WARNING: PHOTO OF GILLARD ATTACHED! Good reputation? What good reputation? The woman - created a slush fund for her then married boyfriend without opening a file, without discussing any part of it with her law firm partners... - was sacked by her law firm and has never practised law again... - slept her way through several more married men... - plotted against a sitting PM to take his job... - destroyed Australias border protection... - instigated gender, class and race wars... - almost destroyed Australias economy... - lied to the Australian voters... There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.... - was a huge embarrassment on the world stage... ... and that isnt all of it! She has even had her lawyers submit her submission to the Royal Commission three days AFTER submissions were due... #auspol #BSWNBPM #sameoldlabor #springst -JULIA Gillard has formally asked the union corruption inquiry to “give significant weight to (her) good character and reputation” and urged it to reject evidence she received wads of cash from a corrupt union boss boyfriend. The former prime minister also wants Dyson Heydon QC, the retired High Court judge heading the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, to reject the view of his senior counsel, Jeremy Stoljar SC, about her “questionable” legal work. Ms Gillard’s unhappiness with Mr Stoljar’s view of her conduct as a solicitor who had helped establish a union slush fund for her then boyfriend and client, Bruce Wilson, is reflected in the formal legal reply to the commission yesterday by her lawyer, Neil Clelland QC. Mr Stoljar has recommended Mr Wilson should be charged with fraud-related offences arising from the Australian Workers Union Workplace Reform Association Ms Gillard had helped him set up. Mr Stoljar said Wayne Hem, a former AWU staffer, and Athol James, a retired builder who helped renovate Ms Gillard’s house, were telling the truth in their evidence that she received, at Mr Wilson’s direction, cash to pay for home renovations, while Mr Hem said $5000 also went in her account. He said that “some aspects of Ms Gillard’s professional conduct of the matter as a solicitor appear questionable”. Ms Gillard’s submission filed by Mr Clelland states: “There is no cogent basis for rejecting the evidence of Ms Gillard in any respect, or to prefer the evidence of Mr James, Mr Hem or any other witness to that of Ms Gillard. On the whole of the evidence, the commission should decline to make any findings that are adverse to, or critical of, Ms Gillard. “The commission should give significant weight to Ms Gillard’s good character and reputation. The commission has little or no evidence before it of the character or reputation of (Mr) James or (Mr) Hem. In the context of these proceedings there is no reason to prefer their evidence over that of Ms Gillard.” It was not alleged that Ms Gillard engaged in criminal behaviour or misconduct. “Nonetheless, a number of observations are made (by Mr Stoljar) which may be taken to be critical of her conduct as a solicitor although in the end counsel assisting merely offers the observation that some aspects of Ms Gillard’s professional conduct appear questionable.” Ms Gillard’s acknowledgment that she “would have done things differently” had she known at the time what she now knows “is to be understood in the context that she now knows the (slush fund) was used as a vehicle for fraud”. Mr Stoljar’s view the fraud would have been more difficult to perpetrate if Ms Gillard had been a more rigorous lawyer for her then boyfriend was “difficult to sustain”. “There is nothing that Ms Gillard did that made it easier for Mr Wilson or Mr (Ralph) Blewitt to commit fraud,’’ he said. Mr Clelland said it was “inherently unlikely” Ms Gillard told her builder at the time, Athol James, her renovations would be paid for with cheques after she received cash from Mr Wilson. Mr James also gave evidence he saw Mr Wilson hand over “wads of notes”. “If, as Mr James claims, the cash was available and Mr James was present when the cash was available, it is improbable that Ms Gillard would bank that money purely so she could pay him by cheque,’’ Mr Clelland said. “The commission is urged to make a positive finding it accepts Ms Gillard’s account that she did not say to Mr James that Mr Wilson was paying for his work and that she did not obtain cash from Mr Wilson for Mr James’s work. In any event, even an acceptance of Mr James’s evidence could not sustain an adverse finding.” Mr Clelland criticised the evidence of Mr Hem’s alleged deposit of $5000 into her account, and pointed to inconsistencies including whether the cash was in $50 and $20 notes or other denominations. Parts of this evidence were inaccurate, “unconvincing and strongly suggestive of recent invention”.- theaustralian.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/julia-gillard-tells-union-royal-commission-my-reputation-should-count/story-fn59noo3-1227126229488
Posted on: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 21:50:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015