.

The SMH reported that the AEC asked Abbott to disclose his donors, as required by law.

He refused, telling the Commission that before seeking donations -‘I spoke with one of Australia’s leading electoral lawyers who assured me that the trust would not be covered by disclosure provisions.’
The AEC took him at his word and closed the file until forced to reopen it in 2003.

When asked on September 2003 why he took legal advice on secrecy before soliciting for donations, he said -‘I didn’t take legal advice on disclosure till AFTER I got the AEC’s letter. I sought legal advice and got oral advice from a senior lawyer.’

In other words, he lied to the AEC.

This may amount to a criminal act under Section 137.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code (1992): the crime of providing materially false or misleading information in compliance with a law of the Commonwealth.

The AEC received draft legal advice in April 2004 suggesting there was sufficient evidence to issue a notice under section 316(3A) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act to require Mr Abbott to produce documents.

The man who had decided to let Abbott off the hook was named Brad Edgman, head of the AEC’s Funding and Disclosure branch. Brad Edgman does not have legal qualifications.

When the AEC reconsidered, Abbott was on leave overseas. The reason he wasn’t charged on his return was because the matter had exceeded the Statute of Limitations.

If it was all honest, open and above board, why did he take deliberate steps to have his association with the slush fund hidden?

It comes down to a matter of character.

One of the personal criminal allegations is that Abbott undertook this matter at taxpayers expense, travelling to interstate meetings on what was personal business while charging resulting expenses to the Commonwealth.

Then again, he racked up $12,000 in taxpayer-funded costs to travel about promoting his Battlelines book and claims his $300/night accommodation costs while polly-peddling around and staying in caravan parks.

As I said - character.

'As I said - character.'

ok Wobbles then who do you suggest has character? Gillard, Shorten, Wong, Thompson, Slipper, Oakshott, Windsor? Don't you realise all characters are flawed?

Hello again,

@cohenite, re: “whether he [Abbott] provided financial backing is irrelevant because the AEC has found his trust was NOT an associated entity.”

You mean a trust is NOT an association? Really? So is a bank account an association? Really?

Re: “Ettridge and Hanson were prosecuted by the QLD AG in 2003 by the Beattie government, an ALP government! How could Abbott have influenced that?!”

Easily. By bringing malicious civil action alleging fraud. As Anthony Green said, “After the civil finding of fraud, a criminal case on who perpetrated the fraud was always bound to follow.”

Criminal action often follows civil action, Anthony. Ask your lawyer.

The question – which it appears Justice Applegarth wants examined – is whether the testimony in the civil case was valid.

Re: “Dear Alan's pathetic attempt to establish equivalence between Abbott and Gillard is wrong …”

Incorrect, Anthony. Equivalence is explicitly denied. In one case a judge wants a trial. In the other, there's not one shred of credible evidence supporting any allegation of wrongdoing whatsoever.

Re: “who was the plaintiff; was it Abbott? No.”

The question remains, Anthony: How much did Abbott’s slush fund pay to Terry Sharples? For what services rendered?

Re: “Abbott had nothing to do with the criminal proceedings; that was the ALP!”

The ALP? Separation of powers, Anthony. Legal Backgrounds 101. Ask your lawyer.

Re: “The problem here is … the pixie queens don't understand that Ettridge is not bringing criminal charges against Abbott; they are an attempt to bring civil proceedings, presumably for damages.”

Correct. Just like Abbott paid Sharples to do against Ettridge and Hanson. No?

If successful, criminal charges will follow. And Judge Applegarth seems satisfied a case can be advanced.

Re: “Not once in this whole rambling mess has dear Alan or any of the flock considered that ON, Ettridge and Hanson were found guilty in the civil courts.”

Of course we have, Anthony. But we want to see – as does the Supreme Court of Queensland – whether the convicting evidence Abbott paid to have presented was in fact valid.

Cheers,

Oh! what a tangled web we weave
When first we practice to deceive!

I consider it EXTREMELY doubtful that the Mad Monk didn't practice deception at the very least and probably a whole lot more. The question is whether or not the beak who considers the case is above reproach. Wouldn't it be interesting if it comes back to bite him before September

"You mean a trust is NOT an association? Really? So is a bank account an association? Really?"

You have no idea; an Associated Entity for AEC purposes has nothing to do with whether it is an association of the sort Gillard admitted forging; read the definition at the AEC website; an Associated Entity may not be an association at all.

"Criminal action often follows civil action"

No it doesn't; the proceedings against ON, Ettridge and Hanson were broken into a civil proceeding because it was alleged and proved that irregularities existed with the registration of ON. The criminal proceedings were based on whether Ettridge and Hanson intentially benefitted financially from those irregularities. Most parties have irregularities from time to time which never involve criminal action.

"The question – which it appears Justice Applegarth wants examined – is whether the testimony in the civil case was valid."

That is a complete distortion of what his honour said. There can be no reexamination of the testimony in the civil case; it was heard before a judge when all evidence was tested and then it was subject to an appeal on that point, which failed.

It doesn't matter whether Sharples was paid by Abbott since the AEC has declared the trust not an Associated Entity.

Gillard has not been subject to any judicial scrutiny at all or been investigated by relevant government departments. The only government department she has dealt with is the WA Commission for Corporate Affairs and she has admitted forging a document to that department.

Anyway, we know you are an implacable ALP supporter and this colours your views. I personally don't care if Abbott is taken to court; I think it is nonsense but as long as there is due process that is fine.

So far Gillard has not been subject to due process

cohenite,

You better trot off and tell Tony.

He thinks he was the one who did it.

"Well I did."

and from this article:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/22/1061529330032.html

"On signing the indemnity, Abbot says: "Obviously in hindsight I shouldn't have done it. But if I had my time again and it was necessary to make an alliance with some pretty unusual people to stop a very serious threat to the cohesion of the country, well, I would do it. I mean how else were we going to stop One Nation at the time?""

(more Abbott speak: on the one hand he's saying he shouldn't have done it, then immediately says he'd do it again....)

Poirot, that's our Tony; honest to the point of political stupidity.

I find it so refreshing compared with the singular lack of admission of doing anything wrong from the other side of the fence.

"He thinks he was the one who did it."

Did what?

cohenite,

"Did what?"

Stopped Hanson and One Nation.

Abbott: "If you go back, Kerry, to the parliamentary debate on 1 July, I think it was, of 1989--1998--Labor speaker after speaker was demanding, screaming, that the Government in general, but I in particular, do something to stop this terrible Hanson woman.

Well, I did."

Dear Poirot,

There's a big difference between Julia Gillard who's
been thoroughly investigated and no illegal activity
was found. Whilst Mr Abbott has litigation pending and
as various links have shown - his actions are under
question.

It shall be interesting to see what falls out of the tree
when (and if) it's shaken in court in June.

However with big media, big business, and big money, lined
up for him - it's not going to be a level playing field.
Still one can wait and hope that what was good for the
goose will be good for the gander. At least just once.

What I see is a lot of noise coming from the Labor tragics. No one seems to have even an inkling of the legal system or court proceedings.

I can take Juliar to court by filling in the right forms and placing a deposit, for having an offensive nose. The consequences of doing so would be that even if I got my day in court, I would have to pay my legal costs, the court costs, and the defendant's costs. The filing of a suit is no indication in itself that any case exists.

With respect to legal precedence, the case against ON was not appealed by any of the defendants, and as such the judgement still stands, and can be used as accepted fact in this case, and the judge is not in any position to re hash any of the issues. Thus the only avenue that Ettridge has is to deal with issues outside the case which is pretty empty.

Unless Ettridge can show that Abbott slandered him or illegally influenced the prosecution of the criminal case, the case will be very short, and Ettridge will be bankrupt.

If Mr Abbott has nothing to fear and there is
nothing substantial against him then why has he
hired a very prominent QC to defend him?

As Alan Austin points out it is also interesting
"the invisibility cloak the mainstream media has
thrown on the matter is truly impressive."

Mr Austin asks the pertinent questions:

"Where are the in-depth historical perspectives,
probing questions, earnest sermons and breathless predictions?
What did Abbott actually do in 1998? What were his nefarious
motives? With whom was he in league? Where did the money
come from? Who will lead the party now Abbott is distracted
by court action?"

And:

"Why hasn't he stood aside pending the ourcome - as he urged
the Prime Minister to do in far less threatening circumstances?"

And:

"Of vital interest to tabloid readers, how will Abbott cope
in prison?"

Austin asks us to "Contrast this with the extra ordinary
coverage over several years now of the empty allegations
relating to Julia Gillard and an ex-boyfriend back in the
early 1990s, long before she was even in Parliament. Just
count the articles raking over old relationships,
speculating about possible jail time and generally trashing
the PM's character."

"Yet with not one single item of plausible evidence, let
alone a judge's decision on a further court appearance."

Anyone who finds this situation rather bizarre - is
classified as a "Labor Tragic." What then do we need
to classify those who try to defend this bizarre
behaviour?

I'm constantly amazed by the gall and arrogance of these
people. But then why should I be surprised. These are the
people who support the politics of money and power. An
ideology of greed. Leaving no room for social equity, compassion,
fair-play, or the idea of an egalitarian society.
They are part of the "whatever it takes," mentality.
No more needs to be said.

We shall have to wait until June for the results, or as
I suspect there will be a negotiated settlement beforehand.

Hello again,

Intriguing discussion. Thank you.

@cohenite: Anthony, Anthony, Anthony!

This is actually quite amusing now. But I suspect you now understand our earlier exchange.

Remember this?

“The key problem with the article [yours last December, Anthony, which you linked above] 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, usually by cheque. There was at least one bank account used by the association in question after it had been incorporated.

"But an incorporated association is a different entity from its bank accounts. The former is legally constituted by a commissioner after all legal requirements are met. The latter are opened by a financial institution on application by eligible account holders.

"What Ms Gillard referred to in her discussions within Slater and Gordon as a 'slush fund' was a bank account, not the association.

"Does this make sense? Perhaps if the author has an accountant or a lawyer, he or she may be able to explain the technical difference.

"Because it’s fairly important. This is the confusion in the mind of the author that renders most of his argument nonsensical.” [end of extract}

Anthony, your comments regarding the PM here on this thread are still nonsensical. They will only become coherent when you apply the same distinction to funds and associations in the Wilson/Blewitt matter you seem keen to make in the Abbott/Ettridge affair.

Why don’t you?

Then you will see why “Gillard has not been subject to any judicial scrutiny at all”.

It is not for want of nutjobs like Ralph Blewitt taking sworn statements to the police or energetic police investigation. It is for want of the simple comprehension of the difference between a fund and an associated entity.

That and there not being any other evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

Cheers,

Why has Abbott hired a prominent QC?

Because when Ettridge's case collapses, Ettridge will be paying for it.

Why is the media not interested?

Because it is old news, and there is nothing scandalous like Juliar sleeping with a crook and pretending she knew nothing.

Why hasn't Abbott stood aside?

Why should he? He is not accused of anything criminal such as Slipper, Thomson, and Juliar were.

Let's wait until June to watch Ettridge, who cannot get any one to support him in court, get shredded.

Lexi - I'm constantly amazed by the gall and arrogance of these
people. But then why should I be surprised. These are the
people who support the politics of money and power. An
ideology of greed

Sadly I'm not, in fact its exactly what I expect of bottom feeding bloodsucking parasites. The clowns have long been getting away with actions that would have landed any company director who did exactly the same in the big house for the term of his natural. Furthermore, we've seen upper houses, oppositions, the judiciary & governors / governors general all turn a blind eye to all manner of nefarious political doings since the dawn of time. This can only mean that all the aforementioned are equally culpable.

Dear Prax.,

Thanks for your comments.

I don't have the answers to the big questions in life.
I'm still on my own road to discovery. Yes, I've met
some bad people along the way. But I've also met some
amazing souls. I've also learned that even bad people
can surprise you at times, in a good and unexpected way.
We've all got obstacles to overcome. They are our
greatest teachers.

See you on another discussion.

It`s criminal the media can slander, lie and use the source says to give people an impression on guilt like what has happened to anyone who stands in the way of Mr Abbott becoming PM! Our papers and news have been over taken by personal views and interest and the core story is lost with uneducated non truth of so called information and vilification. To do as much damage as possible, to deny the public of Australia to have a fair debate. Over and over again my PM is printed in the most disturbing light while Mr Abbott is projected as a saint! I want to know the real Mr Abbott not the god like figure he is portrayed as. Ms Gillard has answered every question asked of her in the concerns of her time being a lawyer and has been investigated for years with no court case, yet found guilty by media and LNP public, with no proof. Mr Abbott IS in court for has dealings in bringing down a political party and I see NOTHING on any page of any paper, WHY? Google Mr Abbott and ONE NATION and everyone can see exactly what he has done but the LNP people dont care and wont bother because they have been taught not to believe truth or facts. Mr Murdoch is doing a great job at messing with our country and we should all ask, what is in it for him? Gold Coast dinners with Mr Abbott and Gina Rinehart tells me something and its not playing yatzee. Its playing with each and every Australians lives. Mr Murdoch needs to keep his own agenda out of this country and let the great people decide for them selves on who should manage this brilliant strong country with knowing the facts and truth, not the bias intention to get what HE wants. This should send a clear message to all of us that something smells here in a big way and we should not except it as normal.