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