P,

If you compare the devious and unethical abuse of parliamentary process that Juliar used to bribe Slipper (dis-endorsed by the libs for abuse of benefits) with hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax payer money to effectively join labor, the underhanded method used to expose Juliar's speaker was more than justified.

So before you get on your high horse and start pointing fingers with regards Slipper, you should look in your own back yard where the balance of crookery is well on Labor's side.

P.S. The cab-charge issue was dropped by Ashby's lawyers as not relevant to the case of harassment, and was instead referred to the police who subsequently charged Slipper.

SM,

They are not the same charges.

The original cabcharge investigation was over incidents in 2011-12 when Slipper was Parliamentary Speaker.

The new charges relate to 2010.

http://nofibs.com.au/2013/07/04/a-familiar-afp-smell-over-slipper-and-ashby/

"The allegations were baseless, a part of Ashby’s shock and awe plan to force the resignation of Slipper, and he dropped them in his subsequent statement of claim. In fact there is no evidence that Slipper rorted any entitlement during his time as Speaker."

"James Ashby’s false claims that Peter Slipper had rorted his taxi cab entitlements while Federal Parliamentary Speaker in 2011-12 have triggered a summons on three cab overpayments in 2010.

The history of Ashby’s allegations is as follows: two claims of travel rorts were dropped – after garnering maximum negative publicity for Slipper – while his last claim of sexual harassment was thrown out of the Federal Court in December as an abuse of process."

"However the AFP then delved back into his past as a Liberal Party MP, and finally charged him in January this year with an alleged 2010 travel rort, an incident which occurred shortly before Tony Abbott guaranteed that his travel entitlements were in order. (I note in passing that Mr Abbott has never been asked about the matter, and that Murdoch papers have falsely reported that the summons related to the 2012 matter alleged by Ashby)."

P,

You really are getting desperate.

The charges were dropped in the case because the case was about harassment, not because they were invalid. That the police chose not to prosecute on those particular cab charges does not mean they weren't abused, rather that there was not enough to make a criminal case, but was obviously sufficient for the police to investigate further.

As the cab charge dockets are submitted directly to Finance it is drawing a long bow to expect Abbott to have knowledge of them.

The case while being dismissed for abuse of process did not dismiss the original accusations, and served very well to expose labor's Speaker as a crook and pervert.

Yes, SM, we're well versed in your habit of finding "crooks and perverts" every time a partisan political accusation rears its head.

Here's Justice Rares on the original cabcharge allegation:

"186 Mr Slipper also contended that Mr Ashby’s abandonment of the 2003 and all Cabcharge allegations on 15 May 2012 when the statement of claim was filed, demonstrated that by then those allegations had served their intended purpose of harming Mr Slipper. Mr Slipper relied on the absence of any evidence on Mr Ashby’s part as to why the allegations had been made, only to be later withdrawn."

"188 Mr Ashby asserted that breach of the trust and confidence term can arise from a series of events over time,....He also argued that the Cabcharge allegations should be viewed as relevant to the breach of the safe system of work term of Mr Ashby’s contract:.."

"189 I reject those submissions....the test of whether an employee’s trust and confidence has been undermined is objective. Mr Ashby’s history given to Dr Phillips was simply that Mr Ashby believed that Mr Slipper’s actions “may have been unlawful”. Mr Ashby did not have any genuine disquiet when he raised the Cabcharge allegations in the originating application, for the reasons I have given."

"191 Here, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion, that I draw, namely that the inclusion in the originating application of the assertion that Mr Ashby intended to report the Cabcharge allegations to the police, offered him and Mr Harmer the opportunity to make a more serious public attack on Mr Slipper than would have been the case merely by making the balance of the Cabcharge allegations. That attack, in the form it was made, was a misuse of Mr Harmer’s privilege as a lawyer. The use of the Court’s process to make that attack in that form was an abuse of process."

SM, you make it up as you go along.

Ashby and his cronies had their case thrown out - lock, stock and barrel.

P,

"Yes, SM, we're well versed in your habit of finding "crooks and perverts" every time a partisan political accusation rears its head." - And all of them have either been charged and/or convicted. Your point?

Secondly, I still don't see Brough being mentioned. Why should I care about Slipper's staffer Ashby?

Finally, with regards the allegations of cab charge abuse,
A) they were irrelevant to the case, and were dropped,
B) Because they were withdrawn their validity was untested by the court,
C) By your own words "However the AFP then delved back into his past" and then charged him, so were indirectly vindicated.
D) Where was Brough other than on the periphery?