Slush fund story now 'over' says Burke

[Rorschach]

Mel - someone has got to defend her, otherwise it would just be a RW rave here. I don't like her and where there's smoke there's usually fire, but I can't see Abbott being any better.

No mantra... you don't have to defend wrong doing.

Your Abbott blindness is due to your political bias, something you have shown time and time again over the years. You've merely transferred your mindless Howard hatred.

[mantra]

Regardless of any motive - there is no proof Gillard is guilty and that's what's needed. There was never enough proof to get Howard on a few things either. As far as my obsession with Howard goes - if Abbott was anything like Howard I might be tempted to vote for him as Howard started to come good in his last term. Abbott is not pm material that much is obvious and his heart isn't in his job.

[Rorschach]

What a load of bullshit...
You're as ignorant as every, you and JM make matching bookends.

[mantra]

What a load of bullshit...
You're as ignorant as every, you and JM make matching bookends.

Off topic.

[Aussie]

Slater and Gordon have now made a statement concerning it's obligations and the restraints of solicitor/client confidentiality which explains why Gillard was unable to notify the AWU, or the Cops.

Perhaps I can give this analogy:

I act for the ABC.

Two Senior Employees of the ABC come to me and ask that I set up the "ABC Employee Slush Fund for a Christmas Booze Up Association."

Off I go and take the simple necessary steps to achieve that registration. It is a registration requirement that the new Association's Constitution set out the objects of the Association, and they are usually generic in nature, pro formo language like enhance the welfare of Members, organise a Christmas Booze up for Members, etc etc etc.

Registration is achieved, and I later find out, or suspect, the same two senior employees of the Booze Up Association may have been siphoning Association money into their own pocket.

Solicitor/client confidentiality prevents me from revealing anything concerning the establishment and registration of the Association either to my other client the ABC, or to anyone else.

Ha, you might say. Why did you allow the letters 'ABC' to appear in the name of the Association? Well, that is not my job to regulate. That is the job of the regulatory authority in the State where registration is sought. If they thought there was too much similarity between the 'ABC' and the 'ABC Employee Slush Funds for a Christmas Booze UP Association' as might breach that State's registration requirements, it is their job to say so, and reject the application for registration.

For example, if someone comes to me and asks that I register a business name of Yellow Taxis, I am lawfully entitled to proceed, and it is up to the Registrar of Business Names to decide whether he will allow the application, given the name Yellow Cabs is already registered.

To clear up another misconception.....Roach referred to lawyers as being "Officers of the Law." Incorrect, we are "Officers of the Court," and entirely different fish.

[Aussie]

And now we find out that Bishop actually made arrangements to, and did meet with the disgraced sleazeball Blewitt. Her allegation that Gillard set up the AWU...Association and did not create a file so that money could be unlawfully siphoned off to Wilson goes to the core of the matter.

If she is right, then Gillard is toast. But....problem is:

Where is just one scintilla of evidence which indicates that when Gillard attended to the registration of the Association she THEN knew Wilson would use it for illegal activity. Ha, you say, as Bishop seems to be saying.....the evidence is....she did not open a file, and that, ipso facto, proves she knew of Wilson's evil and illegal intent, something Wilson denies, as does Gillard.

Well, if Bishop does, as she claims, know anything about how large Legal Firms work, she would know that 'not opening a file' happens every day, especially on mundane simple matters like registration of an association, especially if it is being done for Senior Members of the firm's largest client, in this case, the AWU. Lay people probably do not know just how simple doing that registration is. All you need is the Constitution, the Members list, fill in a simple form, send them off and then it is the job of the regulatory authority to decide whether to allow the registration.

Bishop like Gretch/Turnbull has gone nothing other than the attention of some sections of the schmedia, and rabid right wing nutjobs like the disgraced Pickering.

[mellie]

Mel - someone has got to defend her, otherwise it would just be a RW rave here. I don't like her and where there's smoke there's usually fire, but I can't see Abbott being any better.

Why defend her if she's in the wrong?

If the roles were reversed, and it were Tony Abbott who'd managed to both get himself in this situation this and manage it so poorly, guilty or not, I'd be looking for another Liberal contender to fill his shoes, simply because it smacks of corruption, incompetence, and this brand of hypocrisy nauseates me.

Why defend someone if they are in the wrong, Mantra?

Gillard was supposed to be a professional, and if she's capable of this sort of thing historically, let get away with it what's to stop her engaging in such conduct in the present, or future?
Nothing!
What sort of standard are we setting for other would be politicians, leaders to do the exact same thing who might refuse to answer questions during Question Time also?

It's about taking responsibility for her own misgivings, this opposed to passing the buck and blaming those who bring her shortcomings to her attention.

Is this too much to ask, or expect from our nations prime minister?



Gillard doesn't mind muckraking and digging up historical dirt when it suits her political agenda, this or involves childishly nit-picking and smearing federal members of the opposition, though it seems our Gillard has trouble swallowing her own medicine when the tables have turned.

Are you suggesting Gillard is a protected species Mantra, worthy of special treatment when it comes to the usual muckraking that is part'n'parcel of Australian politics?

Cant hack the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Now the communist has her sights set on cramping down on journalists and changing our media laws to suit her own agenda to prevent this sort of thing (exposure) ever happening again, well not on her watch anyway.

Does this please you Mantra, please you that a wayward and incompetent criminally inclined federal member of government can and will change our media laws concerning censorship to suit themselves, to prevent damage/loss to their own reputation at the drop of a hat?

When will enough be enough, what will this morally and ethically devoid government have to do before you finally get it that they just aren't what should be running our country?

Seriously, get some perspective, Gillard is an absolute disgrace.

If she had nothing to hide, then she wouldn't mind discussing this 'on-the-record' during parliament, this opposed to selectively answering questions off-the-record to a bunch of cherry picked journalists during a pre-question Time media conference.

Sorry, but people who are innocent just don't go to such extremes to avoid answering the tough questions where their answers might otherwise find themselves documented in a parliamentary hansard.

She's a lawyer, no doubt about it this and found a way to avoid answering questions and lying during Question Time.

[Rorschach]

Off topic.

Hard to be when it is a reply directed at your post.

Roach referred to lawyers as being "Officers of the Law." Incorrect, we are "Officers of the Court," and entirely different fish.

Don't misquote me Arsie. But yes I was referring to Lawyers being officials of the law. BTW courts are part of the legal system and as such directly related to matters of LAW... So it would seem NOT entirely different fish after all.

Solicitor/client confidentiality prevents me from revealing anything concerning the establishment and registration of the Association either to my other client the ABC, or to anyone else.

No defence this is a bullshit defence by you. If you state you only gave advice you cannot use it. If your client was the AWU you cannot use it. If you claim you were advising 2 individuals... you cannot use it.

[mellie]

Sorry, but people who are innocent and have nothing to hide don't go to such lengths to avoid answering the tough questions where their answers might find themselves documented in a parliamentary hansard.

She's a lawyer, no doubt about it this and found a way to avoid answering questions and lying during Question Time, preferring to ask her own questions and answer them accordingly during a pre-Question Time media conference instead.
She is guilty of this at least.

End of story.

[Rorschach]

Generally and legally...

the solicitor discloses the information to a particular person in circumstances in which the solicitor believes on reasonable grounds that the law would compel its disclosure to that person, whether or not a client makes a claim of legal professional privilege or confidentiality

the solicitor discloses the information to a particular person in circumstances in which the solicitor believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to disclose that information to that person for the sole purpose of avoiding the probable commission of a serious offence;