Gillard's AWU/Wilson past about to haunt her?

This could get interesting for our PM - there have been some interesting allegations over the years

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...an-ralph-blewitt/story-fn6tcs23-1226441845982

Could you elaborate?

Did I read that right, Glenn Milne got the sack for writing about Gillard and this scandal?

This old chestnut story back in the headlines now is it.

If worst comes to worst I'm sure they'll had it over to Fair Work Australia to investigate so nothing that touches Gillard comes out until after the next election.

Exactly what is it she is supposed to have done? What does 'establishment of the association' entail? Drafting a constitution? Any suggestions?

It's not very clear - apart from the personal relationship with the guy and there's nothing on him, yet. Is there some crime beyond associating with him and if so can someone articulate it because so far it seems like not much more than old rumours.

This post and the links within are very interesting - very much worth reading

http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com...bruce-wilson-julia-gillard-awu-fraud-scandal/

If you don't like that site, you'll find plenty of other references with a search.

Yes, Gillard chucked a tanty.

Interesting that they've run three stories in two days about it.

I got a tip off from one of my press gallery contacts a couple weeks ago that this issue was gonna resurface in a big way.
Politically, union culcha aspect is the most damaging - comes back on Shorten, too.

Had a read of that site you put up & really DR is that the best you can do, an extreme right wing wank fest called kangaroocourtofaustralia

Well if this story is on the money then Julia deserves all she will get, until then all you right wing true believers can froth at the mouth as much you like.

Read the links to what was said under parliamentary privilege? I slecetd that because it seems to have most of the allegations.

Plenty other sites for your to look at about, like this rabid right wing lot

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/08/29/milne/

Interesting.

After the Milne debacle, they must think they onto something to revisit this. Is it this?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...a-union-intrigue/story-fn59noo3-1226441801095

I find it hard to believe JG was in it for personal gain. More likely got caught up in the Mates "that's how we do it" Act. But she was in her mid 30s and a partner in Slater \Gordon at the time. Ergo, no naiive novice. When it came to light she left S/G and never practised law again.
AWU Bruvvers then engaged in cover up. Should we be surprised?

The mud's going to be thrown at her by the Krudd backers -McClelland fired the first shot and put stuff on the record under privilege.

Has she ever explained her involvement apart from being young and niaive?

Your link is quite interesting

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e-wilson-charged/story-fn6tcs23-1226442634336

I wonder who at Slater and Gordon did that?

Being a partner at Slaters is shameful enough.

Gillard gotta give Ian Thorpe the 101 in beards.

What is with the current Slaters ad campaigns.

Why did they float on the stockmarket? There are only so much class action suits re:smoking and asbestos.

To float a company that earns its revenues in class actions, and requires growth as a listed entity, is pretty short sighted I reckon. What potential do they have in taking other income streams in the law? I would not be buying SG, or maurice blackburn cashman. I dont have any intrinsic disagreement with those firms. But was not the wigs better when they did not advertise

edit: were not wigs/was not law institute

She was only a mere slip of a thing at 31! I had a bit to do with her then because I acted by the Shearer's Union who the AWU was out to crush. Bruce Wilson was a devious bastard but he was her client and she drew up the paperwork for the trust on instructions - and she was living with him at the time. That might be innocent or it might be fishy - who knows - bloody long time ago now. I wish McClelland would stop whining like a bitch (by which I mean a female dog)

It also cuts across a number of ethical obligations in your duty as a legal practitioner. Particularly the conflict of returns to shareholders and duties to clients - it might be part of your professional duty to advise a client to an outcome that may not maximise the money the firm makes out of it.

Yeah good one DR. What part of the crikey link do you say actually supports any allegations of wrong-doing by Julia? It seems to me it explains clearly enough even for dullards to follow that the story is just utter rubbish.

He asked what the allegations were, and didn't like the first link.

If you've read the thread and the links, you'd understand that a key person has come forward to blow the whistle.

Whether the allegations aired in the Vic parliament against Gillard are accurate or crap, it looks we may find out soon.

The "key person" to have come forward is apparently Ralph Blewitt, a chap whose "coming clean" faces its very own credibility challenges. I note after all that he seeks indemnity from prosecution. There is nothing in the Crikey link that in anyway at all suggests any wrong-doing by Julia. Even your kangaroocourt link is shy on any sustantive details. Finally there is almost nothing in either of the Vic Parliament Hansard reports. In fact the only relevant quote I could find was this from Andrew McIntosh, who is not a guttersnipe:
On 13 February Mr Blewitt purchased a property in Victoria for $230 000, paying a deposit of $23 000. This happened three days after he was given a cash cheque for $25 000. He nominated a firm called Slater and Gordon to handle the transaction. I emphasise that I make no allegation against Slater and Gordon.
So is this as good as it gets? I do hope DR GJ and others are holding their collective breaths.

First, Slug and Glug going corporate has nothing to do with Julia as this happened well after she left.
Secondly, I do not understand the supposed conflict you purport to raise. A lawyer at Slug and Glug has an overriding professional duty to the Court (and then the client). It is only in the context of those overriding obligations that such a lawyer has any obligation to shareholders. After all, a shareholder will understand that Slug and Glug will make money by lawfully (ethically) conducting its legal practice. If Slug and Glug ever failed to act ethically on each such occasion there would be a risk to profit. But maybe you can explain what I am missing.

Gillard was just an equity partner (?), not conflating her were bishop who was state mnging ptner at ClUtz WA

cos she must'a' knicked off and advised ?Cain? on Spring st about 31. Was she not advising someone high up in a state Labour gov't?