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.