Slush fund story now 'over' says Burke

[Aussie]

Sure, carry on Mellie. Get it all out there. Bishop is reading PA, and we need to make sure she is fully briefed.

[mellie]

Sure, carry on Mellie. Get it all out there. Bishop is reading PA, and we need to make sure she is fully briefed.

Ha ha ha....

I think thats quite enough for one night Aussie, after all, we wouldn't want to over stimulate that leftard cracked little skull of yours.

TeamJG Wooooooot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mantra]

So after Bishop's disgraceful and slanderous comments yesterday inciting even more excitement in the Coalition supporters, she backs down like a typical coward. She shot off her mouth and regretted it. This is the woman who aspires to be Deputy PM. No wonder Abbott kept his mouth shut.

''She provided the stolen vehicle, she drove him to the bank and she looked away while he robbed the bank,'' she told her party room, according to the official party spokesman.

''She [the Prime Minister] and Wilson and [sidekick Ralph] Blewitt wanted to hide from the AWU the fact that an unauthorised entity was being set up to siphon funds for their benefit and not for the benefit of the AWU, '' she told reporters.

Backing down.....

But by day's end the deputy Liberal leader was trying to make her own get-away from her defamatory and unproven allegations. No, she was not alleging that the Prime Minister had benefited personally from the fraud perpetrated by her then boyfriend. No, she was not even suggesting the Prime Minister had been a ''knowing party'' to it.

Her allegation had shrunk to the Prime Minister being a ''knowing party to breaches of the laws in Western Australia'' because she had provided legal advice which led to the improper incorporation of an association.

The main reason for the possible breach, Ms Bishop said, was because the application to set up the association - prepared in 1992 with Ms Gillard's advice - claimed it was for the purpose of the ''development of changes to work to achieve safe workplaces'' when in fact it was a slush fund from which Wilson and Blewitt took money.

But in another part of the same document - a 1996 affidavit that has been publicly available since July - it lists objectives broad enough to encompass almost anything, including ''to support and assist union members and union members who are contributing to the adoption of the aims of the association and its policies''.

Since the association had only two members (Blewitt and Wilson) and they are alleged to have siphoned up to $400,000 from various bank accounts associated with it, it certainly achieved that.

The reason these allegations have hung around is the available evidence allows a circumstantial case to be built against Ms Gillard. The reason they have never amounted to anything is that there is - to date - no evidence to prove wrongdoing.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ ... z2DSoGdqqC

[IQS.RLOW]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Bishop mistakenly conflated Gillard setting up of her boyfriends fraud fund, off the books, without a legal file, hidden from her partners, where she attended the purchase of a property with said fraud funds, organised conveyancing, inquired about the mortgage repayments, lived at that property, got $5000 put in her account and had renovations that may or may not have been paid for with that fraud fund.

It does seem such a stretch that someone might state that she could have done it for her benefit...

[Aussie]

There's something else worth stating. This business of files kept within solicitor's offices, i.e. Slater & Gordon.

These events occurred in 1992/3/4/5. By 2005, any file relating to a matter of that vintage would be destroyed as a matter of administrative course. I can recall my days as an Articled Clerk back in the late 1960s taking old files of the firm to the local sugar mill where they had huge furnaces, and throwing them into that furnace, for destruction. Before they were taken to the mill, one of the Bosses had a quick look into the file to see if there were any documents like Title Deeds, original Wills, Share Scripts (which should never have been in a file....they should have been in what we called "Safe Custody," inside a large seriously lockable fire proof vault) or something of historical interest like old hand-written sealed Deeds which we used to frame and hang around Office walls (particularly in the Reception Area) or hang onto ourselves for similar 'decoration' at home.

These days I think legal firms use professional document destroyers (usually connected to something like the Endeavour Foundation) to shred old files.

I remember that even after I retired, I hung on to some favourite files just for interest sake, and then when I lost interest in them, absolutely shitting myself that even though I personally tore each sheet of paper into pieces, that I might somehow be breaching solicitor/client confidentiality given it was not outside concept that some arsehole could raid my rubbish bill and spend years putting what would have been a jig-saw back together.

Anyway, back to the point. There is simply no way Slater & Gordon would still have retained (and not destroyed) pissy conveyancing files, pissy general files (which is what I used for anything I did not start a formal file on and probably where someone like Gillard kept what ever document there may have been concerning that registration of the AWU.....Reform Thing) beyond as late as 2005. They would be destroyed, and that is quite legal and very usual.

[Neferti]

There's something else worth stating. This business of files kept within solicitor's offices, i.e. Slater & Gordon.

These events occurred in 1992/3/4/5. By 2005, any file relating to a matter of that vintage would be destroyed as a matter of administrative course. I can recall my days as an Articled Clerk back in the late 1960s taking old files of the firm to the local sugar mill where they had huge furnaces, and throwing them into that furnace, for destruction. Before they were taken to the mill, one of the Bosses had a quick look into the file to see if there were any documents like Title Deeds, original Wills, Share Scripts (which should never have been in a file....they should have been in what we called "Safe Custody," inside a large seriously lockable fire proof vault) or something of historical interest like old hand-written sealed Deeds which we used to frame and hang around Office walls (particularly in the Reception Area) or hang onto ourselves for similar 'decoration' at home.

These days I think legal firms use professional document destroyers (usually connected to something like the Endeavour Foundation) to shred old files.

I remember that even after I retired, I hung on to some favourite files just for interest sake, and then when I lost interest in them, absolutely shitting myself that even though I personally tore each sheet of paper into pieces, that I might somehow be breaching solicitor/client confidentiality given it was not outside concept that some arsehole could raid my rubbish bill and spend years putting what would have been a jig-saw back together.

Anyway, back to the point. There is simply no way Slater & Gordon would still have retained (and not destroyed) pissy conveyancing files, pissy general files (which is what I used for anything I did not start a formal file on and probably where someone like Gillard kept what ever document there may have been concerning that registration of the AWU.....Reform Thing) beyond as late as 2005. They would be destroyed, and that is quite legal and very usual.

I wouldn't get too excited if I were you, Aussie. The Victorian Archives has kept everything "legal" on microfiche since the year Dot. So SLAG disposing of files after a certain amount of time means fuck all. They are already recorded in the Archives. Good try though.

[Aussie]

I wouldn't get too excited if I were you, Aussie. The Victorian Archives has kept everything "legal" on microfiche since the year Dot. So SLAG disposing of files after a certain amount of time means fuck all. They are already recorded in the Archives. Good try though.

They do not 'archive' the files of legal firms as those firms have an obligation to keep them confidential from any third party, destroy them, or as I did on occasions, hand them over to the client at the conclusion of the matter (retaining only my personal notes.) 'Victorian Archives would never get access to the files (of the clients) of legal firms.

[Neferti]

I wouldn't get too excited if I were you, Aussie. The Victorian Archives has kept everything "legal" on microfiche since the year Dot. So SLAG disposing of files after a certain amount of time means fuck all. They are already recorded in the Archives. Good try though.

They do not 'archive' the files of legal firms as those firms have an obligation to keep them confidential from any third party, destroy them, or as I did on occasions, hand them over to the client at the conclusion of the matter (retaining only my personal notes.) 'Victorian Archives would never get access to the files (of the clients) of legal firms.

No DOPEY, they archive LEGAL DOCUMENTS. What sort of lawyer were you?

[Aussie]

I wouldn't get too excited if I were you, Aussie. The Victorian Archives has kept everything "legal" on microfiche since the year Dot. So SLAG disposing of files after a certain amount of time means fuck all. They are already recorded in the Archives. Good try though.

They do not 'archive' the files of legal firms as those firms have an obligation to keep them confidential from any third party, destroy them, or as I did on occasions, hand them over to the client at the conclusion of the matter (retaining only my personal notes.) 'Victorian Archives would never get access to the files (of the clients) of legal firms.

No DOPEY, they archive LEGAL DOCUMENTS. What sort of lawyer were you?

They 'archive' anything lodged/registered with Government, is all.

[Neferti]

Yes, and what Gillard was working on would obviously be classified as that, right? Something with the Business Names/Corporate Affairs, etc. The Mortgage of the Kerr Street property, etc. It is ALL there ... step by step.

Lawyers may "dispose" of files but that is a non-issue. Stuff on those files (say, divorce papers, wills, conveyancing etc) are recorded elsewhere since they are LEGAL documents. NO Law firm has room to store that stuff but ..... the LEGAL stuff is recorded on microfiche else where and has been since .....?

If Gillard thinks she is free and easy and off the hook, she has a lot to learn. There IS a PAPER TRAIL and the Victorian Fraud Squad are on to it.

Regardless of what you and Monk think, Gillard mixed with CROOKS when she was 35 ..... I could, perhaps, feel sorry for someone who made "bad decisions" when 17 or 18 but 35+?

Australia does NOT need a Prime Minister who mixed with Fraudsters ..... she has to go.