Dazed And Confused

Posted: June 7, 2012 in HSU Saga, Politics

“A woman of enormous courage, and worthy of our admiration”

It is not often Tony Abbott has words so strong for a woman, so you would assume he is talking about the Queen, or Mother Theresa perhaps. You would be wrong. These are the words he had to say in Parliament House about Kathy Jackson, the so called HSU “Whistle Blower”.

On Monday, it seems one person who disagrees with Tony Abbott’s assessment of character came out and said so publicly.

Federal court judge, Geoffrey Flick, in open court told Jackson’s barrister, Brett Shields,

“I am told by my associate there were direct communications between your client (Ms Jackson) and, at least, my associate,”

 

“That raises serious questions as to a party attempting to communicate with the court without the concurrence and without the knowledge of the other parties.”

It seems, in that special place in Jackson’s mind, a place I refer to as “Jacksonville”, approaching the judge privately to influence an outcome is normal. We in the real world call it “contempt of court”, or attempting to ‘pervert the course of justice”.

Cheer up Kathy, it’s only “Contempt Of Court”

With that sort of insane behaviour you have to wonder whose advice she is listening to, her partner Michael Lawler, her barrister, Brett Shields, or maybe there are some voices in her head leaving her dazed and confused…

If it is her partner she is listening to, Vice President of Fair Work Australia, and second highest industrial judge in Australia, Michael Lawler, then that raises some questions.

Why would Lawler, a judge himself, not try to persuade Jackson against approaching a judge privately, given it is illegal?

Given Lawler is a judge, does this somehow indicate how things worked in matters that came before him as a judge?

Given this action, and his involvement, how much background investigation was done into Lawler himself, before he was appointed as Australia’s second highest industrial judge by Tony Abbott, under John Howard’s leadership?

If this is the advice of her barrister, Brett Shields, then no wonder it is coming for free. No doubt the free part came with some nudging and winking from some Liberal Party pals. If this kind of advice is coming from Shields, it will be interesting to see the goings on with his other well known client, James Ashby, former staffer of Peter Slipper, and an apparent drinking buddy of Christopher Pyne.

Given the level of respect for the law that we are now seeing from Jackson, and given that the findings of the FWA report were primarily on evidence produced by Jackson, logic would tell me to question the FWA investigations integrity. Michael Lawler’s position in FWA also throws a huge dark cloud over the Fair Work Australia involvement, and its so-called investigation, which many have referred to as nothing short of a witch hunt.

It is important also to note, that the public’s perception of Craig Thomson was moulded by interviews with, and press articles influenced by Jackson. Following that came the predictable rantings and finger pointing of the opposition and the shock-jocks.  Given that Jackson is now facing contempt of court charges, then maybe it’s time we looked at the eight investigations that cleared Thomson, rather than the questionable one that didn’t.

After all, only in “Jacksonville”, would a man like Thomson be held to account on the word of someone with so many questions raised about her integrity, questions that are still unanswered. Only in “Jacksonville” would someone be judged on evidence that is flimsy at best, and possibly fraudulent at worst.

Those of us who live in the real world, would more than likely give Thomson the benefit of the doubt, given his is the only story that has remained consistent throughout this saga.

I wonder if Alan Jones is planning a fundraiser to help Jackson raise funds to fight her contempt of court charges. Given the deafening silence coming from the Coalition on the matter lately, I think they may be looking to abandon ship, lest they get dragged down with it.

With regards to the questions that I have raised regarding the documentation that Independent Australia has published, it seems that Justice Geoffrey Flick agrees with me, stating that he was

“astounded that the union only recently mounted an internal inquiry into allegations of cronyism, nepotism, corruption and lavish spending going back to the 1990s.”

In an interesting move, Michael Lawler also fronted the court with a QC who asked that any allegations against Mr Lawler that came out of this enquiry be suppressed. Justice Flick refused to make that order, and rightly so. Lawler’s attempt to distance himself now is like diving into the ocean and expecting to not get wet.

After two disastrous days in court, Jackson needed more controversy like she needed a hole in the head. Late in the afternoon more questions around unusual union spending under her watch emerged.

Vex News ran a story that questions the buying of a sports car with union funds under Jackson’s watch. According to Vex News, the payment that Independent Australia detailed from the HSU to Wai Quen was for the car.

I can confirm that sources have told me a similar story, however I cannot confirm any details as I do not have enough evidence. I can confirm though that the Victorian Police are investigating the matter and we can expect major developments in the coming weeks.

In other related news, some of you may have seen Today Tonight’s story on the prostitute that was going to confirm having sex with Craig Thomson at a brothel, for A Current Affair. As it turns out she didn’t have sex with Craig, she wasn’t even in the country at the time apparently.

It is a pity the ACA story didn’t end up airing, it really did sound like a well researched piece , not at all like a beat up. Not in the slightest…

She didn’t screw Thomson, but she sure screwed A Current Affair

Maybe it is just as well she didn’t have sex with Thomson, as the evidence would suggest it was a freebie.

Looking at the credit card receipt that was shown as evidence, we see that it is the Bank Copy of the receipt.

Not only is it extremely irregular for there to be handwriting on the receipt, not to mention a code for a rejected payment where the authorisation goes, but it is the copy that the bank should have received. This means that the bank never received the slip, and without that no payment would have been taken from an account. Only in “Jacksonville” are banks known for their telepathic powers of perception.

Given that the bank could not have charged the account, how did the payment supposedly end up on the credit card statement that we are yet to see, and has gone missing mysteriously from the HSU offices, maybe Elvis took it. Anyway, apparently Jackson has seen it, and gee whiz isn’t she looking more and more reliable every day?

No wonder the other eight investigations disregarded this so-called evidence.

Certain members of the Liberal Party must be watching Federal Court in disbelief. Amazed their legal buddies cannot save the train wreck occurring in Federal Court, as those whose words they relied on to defame Craig Thomson rapidly start to appear dodgier than a two dollar kebab at 4am.

I for one, am glad my idea of a person “worthy of admiration” differs to Tony Abbott’s.

With Justice Geoffrey Flick agreeing  with my thoughts regarding the HSU, I wonder if Jackson will accuse him of being a part of the supposed Williamson/Mylan conspiracy theory with me. There is probably only one person aside from Jackson who would know the answer to that.

Next time I’m in “Jacksonville”, I’ll be sure to ask Elvis personally…

Comments
  1. LNP can't handle the truth says:

    Good Article :)..Did you ever find out about the re issuing of credit cards? Did they get delivered to the person or HSU?. I still do not think thomo will come out clean unfortunately..but I hope so and the ones responsible with their links are found out..What do you think? – Cheers – Keep up the good work.

    • wixxy says:

      Thanks, couldn’t find out about re-issuing unfortunately.
      I don’t know if Thomson will come out clean, but he will certainly come out cleaner than his accusers…

      • LNP can't handle the truth says:

        Totally agree – If this hits Abbott, Pyne, Abetz, Brandis then I wonder what the opinion polls will do? But I suppose how the MSM try to spin it….Can the Attorney General (Roxon) go after the above if they are found to be complicit in this? Would it be advisorable or would it look like a continuation of the witch hunt (You know what I mean :)) Has anyone asked Xenophon..what ever his name is..He was in the meeting between Brandis and Jackson ( I don’t know it Abetz was there)..Be interesting to find out what was discussed and if KJ accidently (PUN) misled them?..I believe those discussions need to be made public especially if the allegations against KJ are found to be true (It seems they will be :)) or do you think it will be closed down just like the AWB affair?..Interesting times ahead..I just hope it comes out quicker than the so called FWA investigation – It would be nice to see certain people squirming around the spotlight..Be interesting to see the fallout aswell. – Cheers

  2. LNP can't handle the truth says:

    Correction – Advisable – LoL

  3. deknarf says:

    This whole Thomson business is looking shakier by the day. It will be interesting to see how ‘shaky’ the Slipper business becomes as it progresses.
    I was particularly taken by the prostitute saying ACA aired the allegations whilst having full knowledge that the statement had been retracted by the prostitute. Something about presenting false evidence whilst knowing it was false?
    Someone in to conspiracy theories would think that It’s starting to look like an attempt by an opposition to bring down a duly formed government by deceit, deception and false evidence ably abetted by certain parts of the media. But I’m not a conspiracy theorist . . . . . . . .!

  4. Rob says:

    Great work Wixxy… I only hope somebody responsible in the MSM picks up on the whole tale. I’m eager to see the fraudsters exposed and brought to justice, be it Thomson, Jackson, or the whole stinking lot of them. Will be following and sharing with fervor!

  5. Umberto Ledfooti says:

    It appears that the barrister appearing for Michael Lawler, David Rofe QC, is not only connected to the Liberal Party, but also stood as an ‘Independent’ for the NSW MLC – and he is listed as a supporter of ACM – aka David Edward Flint’s loon pond of monarchists.

  6. Marilyn says:

    David Rofe is also the nutcase who keeps claiming that Kevin Rudd and Wayne Goss shredded documents in the non-existent Heiner affair.

    And his chief media champion is Piers Akerman.

    For the record, Noel Heiner was not ever charged with investigating an allegation of sexual assault of a 14 year old girl 10 years before she even reported it, the shredded documents have been published in the Australian some years back and the woman has now been compensated.

    But when all others gave it up David Rofe and Piers Akerman plugged away.

    Interestingly the so-called affair also started out as an industrial dispute based on cronyism and nepotism in the juvenile justice system at John Oxely correctional centre.

    George Brandis is mates with Akerman and Akerman hates the ALP with an obsessive passion.

    See how it all comes together in time.

  7. Catching up says:

    I know little as to how brothels work. Do they really keep such details of every customers, that is available seven years down the track. Do they keep records of whom one sees.

    Are the staff constant, or is there are rapid turnover of staff. It it usual to be able to locate staff , years after they left the agency.

    What is the ;life of a brothel Does ownership change over time.

    I would see it as being more like visiting the hair dresser. I get my hair cut by who is available, hand over the money and walk out. Unless I made an appointment, there would be no record of my name. No record of who cut my hair.

    Am I naive, if I was under the belief that men visiting such a place would see privacy at their first concern.

    Why would such records be taken in the first place. Why would one be able to put their hands on them after seven years.

    You try to get copies of documents off your solicitor after this length of time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s