Archive for June 15, 2012

EYE-BALL’s Harry’s Growl – Harry’s Political Updates … a Special Report … Larry Pickering Censored!13th June 2012.

The-EYE-BALL-Harry's Growl-Header-2
Harry’s Political Updates …
… a special report …
Larry Pickering Censored!
June 15th 2012.

This Editions Headings:

| June 15th, 2012 | Click on Heading’s below to go to linked story. |

  1. Larry Pickering banned from Facebook:
  2. “Kangaroo Court of Australia” – Post Titled – “Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s criminal history and her hypocrisy with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.” – Post first published Aug 2011: Read on-line here.
  3. “Kangaroo Court of Australia” – “Post Titled – “Has Julia Gillard blackmailed the Media to cover-up her corrupt past? The Fairfax Media and News Corp scandal.” – Post first published Sep 2011: Read on-line here.

Larry pickering banned from Facebook:

The world has gone crazy – at least in Julia Gillard’s world.  One of Australia’s much loved cartoonist has had his published work banned by of all people – Facebook (FB).

Larry’s cartoons and his inciteful commentary on the Union frauds of both Craig Thompson, and Julia Gillards complicity in a $1 million fraud upon the AWU during the 90’s, makes very interesting reading.  It was the story on Gillard that had him either remove the post of face permenant banishment from FB.

Larry’s FB page is a most popular visit by many fellow FB fans.  It’s an open forum where all comments are posted.  It’s an example of ‘free speech’.

Yet, four days ago he was told that he had to remove all photos that had Gillard wearing a tear jerking monster black dildo – see image below to get some idea of the humorous vision.  Gillard was not the only Politician to feel Larry’s quill magic.   In fact, all his life he has been publishing satire cartoons on Australian politicians.  His yearly calenders were a must have subscription and Politicians clammered to be included.  It was marketing value that could not be purchased.

Yet Duchess Gillard in her wisdom and without serious thought as to how this will play out – has the free speech mandate curtailed to supress a story that she has grave fears over.

That story is produced below:

Julia in Deeper Shit than Craig

| June 12, 2012 | By Larry Pickering | Link to on-line story. |

Thomson is involved in rorting $500,000 from the HSU.

Gillard is involved in rorting $1 million from the AWU.

To date, no attempt has been made by either union to recover one cent.

As a backbencher, Thomson had no clout with media.

As Prime Minister, Gillard used her clout to kill the story… and this is how she did it:

Bruce Wilson was an AWU heavy and Gillard’s boyfriend at the time. He had been threatening developers in a thinly disguised, mob-style protection racket: Industrial peace for payment… up to $50,000 at a time.

The payments went straight to accounts Gillard had arranged while she was still working for the Left wing law firm, Slater & Gordon.

Gillard was into the scam up to her elbows and, as she was screwing Wilson at the time, pillow talk wasn’t confined to her other sexual exploits including married father, and current, Trade Minister Craig Emerson and now Gold Coast spiv Tim Mathieson who departed the Coast leaving multiple unpaid debts.

Her part in the scam was rewarded with $50,000 of renovations to her house and a $25,000 account at a top fashion house (although one could be forgiven for thinking she never used it.)

The story broke and Gillard went into frenzied damage control.

When the dust settled, Gillard was still PM but ground-breaking journalists were sacked, News Ltd CEO, John Hartigan, resigned. Both Fairfax and News Ltd immediately spiked the story and pulled broadcasts, Andrew Bolt threatened to resign, Laurie Oakes was told, “Don’t even think about it!” Blogs disappeared in a cloud of dust. Radio jocks were instructed to drop it.

ABC and ‘The Australian’ journalist, Glenn Milne, had spent months carefully documenting Gillard’s devastating involvement. His story had been legalled and it ran in ‘The Australian’ on Monday, August 1st 2011. It was immediately pulled after one phone call from Gillard.

Slavish supporter of Gillard, the ABC, promptly sacked Milne.

Gillard continued a barrage of phone calls to the then CEO of News Ltd, John Hartigan and there was a meeting arranged at the offices of News Ltd. What exactly was said at that meeting may never be known but it certainly didn’t resemble what Gillard said it was about.

The Leveson Hacking Inquiry was threatening to engulf Australia’s media and Gillard saw her opportunity. She used Bob Brown as a verbal battering ram to threaten Fairfax and Murdoch with an “inquiry”. Gillard herself publicly entered the fray with her now famous utterance: “There are questions that need to be answered.” That statement was carefully crafted to put the fear of God into the media. After much questioning she has refused to say what those questions might be.

A Leveson-style inquiry here would mutilate the very core of Australia’s media and their executives as it has, and is still doing, in the UK.

Fairfax and Murdoch executives, to put it bluntly, were shitting themselves. Their indecent grappling for a piece of an ever-decreasing circulation market-share would have opened an ugly can of worms. A can I will let sit for another time.

So, this squalid deal was done but the sordid tale still bubbles below the surface. It reaches to the very heart of the Labor movement. We are witnessing only the tip of unions’ mob-like protection rackets and their corrupt manipulation of our Parliaments.

This shameful story will eventually be told in full colour. It will be a long and agonising read.

But, in the interim, today’s fetid political power holds sway.

| A special thanks to Mr. Larry Pickering for his permission to reproduce his comments. If you like, you can follow him on facebook or visit him at | Copyright L Pickering 2012 |


What can be said. The cartoon was the reason for the first threat Mr Pickering received.  He had to remove all the cartoons where Julia wore her ‘didlo’.  The ones that I have managed to save from Mr Pickerings Facebook page are posted below to give evidence to how Gillard’s reaction is over the top.  Under FB rules – it is not known whether this censorship action has been taken because of complaints received – or is out of a self-policing on editorial content. Surely in either case – banishment is a gross overreaction.

Enjoy the cartoons – it might be the last opportunity to see Gillard as we all saw her through Mr Pickerings talented drawing style.

There is more to this story – read on below or …

To show your support for Larry – he won’t mind if you post the above content on your FB page to force FB to reverse their position.

Back to Index

Kangaroo Court of Australia – first published Aug 2011:

Read this Post on-line here.

The Kangaroo Court of Australia is a ‘blogsite’intent on – as pasted from the “Ábout” comments – “The main focus of this website (blog) is on the corrupt conduct of Australian Judges and Magistrates and the Federal Politicians and Police who cover it up by failing to take action.”

I subscribe and find the information extremely well researched and informative. I will try to reproduce the content of this story so that you might be able to make a judgement call as to whether Gillard has the right to have this story supressed.

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s criminal history and her hypocrisy with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.

| Posted Aug, 2011 | Link to Story on-line. |

Julia Gillard had criminal allegations made against her in 1995 when she was accused of helping her boyfriend steal over $1,000,000 from the Australian Workers Union (AWU) and helping him spend the money on such things as her personal home renovations and dresses.

Julia Gillard has never denied helping him rip off the $1,000,000 plus dollars, what she has done is denied doing it knowingly. Her part was helping set up an account called the “AWU Members Welfare Association No 1 Account” and possibly other accounts that the money was laundered through when she was a lawyer working for Slater and Gordon who were the solicitors representing the Australian Workers Union.

The allegations against Julia Gillard were initially raised in the Victorian Parliament in 1995.

In an interview with Glenn Milne of the Sydney Sunday Telegraph in 2007 Julia Gillard said:

Gillard’s stunning confession

| By Glenn Milne | The Sunday Telegraph | November 11, 2007 | Link to Story on-line. |

JULIA Gillard fell in love with a former union official and fraudster who broke her heart and threatened to destroy her political career.

Ms Gillard, 46, who is poised to become Deputy Prime Minister if Labor wins office in two weeks’ time, yesterday confirmed she was a union lawyer when she fell for the conman.

As a solicitor acting on instructions, she set up an association later used by her lover to defraud the Australian Workers Union (AWU).

But she has strenuously denied ever knowing what the association’s bank accounts were used for.

Ms Gillard, who in her early thirties was a lawyer with Melbourne-based Labor firm Slater&Gordon at the time of the fraud, acted for the AWU.

She met Bruce Morton Wilson, who was then the West Australian AWU secretary, while representing the union in the Industrial Relations Commission. Wilson later moved to Melbourne, where Ms Gillard lived, to become Victorian secretary of the union.

“These matters happened between 12 and 15 years ago,” Ms Gillard told The Sunday Telegraph. “I was young and naive.

“I was in a relationship, which I ended, and obviously it was all very distressing. I am by no means the first person to find out that someone close turns out to be differentto what you had believed them to be. It’s an ordinary human error.

“I was obviously hurt when I was later falsely accused publicly of wrong-doing. I didn’t do anything wrong and to have false allegations in the media was distressing.

“The whole thing has taught me some lessons about life, generally, and (about) the slings and arrows of public life, in particular.

“I think that I have emerged a stronger person as a result.”

The relationship, briefly mentioned in Victoria’s Parliament in 1995, re-surfaced this year when rogue WA CFMEU union official Kevin Reynolds referred to the affair at a union meeting.

Accusing Ms Gillard of hypocrisy, Mr Reynolds told members it was just one of many secrets he would reveal about Labor’s inner circle.

Hundreds of pages of new documents held by the AWU have now been leaked, detailing Wilson’s fraud.

Wilson’s whereabouts are unknown, but he was thought to be hiding out in Western Australia. Photographs taken 16 years ago show him in Perth.

Union sources claim Ms Gillard’s involvement with Wilson posed a potential danger to her in the event Kevin Rudd became Prime Minister, even though she says she committed no wrongdoing.

As well as being Deputy Prime Minister, Ms Gillard would be minister for workplace relations in a Labor government, responsible for developing a new industrial relations system.

Fears have been raised within the union movement that she could have been subjected to improper pressure from some officials who knew the full extent of her former lover’s fraud.

Ms Gillard told The Sunday Telegraph she had never heard of such suggestions and would regard it as grossly improper.

She said she would in no way be influenced by such a suggestion, other than contemplating notifying the police immediately it had been made.

Ms Gillard now dates hair product salesman Tim Mathieson and previously dated Labor MP Craig Emerson.

Kangaroo Court of Australia Story continues …

In this post I will cover:

1. Julia Gillard’s part in ripping off the AWU for over $1,000,000

2. Julia Gillard’s hypocrisy in relation to her allegations of illegal conduct by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

3. Prima Facie Case to have Julia Gillard charged for breaching section 41 of the 1914 Crimes Act “Conspiracy to bring false accusation” and section 137 of the 1995 Criminal Code “False or misleading information or documents”.

To appreciate how Julia Gillard’s answers she gave in the 2007 interview beggar belief it is important to have some knowledge of what happened when she helped Bruce Wilson steal from the AWU. A brief outline is below.

The way the scam worked is best set out in another article by Glenn Milne where it starts off:

“THE con used by Julia Gillard’s former lover to cream off possibly more than $1 million was simple and backed by standover tactics.

As union secretary, Bruce Morton Wilson would go on to construction sites and tell bosses they “needed” an industrial agreement which he would negotiate.

But there was a price – they would have to purchase hundreds of AWU membership tickets in exchange for the industrial peace guaranteed by the “agreement”.

However, when the employers made out the cheques – sometimes for more than $50,000 at a time – the money for memberships that never existed would go into phony AWU accounts that actually belonged to Wilson.” (Read story below:)

Hansard – Victorian Parliament | 12 October 1995 ASSEMBLY |

| Hansard Victoria | 12th Oct 1995 | Link to Hansard.|

Page 656

AWU union official

Mr PERRIN (Bulleen) — Will the Minister for Industry and Employment inform the house what action the government is taking on allegations of corruption in the trade union movement?

The SPEAKER — Order! The Chair has some difficulty with the question. Unless the answer can be related to government administration the question will be out of order.

Mr GUDE (Minister for Industry and Employment) — This matter should be of serious concern to all Victorians. Serious allegations of fraud and impropriety have been brought to my attention.

It is alleged that the former secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Mr Bruce Wilson, who left the union’s employ in August of this year, has apparently misappropriated union funds and used his position as secretary in the most improper manner.

I understand the AWU is still receiving bills for strange items ordered by Mr Wilson. All attempts thus far to find him have come to nothing. What did Mr Wilson do when he found out that his actions had been discovered? The first thing he did was to seek legal advice from the union’s solicitors, none other than Slater and Gordon. From whom did he receive that advice? One Julia Gillard.

I am informed that Ms Gillard is no longer with Slater and Gordon due to commitments as an ALP Senate candidate. That may not be the only reason she is no longer working at Slater and Gordon.

Mr Bracks — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, from the outset you asked the minister to relate his answer to government administration. The minister is not talking about government administration but is speculating. He is seeking to try in the Parliament a case which should be dealt with outside the Parliament.

Mr GUDE — On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I should have thought that of all members opposite the one who has just risen in his place to make a point of order should have known better because, after all, he is supposed to be the spokesperson in the industrial relations area.

The Employee Relations Act clearly provides for investigation of alleged improper action against a union. I make the point to the honourable member that the AWU is a registered and recognised organisation under the Employee Relations Act.

The concerns that have been expressed have been expressed on behalf of decent working AWU members. I have not only a right but a responsibility as the responsible minister to deal with the matter, and I propose to do that irrespective of the point of order.

The SPEAKER — Order! If the minister can relate his answer to the act he mentioned he will be in order, but if he strays from that he will be out of order and I will no longer hear him.

Mr GUDE — Consistent with the provisions of the legislation I am informed that the first thing Ms Gillard did, when asked what she would be doing and why she was getting out of Slater and Gordon, was to pay back moneys to the AWU for work — —

Mr Brumby — On a point of order, Mr Speaker — —

Page 657

Mr Kennett interjected.

Mr Brumby (to Mr Kennett) — No, it is about the proper use of the Parliament.

Honourable members interjecting.

Mr Brumby — The point of order is on the question of relevance. These matters are clearly not within the minister’s jurisdiction. Yesterday in this Parliament we saw a similar episode when the Minister for Health maliciously defamed the honourable member for Albert Park, accusing him — —

The SPEAKER — Order! The Leader of the Opposition should stick to the point of order.

Mr Brumby – There is a pattern of behaviour in this place where question time is used by the Minister for Health to maliciously defame people. There was an accusation of a criminal offence with no apology from her, and the Minister for Industry and Employment is attempting to do the same thing.

The SPEAKER — Order! It is the right of every member to be able to raise a point of order, but the member may not use the occasion to make a speech. Has the Leader of the Opposition completed his point of order?

Mr Brumby — I ask you, Mr Speaker, to rule the minister’s answer out of order because it is clearly not relevant to his portfolio responsibilities. He is engaging in a deliberate and malicious defamation, in exactly the same way as the Minister for Health did yesterday against the honourable member for Albert Park, and she has not had the courtesy to apologise for that deliberate lie and defamation.

Mr GUDE — On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I direct your attention and that of the Leader of the Opposition and his spokesman on the matter to section 113 of the Employee Relations Act, which makes specific reference to the minister’s powers to refer matters to the Chief Commission Administration Officer for investigation. I make the further point that today will not be the first occasion that that power has been exercised; it will be the second.

The SPEAKER — Order! If the minister confines his answer to the act he is in order, but should he stray and use his answer as an opportunity for other purposes I will call the next question.

Mr GUDE — The first thing that Ms Gillard did was to pay moneys to the AWU for work that had been completed on her home, courtesy of Mr Bruce Wilson, to cover the tracks.

Mr Brumby — On a point of order, Mr Speaker, on the question of relevance, this is an unfounded allegation. The minister has again made a malicious defamation. If he has an issue to raise he should refer it to the appropriate authorities and not use Parliament to maliciously defame a so-far innocent individual.

The SPEAKER — Order! I uphold the point of order. Unless the minister can relate his remarks to his responsibility and the act for which he is responsible I will call the next question.

Mr GUDE — In order to protect ordinary members of the AWU I have today referred these and other allegations to the Chief Commission Administration Officer of the Employee Relations Commission of Victoria for investigation and report back to me on any action that may be required.

I make the additional point that there is a current investigation under way by the National Crime Authority and it referred the matter to the Victoria Police Force, which is also investigating this matter.

This is a serious concern that has been expressed by members of the AWU, and the government, unlike the opposition, will not shirk its responsibility for looking after the interests of decent Victorian blue-collar workers.

Kangaroo Court of Australia story continues:

The scam seems to have first started in Western Australia when Bruce Wilson was State Secretary of the AWU and he had already set up two bogus accounts to funnel the money through. He later moved to Victoria to become State Secretary for both Victoria and Western Australia.

By this time Julia Gillard and Bruce Wilson were in a sexual relationship and Julia Gillard should have stopped representing the AWU as there was a clear conflict of interest.

Bruce Wilson had Julia Gillard set up the account named “AWU Members Welfare Association No 1 Account”.

The AWU management claimed they knew nothing about the accounts and when they found out the joint national secretary Ian Cambridge put a freeze on the accounts. Somehow money kept on going in and out of the accounts.

Some of the money was also used to buy a house and Ian Cambridge put a caveat on the house so it could not be sold. Again the house was sold and the money disappeared.

From here we will go to the transcript from the Victorian Government Hansard where it says on the 12th of October 1995:

Mr GUDE (Minister for Industry and Employment)

“I understand the AWU is still receiving bills for strange items ordered by Mr Wilson. All attempts thus far to find him have come to nothing. What did Mr Wilson do when he found out that his actions had been discovered? The first thing he did was to seek legal advice from the union’s solicitors, none other than Slater and Gordon. From whom did he receive that advice? One Julia Gillard.

I am informed that Ms Gillard is no longer with Slater and Gordon due to commitments as an ALP Senate candidate. That may not be the only reason she is no longer working at Slater and Gordon.”

“Mr Gude — Consistent with the provisions of the legislation I am informed that the first thing Ms Gillard did, when asked what she would be doing and why she was getting out of Slater and Gordon, was to pay back moneys to the AWU for work”

(Click here to read the rest)

Julia Gillard is alleged to have ripped off $57,500 for herself. Of which $17,500 was spent on clothing at Town Mode, which was a women’s fashion house in Melbourne. Mr Cambridge has given evidence about the likely proceeds of this. And $40,000 was spent on renovations to her house in Melbourne. This shows up in the Victorian Parliament Hansard on the 28th February 2001 and the 2nd May 2001.

In January 1996 ”Mr Cambridge wrote to the then Federal Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Laurie Brereton, seeking a royal commission into the AWU – just as the Prime Minister, Mr Paul Keating, called an election.” (Click here to read the full article)

Not long after Robert F. Smith, branch secretary at the AWU wrote a letter to Steve Harrison who along with Ian Cambridge was joint national secretary of the AWU.

The letter is in the Victorian Government Hansard and starts off:

Dear Steve,

Further to our telephone discussion this morning, I propose the following resolution to be put to national executive next month.

As we have discussed, you know as well as I do that if Cambridge is not stopped we are all history. I have spoken to Bill Kelty and Jennie George, and they are supportive of this course of action. Both you and I can work the phones before the national executive meeting to make sure we have the numbers before this motion is put. I have already spoken to a number of national executive and they are very nervous to say the least. Please ring when you have considered my proposal.

The Hansard goes on to say: By the way, there was neither a judicial inquiry nor a royal commission. Cambridge was appointed to the New South Wales Industrial Relations Court. I call for a full, open judicial inquiry. The other addressees on the letter were Bill Shorten, Terry Muscat, Graham Ray and Frank Leo. (Click here to read the full letter).

The above shows Julia Gillard being party to fraud, blackmail, money laundering and extortion etc. She claims to have not done it knowingly.

Now back to the 2007 Julia Gillard interview with Glenn Milne.

Julia Gillard “strenuously denied ever knowing what the association’s bank accounts were used for”. For Julia Gillard to say that is a breach of lawyer-client confidentiality, but since she is prepared to say that she should also be prepared to answer other questions on the matter. It also is not believable as the first thing a lawyer would do when a client wants to set up a new association is ask what it going to used for so the lawyer makes sure they are giving the right advice and setting it up correctly. Is Julia Gillard saying she was also derelict in her duty and did not ask.

Julia Gillard said: “These matters happened between 12 and 15 years ago,” “I was young and naive.” Well Julia Gillard was a partner at the law firm Slater and Gordon and in her mid thirties. Slater and Gordon are not in the habit of appointing young and naive people as partners and being in her mid thirties hardly made her young.

Julia Gillard said: “I was in a relationship, which I ended, and obviously it was all very distressing. I am by no means the first person to find out that someone close turns out to be different to what you had believed them to be. It’s an ordinary human error.” This is crap. Once Julia Gillard started having a sexual relationship with Bruce Wilson she should have stopped representing the AWU as they were the client not Bruce Wilson. It is a huge conflict of interest.

Julia Gillard said “I was obviously hurt when I was later falsely accused publicly of wrong-doing. I didn’t do anything wrong and to have false allegations in the media was distressing.” Well Julia Gillard was more than happy to falsely accuse Julian Assange and WikiLeaks of breaking Australian laws. It does not get much more hypocritical than that.

Both Bill Shorten and Jennie George who are mentioned above, and went on to become Federal Politicians, helped Julia Gillard become Prime Minister while they both were well aware of her history and helped cover it up.

Ian Cambridge as mentioned above became a Commissioner at the NSW Industrial Relations Commission in 1997. In 2009 Julia Gillard as Minister for Industrial Relations personally appointed Ian Cambridge as dual appointee to Fair Work Australia. I find this disturbing. While it could be argued that other Commissioners of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission were also given dual appointments at the same time they had not previously called for a Royal Commission into criminal conduct by Julia Gillard and her boyfriend Bruce Wilson.

Julia Gillard should never have appointed him and if Ian Cambridge had any self-respect he should not have accepted the position. It could be construed by some that Ian Cambridge has taken a bribe to keep his mouth shut about her criminal past.

I also do notice that the Australian Mines and Metals Association has documented Julia Gillard stacking the bench at Fair Work Australia with her union mates. (Click here to read).

WikiLeaks and Julian Assange

On December 2, 2010 Julia Gillard said in relation to the United States diplomatic cables leak (Cablegate): “I absolutely condemn the placement of this information on the WikiLeaks website – it’s a grossly irresponsible thing to do and an illegal thing to do.” Yet when she was asked what laws had been breached she could not name any. Even so she still refered the matter to the Australian Federal Police for investigation. The Australian Attorney General Robert McClelland supported Julia Gillard although he was not as stupid to go as far and he said that they had likely broken the law “The unauthorised obtaining of the information may well be an offence” but he also failed to name what laws had been breached.

When Julia Gillard and Robert McClelland refered the complaint to the Australian Federal Police it should have been fully documented. They should tender those documents to parliament or the media so we can see what laws they believed that WikiLeaks and Julian Assange breached.

If they can not name the particular law or laws and what evidence they had that supported the crime than there is a very powerful prima facie case to have both Julia Gillard and Robert McClelland charged for conspiring to have someone falsely charged and making a false complaint to the police.

These are covered by section 41 of the 1914 Crimes Act and section 137.1 of the 1995 Criminal Code which are set out below. Even though WikiLeaks and Julian Assange were not charged section 41 of the 1914 crimes act still applies as even if “charging a person falsely pursuant to the agreement is impossible” they can still be found guilty which is covered by section 41(3)(a).

Crimes Act 1914

41 Conspiracy to bring false accusation

(1) Any person who conspires with another to charge any person falsely or cause any person to be falsely charged with any offence against the law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory, shall be guilty of an indictable offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.

(3) A person may be found guilty of an offence against subsection (1) even if:

(a) charging a person falsely pursuant to the agreement is impossible; or

Criminal Code Act 1995

Division 137—False or misleading information or documents

137.1 False or misleading information

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person gives information to another person; and

(b) the person does so knowing that the information:

(i) is false or misleading; or

(ii) omits any matter or thing without which the information is misleading; and

(c) any of the following subparagraphs applies:

(i) the information is given to a Commonwealth entity;

(ii) the information is given to a person who is exercising powers or performing functions under, or in connection with, a law of the Commonwealth;

Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.

Julian Assange was quoted as saying that the Australian public should consider charging Julia Gillard with treason when he was on the ABC Q&A program on the 14th of March 2011. Whether that could be justified I do not know. But certainly having Julia Gillard and Robert McClelland charged with the two laws I mention above could be sustained.

It is worth noting that section 13 of the 1914 Crimes Act empowers every Australian to institute criminal proceeding so there is no need to wait for the police who of course would never do it.

When Robert McClelland was asked about the Federal Police investigation on the 10th December 2010 he alluded that the police investigation could take a long time and he referred to the Godwin Grech investigation as an example. This is fairly standard for the Australian Federal Police to drag it out for as long as possible than quietly sweep it under the carpet when the media attention has gone.

But the Federal Police announced only one week later that WikiLeaks and Julian Assange had breached no Australian laws. Lo and behold that was the same day Dr Muhamed Haneef flew into town.

Who is Dr Haneef and what was he doing in Australia? He was here for a mediation meeting with the Federal Government on the 20th of December 2010 to settle a multi million dollar claim for wrongful arrest and detention in 2007.

This is what it says on Wikipedia: “During the 2008 inquiry into the Haneef affair, documents have revealed that former Prime Minister John Howard became involved in the case within 48 hours of Haneef’s arrest. Lawyers in the case have suggested that the early involvement of the Prime Minister mean that John Howard colluded with Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to politicise the issue.” (Click here to read more)

“Police officers Neil Thompson and Adam Simms who interrogated Haneef refused to charge him.” Adam Simms is a Queensland Police Officer and Neil Thompson is a Federal Police Officer.

So they had a senior Federal Police Officer, Commander Ramzi Jabbour, come over the top and charge him which is basically unheard of that leads one to believe it was being driven from the top. This it what it says on Wikipedia: “The Manager Counter Terrorism Domestic, Commander Ramzi Jabbour, had lost objectivity and was “unable to see that the evidence he regarded as highly incriminating in fact amounted to very little”.

Given the Dr Haneef scandal Julia Gillard should have known better than to level the claims she did against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks and then refer it to the Federal Police. It is worth noting that she has never apologised to Julian Assange or WikiLeaks for making false allegations against them.

In summary Julia Gillard is not up to being Prime Minister of Australia. Julia Gillard is a qualified lawyer and you only have to read the above to realise that she is not much of lawyer let alone a Prime Minister.

What to do about the corruption? Truth is our greatest weapon, but it’s useless if people don’t hear it. Become the media! Get active and help promote this site.

It would be greatly appreciated if you spend a minute using Twitter, Facebook and email etc. and put a link to this post (Please do not send the whole post). Just click on the icons below.

And make sure you follow this site by email which is on the top right of this page and about once a week you will get an email when there is a new post/story on this site. Thank you for your support

Update 5/9/11: Julia Gillard over the last week has been threatening the Australian media to not report on her past which I raise above. I have done a follow-up post which is at: “Has Julia Gillard blackmailed the Media to cover-up her corrupt past? The Fairfax Media and News Corp scandal.“

Back to Index

Kangaroo Court of Australia – first published Sep 2011:

| Read this story On-line here |

This next story from the “Kangaroo Court of Australia” published about a month later picks up the thread – please read the text below:

Has Julia Gillard blackmailed the Media to cover-up her corrupt past? The Fairfax Media and News Corp scandal.

| Posted Aug, 2011 | Link to Story on-line. |

Prime Minister Julia Gillard over the last few days has gone on a full frontal attack on the Australian Media which undermines free speech in this country. Her motive is to cover-up her own corrupt past. Julie Gillard has personally phoned executives and editors at News Ltd and highly likely Fairfax Media to stop reporting on her past of helping her former boyfriend Bruce Wilson rip off the AWU of over $1,000,000. It makes one wonder if she has also phoned other media as well in her cover-up attempt.

She has done this while she has had a massive conflict on interest in that the Australian Government is currently considering conducting an enquiry into the Australian Media. One of her press secretaries told me on Friday (2/9/11) that Julia Gillard had no intentions of standing down from the decision-making process of whether or not the government will hold an enquiry.

Over the last week two pieces of evidence have come to light to say that it is highly likely that Julia Gillard knowingly helped Bruce Wilson rip off the AWU.


The focus of her attack public has been on Glenn Milne and a story he wrote that was published on Monday the 29th August 2011 in The Australian which is a News Corp owned paper. The reporting and coverage of her attack in general by other news organisations has been scandalous and they have used it to go on an unjustified attack of News Corp’s Australian subsidiary News Ltd. Fairfax Media who are also involved in the cover-up have tried to point the finger squarely at News Ltd while trying to conceal their own involvement in the cover-up.

The current outbreak started right here on this site with a post I did on the 7th August 2011 (click here to read) which was subsequently picked up by Michael Smith at radio station 2ue which is owned by Fairfax Media and Andrew Bolt of News Ltd.

Time Line:

1. I did a post on the 7th August 2011 titled “Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s criminal history and her hypocrisy with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.” The post had its good days and average days. It started to pick up pace in a big way and started going viral in the week beginning Monday the 22nd August.

2. On Friday the 26th August 2011 Michael Smith at 2ue and Andrew Bolt starting running with two of the key elements of my post. That being an interview Glenn Milne did with Julia Gillard in 2007 and the answers that she gave. They also were pushing an affidavit and its contents by Robert Kernohan which was mentioned in one of my links to the Hansard on the Victorian Parliament website. Michael Smith read out some of the affidavit on air and Andrew Bolt published some on the content on his blog site. (Click here to read the Bob Kernohan affidavit) I have also put a link in the comment section as this one does not work sometimes.

3. They took the story further than me and Michael Smith pre-recorded an interview with Robert Kernohan who is a former president of the Victorian branch of the AWU on the week-end (27th and 28th August) which was meant to go to air on Monday the 29th August. Andrew Bolt also put on his blog that he would be following up on his site on the Monday.

4. On the week-end of the 27th and 28th August Julia Gillard starting calling John Hartigan who is CEO of News Ltd which is News Corp’s Australian subsidiary. She wanted assurances that Andrew Bolt would not follow-up which John Hartigan gave her.

5. Monday 29th of August. The Australian ran Glenn Milne’s story in the The Australian and on their website. Julia Gillard called John Hartigan again and demanded it be taken down from the website and demanded a retraction. There was only one key bit that she apparently complained about but she wanted the whole article to be taken down. Julia Gillard apparently made numerous calls and sent emails and texts. (Click here to read the Glenn Milne story (“PM A Lost Cause For Warring Unions“). I have also put a link in the comment section as this one does not work sometimes.

6. Monday 29th of August: Fairfax Media pulls the Michael Smith interview with Robert Kernohan on their radio station 2ue. There was a 7 or 8 minute recording on the 2ue website from the Friday the 26th program of Michael Smith reading from Robert Kernohan affidavit. This was also pulled from their website and the previous days recording (Thursday 25th) put in its place.

7. Monday 29th of August to date: Other media start running with the story of how News Ltd were forced to pull the story. Fairfax Media pulling the Radio interview gets very little mention or no mention at all. No one asks the question: If Julia Gillard rang John Hartigan at News Ltd to pull the story who did she ring at Fairfax Media to pull the radio interview.

8. Michael Smith has tried a couple of more times to run the interview with Robert Kernohan but has so far been stopped by Fairfax Media management.

9. On Friday 2nd September I spoke to one of Julia Gillard’s press secretaries and I asked in words to the effect: “given that Julia Gillard had called John Hartigan to have the story pulled at News Ltd who at Fairfax Media had Julia Gillard called to have the Robert Kernohan interview pulled from 2UE.” The response I got from the press secretary was that he was confident that Julia Gillard would not have called Fairfax Media. He obviously has a lot more confidence than me.

10. News Ltd have since gone on the offensive and fought back to some degree. There are a few links under the Andrew Bolt heading below which show the fight-back.

As mentioned above in second paragraph of this post Julia Gillard’s press secretary also told me that she would not be standing down from the decision-making process of whether or not the Government will hold a media enquiry even though I had pointed out the massive conflict of interest given that she had threatened News Ltd to pull the story. He said words to the effect: “she would not be standing down because if every politician who had interaction with the media stood down there would be no one left.” and that “she would not have threatened Hartigan with legal action but just pointed out the errors in the story”.

Julia Gillard helped her then boyfriend rip of the AWU in the period of approximately 1993 – 1995. The Prime Minister says it is old and no longer relevant and she has addressed the issue many time before.

Well it is relevent now for many reasons and she has never addressed it in full or to any real degree.

The reasons it is relevent now:

1. In the interview in 2007 with Glenn Milne she complained about how distressing it was to be falsely accused of wrong doing in the media. As I pointed out in my post on the topic that is what she did to Julian Assange and WikiLeaks at the end of 2010.

2. That the Prime Minister has clearly been trying to cover up the current scandal of the Federal Politician Craig Thomson ripping off the Health Services Union. Given that the AWU clearly covered up her former boyfriend of ripping off the AWU and her involvement it is clearly in the public interest to look at that as it shows a history in the Union movement of ripping off their members. How many more people in the Union movement are ripping off their members that no one knows about. There should be a broad enquiry.

3. Given that Julia Gillard has tried to close down media coverage of her involvement in ripping off the AWU it is in the public interest to have a good look at it to clear the air so the public can have confidence in the Prime Minister. Which the Prime Minister does not want to do.

Julia Gillard has never fully addressed the issue:

I have been aware of her history in this matter since 2005/2006. I have never come across anywhere in media reports where she has fully addressed the matter in any detail. Just vague palm off’s, she generally says that it happened a long time ago and that she had already addressed the matter. Even the 2007 interview is only brief and as I have already pointed out in a previous post what she says beggar’s belief.

Michael Smith on 2ue has also been following up this week with questions to the PM which she has avoided answering. On the 2ue site it shows the email correspondence to and from the PM’s office this week:

He asks her a number of questions like:


Did you ever create or cause any legal entity(ies) to be created with the letters AWU or words Australian Workers Union in its/their title(s)?

Did you establish or in any way instruct any person to establish any bank accounts for the Australian Worker’s Union?

Have you ever paid back any money to the Australian Workers’ Union?

The response from the PM’s office the next day “These are matters that have been dealt with on the public record over a period of fifteen years.” and after another email from Michael Smith the PM’s office replies “The Prime Minister, as you note, has made comments about these matters in the past. I’d refer you to her comments.”

Michael Smith sends another email on Wednesday the 31st August: May I ask that you make good on the offer you made below to refer me to her comments? Where are they, what are the comments that you are happy for me to use?

And the PM’s office responds with: Well actually Julia Gillard’s office did not respond even though Michael Smith had staff following it up. She is ducking for cover. Very similar to the Craig Thomson affair as he has gone all silent as well. I would put a link to the Michael Smith emails but they will probably go down in a day or so based on current form. He does seem to be the only one following it up so if you have the time his show is on 2ue M-F from midday to 3pm.

Fairfax Media and Michael Smith

Fairfax Media have at this point acted disgracefully and have buckled to Julia Gillard’s pressure. While they have not closed down Michael Smith totally they have stopped his interview with Robert Kernohan going to air. Maybe they will never let it be broadcast or maybe they think if they hold it back long enough even if it does go to air it will have no impact.

I called Fairfax Media on Friday to ask who there had spoken to Julia Gillard and who had stopped the Kernohan interview going to air. A person at their PR company Access PR told me Peter Fray was probably the person to speak to and she would call me back. She never got back to me.

I spoke to Michael Smith on Friday as well and he said he had “no comment” to make as why the story had been pulled. I had spoken to an assistant at 2ue prior to that and she said that because it had not been approved yet. Well it was meant to go to air on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday but kept getting pulled. Andrew Bolt I recall said on his blog that it had already been legally approved.

In reporting in their papers Fairfax Media have not said why the 2ue interview has not gone to air. In one report at least which is titled “Bombshell for Gillard explodes under Murdoch press” which was printed on Tuesday the 30th of August they point the finger at News Ltd but make no mention of the fact that they are involved in the cover-up. (Click here to read) It says in another article in the Fairfax Press where they put the boot into News Ltd “Michael Smith of Fairfax Media’s 2UE, who decided yesterday not to discuss Milne’s column or read the promised statutory declaration” Well that is a lie and there is no mention of the Kernohan interview, Fairfax Media management pulled the interview and shut it down. (Click here to read)

Who pulled the pin at Fairfax Media? Well the likely suspects are the directors who are:

Roger Corbett AO, Chairman
Michael Anderson
Nicholas Fairfax
Greg Hywood, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director
Sandra McPhee
Sam Morgan
Linda Nicholls AO
Robert Savage AM
Peter Young AM

Or maybe it was Gail Hambly who is the Group General Counsel for Fairfax Media. I thought that given that the likes of John Hartigan get mentioned in this story it would not be right for me not to name and shame the directors of Fairfax Media who are overseeing a cover-up and aiding in the denial of free speech.

Andrew Bolt

Andrew Bolt had a lot of what was on his site pulled down but has written two posts on what happened since that are well worth a read.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s hand overplayed

Protecting Gillard: ABC sacks Milne

There is also a good story in The Australian which details the phone calls between the Prime Minister Julia Gillard and John Hartigan and Chris Mitchell who is the editor of The Australian.

8am call that put Julia Gillard’s old news on front page

Other Media Reports

As I have stated above, reports in other media of what has actually transpired have been disgraceful, full of errors and sometimes out-right defamatory in an attempt to bag News Ltd, Glenn Milne and Andrew Bolt. Amazingly Michael Smith and Fairfax Media rarely get mentioned.

ABC – Jeremy Thompson

The ABC on Thursday sacked Glenn Milne from appearing further on their Insiders program for not meeting its editorial standards. That is a joke as Julia Gillard was clearly trying to shut down any reporting of her past before the Glenn Milne story was published. The time-line above shows that Julia Gillard was calling John Hartigan at News Ltd on the Saturday and Sunday to stop Andrew Bolt from reporting on it anymore. It does not really mater what Glenn Milne said in his story because as long as it mentioned Julia Gillard’s corrupt past it was going to be pulled.

Jeremy Thomson did a report on the ABC website on the Tuesday the 30th of August which was updated on the 31st which is nothing more than a joke. There are solid grounds for News Ltd and Andrew Bolt to sue for defamation.

He says in relation to a section Andrew Bolts blog ” It began: ”On Monday, I’m tipping, a witness with a statutory declaration will come forward and implicate Julia Gillard directly in another scandal involving the misuse of union funds.”

“No such witness has come forward.”

Well Jeremy Thomson is either a very sloppy and lazy reporter or he is straight out lying. A person has come forward, Robert Kernohan, and the interview was meant to go to air on Michael Smith program on 2UE. Why did Jeremy Smith not know that? Why did he not report anything about Fairfax Media pulling the story? Why did he not ask who Julia Gillard had spoken to at Fairfax Media?

He also says: “The article, written by journalist Glenn Milne – but later repudiated by the newspaper – claimed Ms Gillard had been unknowingly implicated in a “major union fraud” while she was working as a lawyer in Melbourne before she entered parliament.”

Well they did not repudiate the whole story just a small part. Which even says it at the end of the story. (Click here to read the full story)

Given that the ABC sacked Glenn Milne (they say he was not sacked because he was not actually an employee) from the Insiders program for “not meeting its editorial standards” what will they do to Jeremy Thomson?

I am a fan of the Crikey news website. A democracy needs a diverse media and they have some good articles on there. But a posting by Andrew Cook is a disgrace which is titled “Milne debacle: how a 16-year-old story was spiked by The Oz”. It starts off “Glenn Milne has egg all over his face after the re-hired columnist filed an error-filled op-ed reviving discredited allegations that Prime Minister Julia Gillard had somehow been an accomplice to her one-time partner Bruce Wilson’s alleged fraud.”

The claims are not discredited at all. What because Julia Gillard denies them? How many criminals admit their crime?

Andrew Cook goes on to say “While a popular topic in the right-wing blogosphere, the allegations are rarely taken seriously by professional journalists.” Really, has Andrew Cook done a survey has he? I wouldn’t mind a look. When people write dribble like that it is because they can not attack the content so they attack the messenger.

In relation to current media attention on Gillard’s past in helping rip off the AWU he says “The fresh outbreak was three days in the making.” Well it actually started with my post on the 7th of August. Mr Cook obviously can not use the internet.

He goes on to say “In fact, the PM has consistently shot down the suggestions with supreme force each time they get trotted out.” Well where is her detailed side of the story Mr Cook. You obviously have a copy, can I see it.

Andrew Cook goes on to try to discredit Robert Kernohan. He might be right but he makes no mention of the response that Julia Gillard gave to the Glenn Milne interview in 2007 that beggars belief. Maybe Andrew Cook believes her answers. The reality is that Julia Gillard openly admits helping rip off the AWU so even though she says she did not do it knowingly, it should still be scrutinised even more so, when she has never given a detailed account of what happened. But a simple denial is good enough for Mr Cook. (Click here to read the full article)

The question that is going through my mind is how many media organisations has Julia Gillard called to close down the reporting of her grubby history.

We know she called News Ltd many times over three-days, firstly to close down Andrew Bolt and then Glenn Milne. Given that and the conduct of Fairfax Media logic says that she also called them. The ABC sacking Milne seems very odd to me given what I have already written above. And what have the TV stations Channel 7, Channel 10, Channel 9 and SBS been saying? Not much to my knowledge or maybe that has something to do with the $250 Million election year bribe Tony Abbott has previously spoken about.

Given that a lot of the material has been taken down from the net has Julia Gillard also contacted Google, Yahoo and Bing to make sure that negative articles do not show up in a search or at least far back in the search results. It does happen, so why wouldn’t Julia Gillard try it given her current form.

The Media Enquiry

The Federal Government is currently evaluating whether or not we should have a Media Enquiry. I have no doubt we should and the first port of call should be Julia Gillard and her intimidation of the Australian Media. She should have never called Hartigan and once she did she had an obligation to put out a press release stating given her fight with News Ltd and Fairfax Media she would no longer be part of the decision-making process on whether or not to have an enquiry or its potential terms of reference.

In 2007 Julia Gillard said she was young and naive when she had a huge conflict of interest of having a sexual relationship with Bruce Wilson and taking instructions off him for her client the AWU. As I have previously said, when she started having a relationship with Wilson she should have handed the AWU account to someone else at the law firm Slater and Gordon. But her excuse was she was young and naive. What is her excuse now she has a massive conflict of interest but is still the main decision maker of whether or not to have the media enquiry. Is Julia Gillard still claiming to be young and naive.

The two pieces of evidence that I spoke of at the start to say that it is highly likely that Julia Gillard knowingly helped Bruce Wilson rip off the AWU. 1. Her personal jihad to close down the reporting on the story and 2. Her lie about previously addressing the issue. If she had she would have responded to Michael Smith’s emails and said where she had previously addressed them.

Back to Index

These two stories were breaking news and mainstream media clammed up. That is a big story – if we do not have freedom of the press in this Nation – we’re as good as living in a DIctatorship – PM Gillard has a case to answer over her poor judgement in allowing a çonflict of interest to develop, and remain ongoing whilst a fraud was being committed. The evidence proves she received proceeds and whether she repaid the funds is unknown. But for her to quash this story – the media had to have extracted a price … what was that price?

This story should go viral over the next few days – how many ALP MP’s know of the story – how much does the opposition know – claiming a failed trust shows poor judgement all round – she is not worthy to be the PM and she debases the respect Australians would normally hold for the PM. How can she not be forced to endure the same treatment Craig Thompson has had to endure.

Please – if any of the opinions expressed hereto raises concerns within your own belief about how this Nation is being managed, or any other concern, please contact your State content to your Federal Member via an e-mail or a telephone call to express your concerns.

You’ll find the House of Representatives (HOR) and Senator e-mail addresses via the links below to the Australian Parliamentary website Members and Senator profiles. It is an important aspect that in our form of Democracy, that the people be heard – we should ensure the Government Representatives hear our opinions. If we stay silent, then Democracy is not served.

Use the Federal Member and Senate links below to find your Local Member. If you prefer, you can just post a comment below and let your views be heard.

Link to other most recent Harry’s Growl Posts.

Harry’s Growl …


EYE-BALL Guru on – The GFC … the right of reply … the right to question …

June 15, 2012 6 comments
The GFC –
… the right of reply … the right to question …
15th June 2012.
The GFC:
The GFC has forced the Global Financial Markets to reset investment decisions, and more importantly – forced investors to change the way they set their parameters and policy when making investment choices.  Within all this altering and mirrored landscape – there are many gaps – and within these gaps all monopolies are doing what they do best – rip off consumers.

The Regulatory Authorities are not even aware of what is happening out there in the real market – they have no idea where to look or to begin to understand how markets evolve and move on.  For the players the GFC was opportunity – for the rest of the world it was devastation, changed lifestyles and forever altered dreams.  Nobody waits for the shock and awe of what the GFC represents, or is now inflicting around the globe.

The catch phrase is – “Money Never Sleeps” – Oliver Stone’s second installment of the “Wall Street” movie series – its full title “Wall Street – Money Never Sleeps” was very apt and he was not wrong.

There has been two movies that have attempted to expose the truth – the other was ‘Margin Call’ released late 2011.  The plot of both these movies – be it via changed names of the major players and instigators of the GFC meltdown – is in how the global financial markets proved they could go a ‘bridge too far’ – that they can and did cause a financial ‘nuclear holocaust’ that the world is now struggling to cope with.

There is no single reason – nor a single person responsible – the GFC was a collaborative effort between Financial Markets and the Regulators who played their ‘cat and mouse’ game – it proved once and for all that the regulators have no idea what is happening out there in ‘money world’.

The GFC has ruined many well respected Regulators – Alan Greenspan the ex Fed Reserve Chairman through the 80’s, 90′, and into the 2000’s is out there trying to convince all and sundry that it was not his fault.  Yet Greenspan as history will expose – was yet another Regulator who thought he had the Financial Markets in the palm of his hand.

He felt that he knew best – yet we all now know that whilst he sat in his ‘Scrooge’ tower playing and pretending at being the Financial Markets God – what was happening on the street was smart and savvy market operators practising and developing financial products that Greenspan had never heard of – nor thought that the markets would develop outside his knowledge or regulatory base.  There were many regulators like Greenspan – all of them bare some responsibility.

All the new derivatives including CDS’s and the like, may have been above Greenspan’s check list – i.e. it was established in the aftermath of the GFC crash that there was no register of CDS’s and all the other ‘swap’ derivatives – nobody had any idea how big this market really was – but in areas where Greenspan should have had base knowledge was in how the Banks were growing their off balance sheet assets, and how the risk profile attached to this growth was at odds with what Banking represents to American and their Global responsibility.

This Regulatory oversite was of their own making – they were aware the Banks were growing their off-balance sheet activities, and as a consequence where their majority of their profits were being derived from.  The first ‘tell’ in this Regulatory responsibility should have been the massive executive remuneration packages being announced, and done so in an egotistical way in that it became a competition between rival Bank executives to strive for bigger bonus to prove better Banking reputations.  The poaching war was on.

It’s a different way of looking at the ’cause and effect’ of the GFC – the warning signals were there all the time and from as early at the late 80’s and early 90’s.

The Regulator’s knew about the growth in the Banks ‘risk profile’ – but as a collective group through G7 Finance Ministers meetings – they all elected to let it go unchallenged.  The general consensus was – ‘what was wrong with ‘smart guys’ making lots of money’ – what harm could they do if everybody was making money … including the Regulators who were profiting for the equity market surge around the globe, and the multiply factor in property.

Nobody stopped to think about who was paying for these excessive and ‘moral hazard’ bonuses’ – or how they were being put together.

The Regulators were asleep at the wheel and in the time since 2008-9 when the GFC first busted itself and began its impact on Global markets – not a single senior Banker has gone to jail or been grilled over the GFC cause and its fallout.  Small fry in the form of Bernie Madoff and other fringe players have been exposed – but mainstream ‘Wall Street’ have been left alone.

This GFC was a long time coming – there were several warnings – market meltdowns in ’87 and the aftermath of 9/11 – were in fact tremors warning of the massive earthquake that was to follow.  Many smart people were fooled and it was all allowed to happen in the name of ‘greed’, and still more ‘greed’.

As this GFC fallout process moves to the next stage of recouping the bailouts – the rest of the world is to pay the price.  It is easy to see who will pay the price.  Yet, the global priority and approach by Governments when the GFC first hit was to bail out the Banks.  Now it is time to pass the cost of the Banks bailout onto the world’s population through Governments recouping the bailout loans via taxes increases and diminishes services as Governments are forced to cut back.

Nations like Greece are but a festered pimple compared with the ‘boil-bursts’ still to follow – whatever happens to Greece you can expect far worse as the GFC impact pushes further into the heart of the Global Financial Markets – Wall Street, London, and the like.

To put things in perspective – Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 110 years for what was a US$ billion dollar fraud of America’s rich and wealthy.  Yet the Goldman Sachs play on the ‘sub-prime’ mortgage securitisation market cost the world many US$ Trillions in real net worth value, i.e. stock market value losses all precipitated as a result of the ‘sub-prime’ ’cause and effect’.

Poor Bernie – all he did was use a Ponzi scheme to strip some greedy rich investors all too lazy to use their wealth and invest in industry to make a bob for themselves – they left it to Bernie to make them richer – in many ways they got what they deserved.  Wealth is a privilege – and it should be used – not tucked away to allow the privileged to live off its interest income.

Who’s paying for the GFC fallout?

Here is a bold statement – the worlds poorest are about to be levied costs and taxes to pay for the mistakes of the worlds wealthiest!

Since the 70’s the consumer cost of doing Banking have risen exponentially.  WIthin the ‘market games’ played between Banks and other Financial Institutions – all the speculative trading over and above normal banking operations amounts to a ‘zero-sum’ game.  If someone wins, then someone else has to lose – the monies won are simply transferred from the Bankers who lost.

In that equation the Banking or Financial Institution who lost tries to recoup their losses from new market trading – but at the end of whatever period – the loses are simply passed on to customers as the wheels of commerce prevail.  As costs increase – i.e. losses are termed ‘costs’ – the price of goods and services has to rise – and so it is for Banks – the very wheels of commerce turn in favour of providers and business who service the public.   This all means that consumer costs to do their Banking rise for every Bank customer around the world.   The increase comes in the form of higher fees, wider spreads on bank transactions, lower deposit interest rates,  higher interest rates on loans, and for existing customers these mortgage increases pressure their loan arrangements undertaken before the new cost increases.

The Banks revenue stream from fees and non-interest income has increased to almost 50% of all Bank revenues since the 70s.

Let there be no mistake – the Banks control the World – Politicians need Banks more than Banks need Politicians.  Without Banks out there lending to create commerce and growth – Government revenues dry up and force Governments into greater borrowing requirements to sustain their economies and that all important ‘growth’ factor as measures against GDP.

The evidence in this Bank dominance is in the proposed second Greek bailout – the Banks who lent to the first bailout package were all about to do their money cold if Greece defaulted.  Enter the 2nd Bailout package structure and it required that the 2nd tranche of Banks bail out the 1st tranche of Bankers as a priority to a much higher value than would otherwise been received.  The Greek politicians have no choice – either agree to the bailout arrangements or see their Nation descend into the Third World abyss of having to survive on IMF handouts.

Enter the 1st Greek election result where the people said ‘fuck-off’ to the proposed bail-out package …

Now the EuroZone ‘management’ for want of a better term, but largely Germany and France – have to convince the rest of the EuroZone to help save Greece.  Every economist, or financial commentator sees no other option to help save Greece – the view is that Greece will be booted from the EuroZone and from there it will be a Nation carve up, and the Greek people will never again be able to look the world in the eyes and claim their historic heritage as an ongoing existence.

Are The BANKS solely to blame?

Did the Banks cause this? The straight answer is no – everybody has the choice to make – do I take the loan under the Banks terms – or do I look for or wait for a better deal.

The ‘sub-prime’ asset bubble burst when everybody took the assets on board basis their yield as opposed to what supported the security.  If anybody looked at the asset and realised what class of mortgage supported the security – they would have been ‘junk-bond’ rated.  Of course Moody’s and the like play their role in rating then ‘AAA’ – and that was criminal in intent, and how bribes were offered and paid for the rating to be confirmed is still to be discovered.  AIG and a few others are all involved and how this ‘ratings’ ranking was achieved will all be revealed at some time in the future.

Again Goldman Sachs will be at the head of that enquiry when it comes to witness lists.  The movie ‘Margin Call’ was all about the GFC meltdown and the ‘firm’ who played god in the markets was based on the actions of Goldman Sachs when they realised that their ‘sub-prime’ market was about to collapse. To prove the mercenary mantra of what makes Goldman Sachs tick – they unloaded these worthless securities on a market and then went short the very same market.  They knew the securities were toxic – and the traders who bought were buried.

All Goldman Sachs did was accelerate the GFC crisis that was coming anyway – maybe a decade away – but the ’87 crash and the fixes applied to fix it so markets could not sell off freely were always going to cause problems down the track.

The bigger and underlying problem attributed to the Banks and the debt they peddle stems from Government tenure and policy that is endemic in all Western Nations.

Liberal/Conservative politics have the reputation of being better economic managers and lean to employers, whereas Socialist/Labour politics are more concerned with social welfare and the employee workforce.  In the last 40 years both sides of Politics have moved towards the middle ground.

However, the scope in how Democratic Politics has mitigated this balancing move toward an ever increasingly educated electorate has been to try and buy votes to retain Government.  The by-product of this very short-sighted election policy sell is that Banks now have a very large say at the table of any Government that is indebted beyond their capacity to repay – i.e. Greece and many more to follow …

Do you think the Banks did this deliberately – by opportunity the answer is YES – by design, the obvious answer is NO – the Governments could have said no to borrowing programs and lived within their means.  This is the problem now facing the largest economies in the World – the USA and the EuroZone – they are so indebted that they are now closing in on the same category as third world economies when it comes to Debt/GDP ratios.

The BANKS were the only concern Governments had when the GFC started – they lent them trillions in cheap funds to stave off Bank failures … this was not a band-aid fix as was the ’87, and 9/11 crashes.  This was heart attack stuff with the risk of survival very low.  This motivated Governments in ways that allowed the Banks to dictate terms – i.e. if we fail it’s all over – these are our demands.  The Banks have controlled the world ever since.

Just how that position is destroyed without sending the world into a decades long depression that would make the 1929 crash and burn look like a picnic – is the global question that no-one has an answer for.

There is a way out!

The word ‘speculation’ is at the grass-root level of why the GFC happened in the first place. Speculation and ‘managed risk’ as Bankers call it – has turned investment decisions into timeframe decisions that the world commerce cannot come to grips with.

Everybody wants the inside scoop – something that will return them 10-20% in days or weeks – annualised into 100’s% … how can a world survive when this speculative drive comes and goes – Nation to Nation across the globe is having its currency hammered and then reversed as global fund managers tort their business around the globe looking for their next ‘quick-fix’.

Its a traders adrenalin rush that has gone amuck … Global Leaders have to get their heads around how to stop this rampant speculation delivering Bank and their off-balance sheet operations massive profits and also exposing then to massive losses.

The recent JP Morgan $2 – $3 billion loss is an example of a ‘punt’ gone wrong. JP Morgan CEO Mr Jamie Dimon – God to most people working on ‘Wall Street’ had to face a Congressional Hearing on the reported losses. This would never have been made public prior to the GFC – it would have been in-house and included in the years result without explanation.

Mr Dimon’s appearance before the Congressional hearing was widely reported – read the ‘Huffington Post’ story here.

It is produced in part below.

Jamie Dimon Avoids Hard Questions At Senate Hearing

| Date: 06/13/2012 | by: | Link to On-Line story. |

There were lots of remarkable questions during Jamie Dimon’s Senate Banking Committee hearing — remarkable mainly for how easy people were on the head of the largest bank in the United States.

Dimon was called onto the downy soft carpet of the Senate Banking Committee on Wednesday to explain JPMorgan Chase’s loss of somewhere between $3 billion and $8 billion, depending on who’s counting, in a bad trade on credit derivatives.

In the end, Dimon revealed very little about the trade and not much more about his knowledge of it. He refused to discuss details of it, lest he reveal secrets to competitors — who already know all about the trade and have been hammering JPMorgan on it, adding to the bank’s losses. But the committee didn’t challenge him on that, even after he turned down an offer to close the hearing to the public.

And there were some aggressive initial questions that were not followed up by senators, who had just five minutes each to complete their questioning. Instead, much of the hearing was spent letting Dimon and some Republican senators rail against Congress’ efforts at regulatory reform after the financial crisis. Those reforms include the Volcker Rule, which prohibits banks with federally insured deposits from taking the sort of chances Dimon’s own bank took.

“They had a congressional hearing to find out what happened, and he refuses to tell them,” said Bill Black, an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. “And they all say, ‘Sorry we even asked you.'”

Preparing questions should have been an easy job for the Senate: In the weeks before the hearing, lots of observers, from the banking-unfriendly (Occupy The SEC) to the banking-friendlier (Andrew Ross Sorkin), had compiled long lists of questions the senators could ask Dimon. Several of those questions were not asked.

For example, nobody asked Sorkin’s question about the bank being “too big to hedge” — which gets to the heart of the Volcker Rule. Dimon argued that banks have to be able to buy credit derivatives to hedge the risks that they take in lending money to support the economy. But as Sorkin points out, JPMorgan’s chief investment office had such a huge position in derivatives that it dominated the market for them, making the hedge impossibly dangerous. If such a massive trade is necessary for hedging, then maybe the bank is a bit too big.

Update: Another big question is why this “hedging” was done in risky, hard-to-trade derivatives, if indeed it was hedging and not just gambling, as Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) put it.

And nobody asked Dimon whether he thought his seat on the board of the New York Federal Reserve, a key financial regulatory arm, is a conflict of interest.

When he was asked tough questions, Dimon did not always give satisfying responses. For example, he never really answered when Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) pressed him repeatedly about a Bloomberg report that Dimon said the JPMorgan unit that made the risky trade should ramp up its risk-taking. Instead, a visibly angry Dimon growled that he didn’t believe everything he read, and maybe the senator shouldn’t either.

When pressed further, Dimon said he “didn’t know” what Bloomberg’s source meant and would have to investigate the details of the story. Nobody asked the follow-up question: You mean you haven’t already investigated the details of that story, which Dawn Kopecki and Max Abelson wrote nearly a month ago?

New stories by Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal Wednesday morning put responsibility for the firm’s risk-taking even more firmly in Dimon’s pocket, and suggested he knew about it much earlier than he let on in the hearing. Senators did not ask him about those stories, either.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) did ask about the bank’s eyebrow-raising decision to change the chief investment office’s risk model in January to allow it to take on more risk. But Dimon’s explanation for that change — that the bank wanted to comply with new international capital rules — makes no sense, points out Peter Eavis of The New York Times. In fact, a desire to comply with capital rules would have led to the bank taking less risk.

The market seems to believe that Dimon handled the hearing well: JPMorgan stock was up nearly 2 percent recently, while the rest of the stock market is falling. Still, the fact that only a few senators pressed Dimon should maybe not be surprising: This is a group of members of Congress to whom Dimon’s bank has delivered “a boatload” of money since the financial crisis, as Business Insider puts it.

And the public may not ultimately be satisfied with what MarketWatch’s David Weidner described as Dimon’s open disdain for the entire process or for his need to be answering questions at all.

Mr Dimon knows he is safe – the Congress members who questioned him realise that the world financial markets hang by a thread and to ‘witch-hunt’ and make an example of Dimon would cause another ‘belly-drop’ market moment.  It is neither the time nor the place, nor will it happen in the public eye – Dimon could dump on the Congressional enquiry if he felt they were targeting him in any other way than to have him explain that this won’t happen again.  If it does happen it will be out of sight of the mainstream media and public view.

The way out for Global Leaders is to learn from the example of how this loss occurred – ‘speculation’ is solely responsible – they have to strive to drive the Banks into accepting they make a choice about who they want to be – Banking or Derivatives Speculation – not both.  The Government then has to draw up policies that tax all speculators on their profits/capital gains.  Make it a time limit deal – make it heavy to discourage investment outlook of less than 1-2 years.

If you make the speculator/investor think whether the tax cost of any short-term investment play is worth the risk – the heat is gone from the market.  You won’t have quick or speculative recovery in equity markets – but then that will be good to allow markets to consolidate and for Companies to shore up their capital positions independently and away from the Banks.  Have the markets return itself to a conservative approach to investment choices.  It is just that simple.

The EYE-BALL Guru …

%d bloggers like this: