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

[Contra Mundum]

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.

Jesus Christ you are paranoid - the float happened fifteen years after she left and I never insinuated anything different the two posts are not the same thing .

I am just making the observation that sometimes the too things are bound to conflict - for example the settlement of a class action might be more profitable for the lawyers than the clients or the sausage machine tendency of their compo and TAC practices might have got worse but hey what would I know - and to be clear I am blaming none of that on Gillard - maybe I am blaming it on the equity partners rapacity

 

[Windhover]

Jesus Christ you are paranoid - the float happened fifteen years after she left and I never insinuated anything different the two posts are not the same thing .

I have never (to my recollection) had anyone so heatedly agree with something I had posted. Perhaps I am paranoid? [P.S. I never "insinuated" (let alone expressly stated) that you did insinuate anything different. I just thought to point out the agreed fact in case anyone reading this thread might be misled. Was this so wrong?]

I am just making the observation that sometimes the too things are bound to conflict - for example the settlement of a class action might be more profitable for the lawyers than the clients or the sausage machine tendency of their compo and TAC practices might have got worse but hey what would I know - and to be clear I am blaming none of that on Gillard - maybe I am blaming it on the equity partners rapacity

I think you will find this conflict exists in any legal practice. Is it more profitable for the commercial law firm to keep fighting a losing case (we need more discovery, etc to be sure) or to advise to settle early (and lose all the on-going big fees)? Lawyers are part of "a profession" and that is meant to mean something, even if you act for plaintiffs in a class action or in a sausage machine process. I realise that not all professionals (whether they be doctors, lawyers or indian chiefs) are able to put aside self-interest. That is where complaint tribunals come in. You have not made a case against Slug & Glug going corporate just because this ineluctable conflict arises.

 

[Contra Mundum]

I have never (to my recollection) had anyone so heatedly agree with something I had posted. Perhaps I am paranoid? [P.S. I never "insinuated" (let alone expressly stated) that you did insinuate anything different. I just thought to point out the agreed fact in case anyone reading this thread might be misled. Was this so wrong?]


I think you will find this conflict exists in any legal practice. Is it more profitable for the commercial law firm to keep fighting a losing case (we need more discovery, etc to be sure) or to advise to settle early (and lose all the on-going big fees)? Lawyers are part of "a profession" and that is meant to mean something, even if you act for plaintiffs in a class action or in a sausage machine process. I realise that not all professionals (whether they be doctors, lawyers or indian chiefs) are able to put aside self-interest. That is where complaint tribunals come in. You have not made a case against Slug & Glug going corporate just because this ineluctable conflict arises.

I give up - you did commence your previous post with the words "First, Slug and Glug going corporate has nothing to do with Julia as this happened well after she left." What am I to conclude from these plain English words - other than the implication that I am trying to tar her with Peter Gordon's rapacious greed brush?

I will give you with a live example. Do you think that all those absestosis cases which failed because of the causation problem in smokers would be bankrolled where the ethos is no longer ideological but "all profits to share holders"

I toss in the towel, I kick the bucket, raise the white flag, s**t myself - you win. I hope you are not as smug in person as your text on this Board would otherwise indicate. I hope you are the textual equivalent of a method actor

 

[Windhover]

I give up - you did commence your previous post with the words "First, Slug and Glug going corporate has nothing to do with Julia as this happened well after she left." What am I to conclude from these plain English words

Um, what you did conclude, in heated agreement with me thus: "the float happened fifteen years after she left. "

- other than the implication that I am trying to tar her with Peter Gordon's rapacious greed brush?

I am unsure what you are now arguing or how I could be so implying. For the record I do not regard Peter Gordon as "rapacious" for starters, if you mean to suggest I am implying such a thing.

I will give you with a live example. Do you think that all those absestosis cases which failed because of the causation problem in smokers would be bankrolled where the ethos is no longer ideological but "all profits to share holders"

Again I am at a loss to understand your example. Are you saying that many asbestosis cases failed because of an inability on the part of plaintiff's who were smokers being able to prove their cancer was caused by exposure to asbestosis? If so, I do not "know" this and would need to be advised. If cases failed because of causation problems then it seems to me that it was a great pity for the plaintiffs and a waste of time and money for any lawyers so engaged, whether motivated by ideology or profit. I do not see any "conflict" as such. But I am not sure where you are going with this CM.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Um, what you did conclude, in heated agreement with me thus: "the float happened fifteen years after she left. "

Hang on I am responding to you - cause and effect

I am unsure what you are now arguing or how I could be so implying. For the record I do not regard Peter Gordon as "rapacious" for starters, if you mean to suggest I am implying such a thing.


Again I am at a loss to understand your example. Are you saying that many asbestosis cases failed because of an inability on the part of plaintiff's who were smokers being able to prove their cancer was caused by exposure to asbestosis? If so, I do not "know" this and would need to be advised. If cases failed because of causation problems then it seems to me that it was a great pity for the plaintiffs and a waste of time and money for any lawyers so engaged, whether motivated by ideology or profit. I do not see any "conflict" as such. But I am not sure where you are going with this CM.

The five equity partners bankrolled the first four failed proceeding by a series of mortgages on their houses. The causation issue was not regarded as a big issue because obviously if you contact mesothelioma after working in an asbestos mine at least some of it must be attributable to that - but the Supreme Court of WA did the job on them

the motivation of Bernard Murphy, Laurie Maher and the rest was purely and simply solidarity with the plight of the asbestos workers and to right a wrong. Now it seems to be that no such ideological fervour would be forthcoming from the current partnership - because they are beholden to the share holders

It took them a couple of more gos before they won - oh for simpler times!

 

[Windhover]

The five equity partners bankrolled the first four failed proceeding by a series of mortgages on their houses. The causation issue was not regarded as a big issue because obviously if you contact mesothelioma after working in an asbestos mine at least some of it must be attributable to that - but the Supreme Court of WA did the job on them

the motivation of Bernard Murphy, Laurie Maher and the rest was purely and simply solidarity with the plight of the asbestos workers and to right a wrong.

Well, no doubt they had a sense of solidarity with injured workers but this ideological approach would have been useless if "the law" (as properly understood) was not on the side of the injured workers. So "ideology" and "mercantile interest" go hand in hand.

Now it seems to be that no such ideological fervour would be forthcoming from the current partnership - because they are beholden to the share holders.

I do not see why. "Ideological fervour" is, as in the meso cases, often the inspiration for a fresh approach to the law that enables (with much profit to the initiator) a injustices to be righted. I think "corporate" Slug and Glug are doing something similar for bank customers as we speak.

 

[Dry Rot]

Slater and Gordon want to clear the shadow from their firm and dealings by a former partner?

Law firm presses Australian Workers Union on privilege

• BY:HEDLEY THOMAS, NATIONAL CHIEF CORRESPONDENT
• From:The Australian
• August 11, 201212:00AM

THE most powerful union in Australia, the Australian Workers Union, is being asked by its former law firm Slater & Gordon for permission to lift a legal lid on highly sensitive files on a union funds scandal that subsequently embroiled Julia Gillard.It is understood that senior partners of the firm, which has been an active supporter of Labor governments and unions and is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange, are reviewing all relevant files related to the AWU matters at the time.In a statement last night, the managing director of Slater & Gordon, Andrew Grech, said: "Over the past weeks, a number of allegations have been made about the conduct of Slater & Gordon relating to some legal work undertaken in the early 1990s on behalf of former clients of the firm.
"Slater & Gordon is today undertaking moves to contact the former clients involved in this matter, asking that they agree to waive their right to legal privilege attaching to lawyer-client communication so that we can respond to the public allegations that have been made.....
The fresh scrutiny comes after questions were raised in June in a surprise speech by former Attorney-General Robert McClelland. Court documents from the period show that as an AWU lawyer before entering politics, Mr McClelland fought to bring the alleged fraud to light in the 1990s.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ion-on-privilege/story-fn59niix-1226447902130

Good to see ALP member McCelland going after the dubious dealings of our PM.

 

[Dry Rot]

Remember cartoonist Larry Pickering? He has an interesting site these days

http://pickeringpost.com/

He's running a fascinating series about Wilson, Blewitt and Gillard called Is the PrimeMinister a crook?

here's part 1 which sets the scene

http://pickeringpost.com/article/is-the-prime-minister-a-crook/324

 

[bombermick]

Don't believe she's a crook, but she's repeatedly shown she has horrible judgement. That's enough to make her unsuitable to be PM.

 

[Dry Rot]

Part 2 is pretty boring, but Part 3 is a ripper

http://pickeringpost.com/article/is-the-prime-minister-a-crook-part-iii/351

The start is a charming story about two couples, and an interesting claim how Gillard left Slater & Gordon

Then there's this

It is Slater & Gordon's ex- and current employees who are now daily leaking devastating information on the activities of this listed law firm. The ASX and ASIC will no doubt be taking an interest.

Interesting.

 

[Windhover]

Slater and Gordon want to clear the shadow from their firm and dealings by a former partner?

Um, how does your theory work? S and G show what clean guys they are now by getting former clients to waive privilege to show that gillard Murphy and shorten were crooks. Oh that should do the reputation of the firm a heap of good. Not.

And as I read the Pickering site the client was wilson who is meant to be the ringleader. So his chances of waiving privilege - if he even thinks he did something nqr are zero. Finally do you mind sharing with us the crime you reckon Julia is suggested to have committed so you can hopefully have your arse sued off you. Be brave dr, do tell. Cause Pickering does not identify it.

 

[Dry Rot]

Read pt 4 Windover? Good read

http://pickeringpost.com/article/is-the-prime-minister-a-crook-part-iv/362

 

[harmesy 37]

She will get off. Evidence will be destroyed etc...as we saw with Craig Thomson, who we all collectively felt "sorry for due to the stress" of him ripping off $300,000 plus from the little people.

What I just find amazing - I watch the news most nights and I look at Gillard and Swann and wonder how on earth did these idiots end up leading Australia?
Abbott is a Rhodes Scholar and yet in contrast collectively in the labor caucus they have worked 2 years (out of 181 years) in the private industry. None have experience in running a business, balancing the books, paying wages, paying accountants...yet here they are running what is practically the biggest company in Australia. How did it come to this? I shake my head in wonderment.

 

[Slax]

Keep the debate to the topic not as a personal attack thread, I don't want to have to go deleting posts.

 

[Slax]

Abbott is a Rhodes Scholar and yet in contrast collectively in the labor caucus they have worked 2 years (out of 181 years) in the private industry. None have experience in running a business, balancing the books, paying wages, paying accountants...yet here they are running what is practically the biggest company in Australia. How did it come to this? I shake my head in wonderment.

Would love to see what you classify as private industry then. Gillard alone spent more time than that with S&G and last time I checked they were private industry. Do you want me to continue detailing others as well?

Working in private industry by itself doesn't actually mean you are competent or know what you are doing.

As for Rhodes scholarships you might want to look up who actually has had them, Beazley and Hawke are both Rhodes Scholars.

 

[harmesy 37]

Would love to see what you classify as private industry then. Gillard alone spent more time than that with S&G and last time I checked they were private industry. Do you want me to continue detailing others as well?

Working in private industry by itself doesn't actually mean you are competent or know what you are doing.

As for Rhodes scholarships you might want to look up who actually has had them, Beazley and Hawke are both Rhodes Scholars.

re: rhodes scholars- Hawke was actually a competent prime minister. I have no problem with him as a leader as he did a good job. this present lot make us look like a joke on the international stage. The Americans and the Chinese would be laughing at us right now..

re: experience in the private industry:

the six leading members of the Government, from Mr Rudd down, the top six have a collective work experience of 181 years, but only 13 in the private sector.

If you take out of those 13 years the number that were spent as trade union lawyers, that total 11, of the 181 years, only two years were spent in the private sector.

So out of those 181 years:

- no years spent running their own business
- no years spent starting their own business
- no years spent as a director of a family business or a company
- no years as a director of a public company
- no years in a senior position in a public company
- no years in a senior position in a private company
- no years working in corporate finance
- no years in corporate or business restructuring
- no years working in or with a bank
- no years of experience in the capital markets
- no years in a stock-broking firm
- no years in negotiating debt facilities with banks
- no years running a small business
- no years at the World Bank or IMF or OECD
- no years in Treasury or Finance.

 

[Slax]

re: rhodes scholars- Hawke was actually a competent prime minister. I have no problem with him as a leader as he did a good job. this present lot make us look like a joke on the international stage. The Americans and the Chinese would be laughing at us right now..

re: experience in the private industry:

Unforunately I really don't see Abbott doing much to improve the situation, maybe we should look to the other Rhodes Scholar in the Liberal Party.

I see you are referring to the senior ministry, Caucus refers to all ALP parlimentary members.

 

[harmesy 37]

Unforunately I really don't see Abbott doing much to improve the situation, maybe we should look to the other Rhodes Scholar in the Liberal Party.

I see you are referring to the senior ministry, Caucus refers to all ALP parlimentary members.

You might like dealing in semantics Slax...but it isn't a joking matter. Go and research the Labor Caucus and the same principle applies, ex union officials, ex bureacrats and next to nothing else.

Our country is being eroded daily by their ineptitude.

eg Broadband - about 5000 people have taken it up and and they have spent over 50 billion dollars OF OUR MONEY... not their money...OUR MONEY.

They are 150 billion plus in debt. The Gillard stealing of unions money is par for the course... it is a kick back. She won't get found out...no one has the guts to come forward to tell the truth.

Whether or not you have faith in Abbott is immaterial. It would be impossible to do a worse job than these idiots in power right now.

 

[PottSie2]

But Abbott is a conservative Catholic ......

 

[Clay Davis]

Windhover, you don't earn 50k.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Windhover, you don't earn 50k.

How much is a staffer/hack on these days? What if he's paid by the word?

 

[Contra Mundum]

Remember cartoonist Larry Pickering? He has an interesting site these days

http://pickeringpost.com/

He's running a fascinating series about Wilson, Blewitt and Gillard called Is the PrimeMinister a crook?

here's part 1 which sets the scene

http://pickeringpost.com/article/is-the-prime-minister-a-crook/324

Bruce Wilson was as slick as the proverbial rat with a gold tooth - it does show a lack of judgement that she hooked up with him

 

[Contra Mundum]

She will get off. Evidence will be destroyed etc...as we saw with Craig Thomson, who we all collectively felt "sorry for due to the stress" of him ripping off $300,000 plus from the little people.

What I just find amazing - I watch the news most nights and I look at Gillard and Swann and wonder how on earth did these idiots end up leading Australia?
Abbott is a Rhodes Scholar and yet in contrast collectively in the labor caucus they have worked 2 years (out of 181 years) in the private industry. None have experience in running a business, balancing the books, paying wages, paying accountants...yet here they are running what is practically the biggest company in Australia. How did it come to this? I shake my head in wonderment.

Harmsey - Abbott is a product of the political class as well. I mean what did he do other than write to the bulletin - he has about the same exposure to private enterprise as Dougie Cameron other than the fact the Dougie as the Secretary of the AMWU actually employed people. Abbott shows all the horrible traits that the political class show - the manichean myopia, the endless barracking for his team, the jejune name calling and nay saying typical of student politicians.

If you are looking for someone to contrast the ALPers to Liberals surely Mal T is the apogee of a man made good on his own devices

 

[Windhover]

Read pt 4 Windover? Good read

http://pickeringpost.com/article/is-the-prime-minister-a-crook-part-iv/362

Thanks DR, LP does have a readable literary style as a fiction writer. Like you I enjoyed his "charming story about 2 couples" but, perhaps unlike you, I did wonder who his source must have been. Maybe LP was having coffee at the adjacent table (but why didn't he tell us then)? Maybe the barrista told him? [I also liked the topical touch of Julia blushing about being engaged and all - so like our Julia - with its gentle hint of hypocrisy to her attitude to gay marriage.]

As an investigative journalist LP is a flop. No sources are revealed. No explanation is given as to why or how alleged S&G employees contacted LP (with his reputation as a political cartoonist). Worse still, LP gives no answer to the entitling question of his posts. No specific crime is even hinted at. It seems to be based largely on guilt by association with Wilson mixed with a llarge dollop of misunderstanding about the role of a lawyer "even" if/when acting for a crook.

Further eroding confidence in LP as investigative journalist is such basic mistakes as his statement that Robert McLelland was "counter-signatory" to an affidavit sworn by the AWU NSW secretary. His link to the affidavit (a very well prepared document) shows that claim to be fiction too. The affidavit IS an informative read (unlike LP). It is passing strange to me that there is no reference to either Gillard or S & G in the affidavit at all, but there is a reference in it to John Cain Jr, then partner of Maurice Blackburn. Lucky for John Cain Jr he isn't PM I reckon. Otherwise the LP dirt machine would go into overdrive to soil his, as far as I am aware, entirely untarnished reputation.

So back to my question DR. Please tell me the crime you reckon this "good read" reveals? [PS. I note the links to LP site don't work. Is that me or has his "freedom to fantasise" been closed down.) You know what they say DR, put up or shut up.

 

[Andre]

Read pt 4 Windover? Good read

http://pickeringpost.com/article/is-the-prime-minister-a-crook-part-iv/362

Looks like Part V got the PM's s**t clean up brigade out. pickeringpost.com is down at least temporarily. Thankfully part V is at:

http://www.andysrant.com/2012/08/re...t-got-larry-pickerings-website-suspended.html