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

[medusala]

So the police are investigating for no good reason?

Sure.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Holy shit! I started holding my breath when DR said this was all about to happen, and here I am 16 months later... if something doesn't happen soon I'm going to be forced to take a breath without the relief of an outcome.

p.s. this thread has been rivetting

 

[Dry Rot]

Holy shit! I started holding my breath when DR said this was all about to happen, and here I am 16 months later... if something doesn't happen soon I'm going to be forced to take a breath without the relief of an outcome.

p.s. this thread has been rivetting

Missed today's news, did we?

Gillard won't be sleeping well tonight.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Ms Gillard, a retired politician, will be concerned about what exactly?

The order says that police are investigating Mr Wilson because of matters relating to four types of offence.
He is accused of obtaining property by deception, receiving secret commissions, making and using false documents, and conspiracy to cheat and defraud.

 

[Dry Rot]

Ms Gillard, a retired politician, will be concerned about what exactly?

The order says that police are investigating Mr Wilson because of matters relating to four types of offence.
He is accused of obtaining property by deception, receiving secret commissions, making and using false documents, and conspiracy to cheat and defraud.

Ruling today re Wilson claiming legal privilege over raided Slater and Gordon documents

In his ruling, Mr Lauritsen said most of the documents would not meet the definition of a privileged document, but Mr Wilson's privilege claim would not succeed in any case based on evidence provided by Mr Wilson's former bagman Ralph Blewitt and "a good deal of corroboration".

"The evidence of Blewitt establishes that Thiess was deceived," he said. "It believed it was paying for a particular service. The association provided no such service. "Wilson bought a home with some of Thiess' payments. Only he knows what happened (to) the rest." "I am satisfied that, in each instance, the communication was made or the document prepared in furtherance of the commission of a fraud or an offence."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...art-of-awu-fraud/story-fng5kxvh-1226778847865

 

[Brown Bottle]

You're clutching at straws DR. Where is the evidence that Gillard knew what the funds were going to be used for?

Ms Gillard provided legal advice to Mr Wilson in her then role as a solicitor for lawyers Slater and Gordon.
She has consistently denied any wrongdoing over the matter, saying she was under the impression the fund would be used for legitimate purposes to re-elect union officials.

 

[Dry Rot]

Did you read the Chief Magistrate's key words I bolded? He was satisfied that the S&G lawyers engaged in fraud.

FFS, solicitors don't often get raided. Not even Eddie Obeid's lawyers suffered that fate.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Yep, I read it. But who's on trial here, and who's trying to claim legal privilege regarding the documents? I'm pretty sure it's Wilson. So the communications and documents were prepared in the furtherance of the commission of an offence - Wilson's offence, right? Is there evidence in there somewhere that Gillard knew that Wilson planned to commit a crime? Or did she prepare the communications and documents as instructed by her client?

I think there's a gap in your logic. I'm happy to be wrong, because I don't give a shit either way.

 

[Dry Rot]

I think there's a gap in your logic. I'm happy to be wrong, because I don't give a shit either way.

Gillard and Murphy prepared the documents the magistrate referred to.

Yep, I read it. But who's on trial here, and who's trying to claim legal privilege regarding the documents? I'm pretty sure it's Wilson. So the communications and documents were prepared in the furtherance of the commission of an offence - Wilson's offence, right?

Wrong. No-one has been charged yet - Wilson is only claiming privilege.

Is there evidence in there somewhere that Gillard knew that Wilson planned to commit a crime?

That's what the magistrate is saying.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Gillard and Murphy prepared the documents the magistrate referred to.

Not in dispute

Wrong. No-one has been charged yet - Wilson is only claiming privilege.

For the sake of an argument - every article you post states that Wilson is under investigation.

That's what the magistrate is saying.

That's how you're reading it. We'll see.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Yeah, DR, the magistrate is saying that he thinks Wilson had documents prepared in order to commit fraud, not that the lawyers prepared it knowing it was a fraud.

Obviously.

 

[medusala]

Gillard could be found in the drawing room with a blood stained candle stick and Ratts would claim "nothing to see here"

 

[Dry Rot]

Yeah, DR, the magistrate is saying that he thinks Wilson had documents prepared in order to commit fraud, not that the lawyers prepared it knowing it was a fraud.

Obviously.

You don't get it, do you?

If you're correct, then Wilson's claim of privilege would have succeeded.

 

[Dry Rot]

Gillard could be found in the drawing room with a blood stained candle stick and Ratts would claim "nothing to see here"

Yes, Ratts isn't on the ball.

He should ask himself why the personal and work premises were raided of guys much worse than Wilson like Obeid and Williamson, yet the cops and ICAC never raided the premises of their lawyers?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Couldn't it be that if Wilson said things to his lawyers that did not match his obvious intention then it proves he was planning deception from the get go?

i.e. If the debate is about whether it was a legitimate slush fund or something else and he has claimed X happened, but the documents say Y happened, that would not necessarily mean ❖ had anything to do with it. I'd suggest that is more likely, and that's why your best buds at The Australian deigned this story to be so important it isn't on their front page currently. Typical. They refuse to cover this story.

Medusula - try harder.

 

[medusala]

"said things to his lawyer"

Wasn't just his lawyer, was it Ratts?

Its a bit like saying Gai Waterhouse has a close relationship with a certain bookmaker.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

He should ask himself why the personal and work premises were raided of guys much worse than Wilson like Obeid and Williamson, yet the cops and ICAC never raided the premises of their lawyers?

Oh gee, I'm no fancy bigtown lawyer type but maybe it was because the intention of the reform fund when it was originally created by Slate & Gordon is key to ascertaining if fraud had taken place? Maybe?

Or do you also need a lawyer to write you up a contract when soliciting a prostitute?

Its a bit like saying Gai Waterhouse has a close relationship with a certain bookmaker.

It does seem like that, doesn't it? ("Guilt by association" isn't an actual legal thing by the way )

 

[Dry Rot]

Couldn't it be that if Wilson said things to his lawyers that did not match his obvious intention then it proves he was planning deception from the get go?

i.e. If the debate is about whether it was a legitimate slush fund or something else and he has claimed X happened, but the documents say Y happened, that would not necessarily mean ❖ had anything to do with it. I'd suggest that is more likely, and that's why your best buds at The Australian deigned this story to be so important it isn't on their front page currently. Typical. They refuse to cover this story.

Medusula - try harder.

You're still not getting this. Let's say I'm going to pull a fraud that involves legal documents.

I visit my lawyer and give her/him instructions. Let's say that there's nothing obvious that I'm pulling a fraud and the lawyer acts in good faith. Perhaps I'm even a former NSW Minister who is pulling a fraud on the state. The documents and deal are done, but it later gets discovered and I'm charged with fraud. This happens all the time, does it not?

What doesn't happen all the time, and indeed happens very rarely is that the Fraud Squad raid my lawyer's premises. And then the Chief Magistrate denies my claim of legal professional privilege saying "I am satisfied that, in each instance, the communication was made or the document prepared in furtherance of the commission of a fraud or an offence."

Does that help? Have you wondered why the solicitors of Thomson, Obeid and Williamson were not similarly raided?

 

[Dry Rot]

Oh gee, I'm no fancy bigtown lawyer type but maybe it was because the intention of the reform fund when it was originally created by Slate & Gordon is key to ascertaining if fraud had taken place? Maybe?

Gillard admitted it was a fraud in her exit interview.

And why did those two partners keep that exit interview after all these years?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Yeah, you aint getting it mate. No one is questioning the legal documentation that Obeid used to buy land he knew was resource rich. Everyone knows he and his kids bought land there. Why would you involve the lawyer who drew it up? If he had said instead that there was a document that proved that the coal potential on his property was public knowledge before he bought it and so it was legitimate that he take advantage (or something like that which would actually get him off the worst allegations) and he produced a legal document to prove it, then you might have a leg to stand on. But that didn't happen.

Similarly the key claim by Thompson is that someone forged his signature, right? Why do you want to raid his lawyer's offices again?

This really is obvious stuff. Maybe it's bed time?

Gillard admitted it was a fraud in her exit interview.

And why did those two partners keep that exit interview after all these years?

Because they're lawyers whose life work is documentation? And didn't she admit it was a "slush fund" - not a fraud. No one is saying it isn't a "slush fund". The Australian claims it was fraudulently titled, but if I asked you to donate to my fund for Workplace Reform, would you think that was a political organisation or not? The fact JG thought it was to re-elect officials doesn't negate it being a fund for Workplace Reform.

 

[Dry Rot]

Yeah, you aint getting it mate. No one is questioning the legal documentation that Obeid used to buy land he knew was resource rich. Everyone knows he and his kids bought land there. Why would you involve the lawyer who drew it up? If he had said instead that there was a document that proved that the coal potential on his property was public knowledge before he bought it and so it was legitimate that he take advantage (or something like that which would actually get him off the worst allegations) and he produced a legal document to prove it, then you might have a leg to stand on. But that didn't happen.

Similarly the key claim by Thompson is that someone forged his signature, right? Why do you want to raid his lawyer's offices again?

This really is obvious stuff. Maybe it's bed time?

The Vic Chief Magistrate is saying that he is satisfied that the Slater and Gordon solicitors were fraudulent, not just their client.

 

[Dry Rot]

Why would you involve the lawyer who drew it up?

In Wilson's case and the AWU, the two S&G lawyers involved were bent.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

The Vic Chief Magistrate is saying that he is satisfied that the Slater and Gordon solicitors were fraudulent, not just their client.

*As he lifts Simba into the air*
"It's the cirrrcle of lazy argument"

In Wilson's case and the AWU, the two S&G lawyers involved were bent.

"and quoting things out of context"
*All the animals bowed low to the new heir to the throne*

 

[Windhover]

Missed today's news, did we?

Gillard won't be sleeping well tonight.

Sorry DR, I seem to have missed the bit that suggests Gillard is in any way implicated. Can you point it out for me? (Don't worry, it is a rhetorical question. I unnerstan and accept your incapacity to actually answer a question.)

 

[Brown Bottle]

The Vic Chief Magistrate is saying that he is satisfied that the Slater and Gordon solicitors were fraudulent, not just their client.

You infer that from what he said? I guess there are some legal technicalities here, but if that's what he's saying why didn't he say that?