Home > The EYE-BALL HGZ [Harry's Growl Zone] > EYE-BALL’s Harry’ Growl – I just want to GROWL at the World!

EYE-BALL’s Harry’ Growl – I just want to GROWL at the World!

October 4, 2012
The-EYE-BALL-Opinion-Header-2
Latest ‘Harry’s Growl’ Posts:


2nd Oct – PM Julia Gillard – Someone most Australians are ashamed of! –


23 Sept – Bob Carr – Australian “SOOK” – Ruined NSW and now a GILLARD pony Show –


16th Sept: – Royal ‘Boobs’ – who cares –


– 31st Aug: – Oddball News Wrap – ‘Reel 4′ – News Updates from Around the World –


– 26th Aug: – Oddball News Wrap – ‘Reel 3′ – News Updates from Around the World –


– 26th Aug: – The Woman’s Body – perfect in every way – they just need to be convinced —


26th Aug: – The Preponderance of Fate – From the depths of the AWU scandal – to PM –


18th Aug: – Australian Gangsters Inc – Part III – Gillard and the ALP by another name!!!


9th Aug: – Australian Gangsters Inc – Part II – Gillard and the ALP by another name!!!


5th Aug: –  Wayne Swan – wannabe PM – Dickheads come and Dickheads go –


26th July: – Australian Gangsters Inc Part I – Gillard and the ALP by another name!!!


To see more EYE-BALL Harry’s Growl posts:
click here …


Title:
I just want to “GROWL” at the World!
| Author: EYE-BALL’s Harry’s Growl | 4th Oct 2012 |
The clouds have formed, the thunder is threatening, the bluster and tempest is coming – and all I want to do is scream – ‘I just don’t want to take it anymore …’

The WORLD just ain’t the same anymore and nobody gives a flying fuck.

In this southern land that has a place at the big table punches well beyond its weight thanks to our resources and agriculture.  Yet – all I want to do is GROWL at all the fucked up shit that is crapping all over our future of this Nation.

I ‘ve just watched the first season of ‘Californication’ for the third time.   The lead character Hank Moody played by David Duchovny is ‘tragically flawed’ to pinch a line from his on-screen daughter.   The script is invigorating in its reality and boldness in challenge the decaying morality of society … yields proof positive to the understanding of what is happening in this fair land.

All this fictional enjoyment is challenged by news today the HSU’s Michael Williamson has finally been arrested and released on bail.  Some 12 months since the police began their investigation he now faces 20 charges that could lead to a seven year jail term.

It’s fucked up … this 59-year-old has for 20 odd years defrauded the membership of the HSU and the best the police can offer a demanding public is that – ‘he might get seven years’.   Read News Ltd story here.

This might be the tip of the iceberg as Union fraud against membership funds go.  ‘Seven fucking years …’  again it grates me.

For well over six months now another blogger attached to this site has been researching Unions and their financial accountability.

The evidence uncovered has been shared in part – e.g. the ACTU has 42 affiliated Unions and in the research to date only three Unions have any public record of their financial accounts available on-line.  None have any expenditure breakdown disclosing how the members contributions are dispersed.

Contact with the Unions with requests to obtain a copy of their latest financials have all been rejected.   The only way is to know a member who is willing to hand over their copy – you have any idea how hard that is?

Given the Gillard/AWU scandal a few weeks ago – this HSU and Williamson story is Labour’s long road to oblivion at the next election – provided the Coalition don’t have any ghosts from times past floated in retaliation.

It’s all a fucking disgrace … and all I want to do is GROWL at this Government and all past Government’s for enacting Legislation that has allowed Unions to hide how members funds reported and accounted for.

the corruption is obvious – and the HSU’s Williamson has proven that Union Boss’s can siphon funds for whatever cause they want – when they want – and as much as they want.  He is not the only one – i.e. Craig Thompson’s legal bills, some $180k, was paid for with union members funds and the members have no recourse or say in the matter.   How many more union type frauds like this are there out there?

I don’t give a flying fuck about entitlement, or the secrecy of Unions, when $1 billion a year is collected from union members – where the fuck is it all spent.

Since the Patrick’s and Waterfront dispute in the late 90’s there has not been  any major strikes or lengthy outages requiring Unions to cover members for long periods.  Yet in the time since – well in excess of $10 billion has been collected by the Unions from members and the allegations that Williamson used $20 million for his own personal use since he was the head of the HSU – represents just a drop in the ocean.

MP’s are required to disclose their financial interests when they enter Parliament – there is no investigation into how they attained any of that previous wealth.   How many Unionist’s serve as MP’s and Senators in this Government and in past Governments?

I just want to scream at the obvious conclusions that can be drawn – forensic accounting would determine where any previous wealth might have come from if it was legitimate – and if not then the Australian public have a right to know.

Wherever this Williamson fraud leads – it is deserving of a Royal Commission to investigate all past Unionist serving in our Parliamentary system – if only to clear any sense of associated corruption.

We have already been made aware of the Prime Ministers involvement in $millions of union members funds being misappropriated by AWU Unionists and she has shut that down to protect herself and the office she serves.

Then there is MP Craig Thompson and his $500k fraud – we the people have every right to want to scream and demand better – the only way that can be achieved is if the rules and eligibility for existing and future MP’s and Senators are upgraded and used to vet all politicians.

Get angry people – apathy is your enemy and the Government is banking on it to sweep all this out of the public domain.   Write your member and have your say using the links below.

Anyway – back to watching Season 2 of ‘Californication’ –


Please – if you found this story to your liking and would like to promote it to your social media contacts – i.e. Twitter, Facebook, or other icon linked account below – please click your favoured Icon(s) to promote the story.

Thankyou.


Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.

Links to Australian Parliamentary Website – MP’s:


Subscribe to EYE-BALL’s – Harry’s Growl

Advertisements
  1. hillbilly33
    October 5, 2012 at 12:20 am

    Julia Gillard’s Ambush Press Conference on 23rd August 2012 One of the most extraordinarily transparent (albeit unwitting) confessions of guilt ever made by a Public figure, in completely unambiguous terms,. Incredibly, she did not offer one shred of tangible evidence in her defence, nor has she ever done so!

    PM. Jon Faine ABC Radio 774 interview 5th September with PM . J.Gillard: “There is never any excuse for breaking the law”.!
    Q7
    Are you satisfied, was your conduct as a lawyer throughout this matter ethical?
    PM: Yes.

    In answers to:-
    Q5.
    I was a solicitor at Slater & Gordon. I assisted with the provision of advice regarding the’ setting up of an association,’ the ‘workplace reform association’ that you refer to..
    Q.15
    I took the same approach in relation to this file for the ‘ Australian Workers Union association.’
    Q 18.
    Let’s just be clear, so it’s clear for everyone. I assisted with the provision of legal advice to’ incorporate’ this association.
    Q.22 Can you be specific about exactly when and how you were informed that it might have been put to questionable use?
    PM: These matters started to come to attention in 1995 when they became the subject of controversy within the AWU itself. That is the first time that they came to my attention.

    PART 1.
    Q5.
    “I.was a solicitor” (who since late 1991 was in an intimate relationship with Bruce Wilson, an officer employed by my principal client, the Victorian Branch of the AWU). and therefore in breach of many of my obligations under the following Act, or the one it replaced.

    Legal Practice Act (1996) Victoria. Breaches:- Sec. 64, (a)(i)(ii)(iii);(b);(d)(i) and (ii); (f);(h);(i)

    PART 2.
    Q 15.
    Julia Gillard:- “I assisted with the provision of advice regarding the setting up of an association, the workplace reform association that you refer to”;
    “the Australian Workers Union association file”.

    Joint National Secretary of AWU Ian Cambridge: Affidavit.sworn 19/9/96 Paragraph 11 (excerpts).
    Principal Rules 51 and 54.
    At all times between 1991 and 1996 the Rules of the Union and the resolutions of the National Executive have required that all money payable to the Union be paid into known bank accounts operated by or on behalf of the National Office or the Branches of the Union in the respective States.
    To my knowledge there has never been an occasion during that period on which the National Executive or a Branch Executive has authorised any individual officer of the Union to open and operate a bank account in their own right, for the purposes of receiving and disbursing funds which were paid to the or to the use of the Union. If such an acount were to be operated by any person connected with the Union it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to audit such accounts and to maintain track of the Branch and Union finances.
    I know of no reason why the National Executive or a Branch Executive would authorise such accounts to be conducted by persons connected with the Union outside the official Union financial structures or would authorise a Union official or employee to deal with Union funds without proper records or accurate accounts being kept..As Joint National Secretary I would never countenance such an irregular financial practice, and prior to the matters discovered in 1995 and 1996, I have never been made aware of any such practice occurring with respect to Union funds in the past.

    Gillard breached every relevant Rule of her principal client the AWU and also failed to notify them of her dealings with Bruce Wilson.

    PART 3
    Q18.
    Julia Gillard:-“Let’s just be clear, so it’s clear for everyone. I assisted with the provision of legal advice to incorporate this association. the Australian Workers Union association”.

    WA Associations Incorporation Act.
    The Western Australian parliament envisaged it would be useful for groups of people to come together, to associate and to inform the government of their association so that they could incorporate, or become a single body corporate. Amongst other things that would let them open bank accounts.
    The parliament in the West saw that as a community good for sports, arts, cultural groups and the like.
    There are less burdensome reporting requirements on associations than there are for companies, trusts or other forms of corporate entities (or bodies).
    The law is Western Australian law. It’s not industrial relations law, it’s a local state law designed for small community groups.

    What we know for sure is that Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt wanted an Association incorporated under that legislation. You will note several significant points in the Act.

    1 An association must have 5 members to incorporate under this law. Bruce and Ralph only had themselves. There were no other members.
    2. An association cannot incorporate under this law if it proposes to trade for pecuniary profit. Bruce and Ralph started issuing invoices as soon as their Association paperwork went in, in fact before it was even incorporated.
    3 An association cannot incorporate under this law if it is a trade union.
    4 An association cannot incorporate under this law if its name is misleading as to its purpose.
    (Note J Gillard’s statement that it was a re-election slush fund. Compare and contrast with the name)..
    5 An association cannot incorporate under this law if it sounds like another corporate body.

    That is at the heart of this association and the invoices Bruce and Ralph sent out, The scam would not have worked if it didn’t sound like it was part of the AWU.
    So Bruce Wilson’s choice of lawyer is significant. He started going out with Julia Gillard in late 1991 (source, J Gillard departure interview with S & G).
    Rather than go to a suburban solicitor in Perth who would be conversant with the local law, Bruce flew with Ralph to Melbourne to meet with Ms Gillard. Ms Gillard acknowledges having given legal advice in the establishment of this association (source, transcript of interview 23 August, 2012).
    The Australian Workers’ Union Workplace Reform Association was (wrongly) incorporated under Western Australian law.enabling Gillard’s lover Bruce Wilson and accomplice Ralph Blewitt to open Bank A/c’s.

    In his Affidavit Ian Cambridge, starting at Para.12 ‘Bank Accounts Discovered’ ,sets out the incredible chain of events of misappropriation and fraud across almost every State and Teritory by so many people. That one action of Julia Gillard when she deliberately chose to break every applicable Rule, obligation and law in the book to unlawfully assist her lover set all that in motion..

    The frauds Cambridge discovered were described by QC Richard Kenzie as “the tip of the iceberg” as many documents from the Union and other information from banks and elsewhere were denied to Cambridge in a vast conspiracy to pervert the course of justice . That was why he was advised the only way to have a hope of getting to the bottom of it was to call for either a Royal Commission or a Judicial Inquiry with wide-ranging powers to subpoena. documents being with-held from him.

    PART 4.
    Q 22.
    PM: These matters started to come to attention in 1995 when they became the subject of controversy within the AWU itself. That is the first time that they came to my attention.

    CRIMES ACT 1900 SECT 316
    Concealing serious indictable offence

    (1) If a person has committed a serious indictable offence and another person who knows or believes that the offence has been committed and that he or she has information which might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of the offender or the prosecution or conviction of the offender for it fails without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of a member of the Police Force or other appropriate authority, that other person is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.

    As an officer of the court, there was even more of an obligation on Julia Gillard to report the offence. It is apparent she did not do so because the first two unlawful Bank A/c’s she’d enabled Bruce Wilson to open did not become known to Ian Cambridge until April 1996. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever to the contrary, she is still today in breach of that Act!

    PART 5

    Obligations as a Salaried Partner to the equity partners who pay her.
    S & G had lost the AWU account because of Gillard’s unethical, unprofessional conduct.

    The second, (investigation): by the equity partners of Slater & Gordon, who “were extremely unhappy with both Murphy and Gillard”, resulted in these very serious allegations (and subsequent consequences) against both of them. The partnership considered:-

    that proper vigilance had not been observed:
    that their duties of utmost good faith to their partners, especially as to timely disclosure had not been met
    that the partnerships “had concerns about various aspects of the way in which Murphy and Gillard had acted with regard to Mr.Wilson and the AWU and “felt that a number of matters required explanation.”
    that “the nature of the wrongdoings alleged required us, if we were to take an adverse view of Ms.Gillard in relation to these events, to believe that she had knowingly participated in a fraud and deceived her partners for a year or more about it”!

    As a result of their investigatons “the partnership considered terminating both Bernard Murphy and Julia Gillard.” but “Ms.Gillard elected to resign and we accepted her resignation without discussion”. Bernard Murphy also left the firm!

    “I was young and naive”! “I did nothing wrong”! Yeah, Right!!!

  2. hillbilly33
    October 5, 2012 at 7:48 am

    Further to my earlier post, Here are the actual sections proving Gillard’s misconduct from the moment she entered into an intimate relationship with AWU employee Bruce Wilson! At that time, the AWU Victoria Branch was her client , NOT Bruce Wilson In truth, he could never have been her personal client in any matters relating to the AWU. Any such dealings with him should have been recorded on S & G’s AWU file !

    Legal Practice Act (1996) Victoria. Breaches:- Sec. 64, (a)(i)(ii)(iii);(b);(d)(i) and (ii); (f);(h);(i)

    A legal practitioner or firm should-
    (a) in the service of a client, act –
    (i) honestly and fairly in the client’s best interests; and
    (ii) so as not to engage in, or assist, conduct that is calculated to defeat the ends of justice or is otherwise in breach of the law; and
    (iii) with all due skill and diligence;
    (b) report regularly to a client on the progress of the matter for which the practitioner or firm has been retained to provide legal services
    (d) avoid conflicts of interest –
    (i) between the practitioner or firm and a client; and
    (ii) between two or more clients;
    (f): act with honesy and candour in all dealings with courts and tribunals and otherwise discharge all duties to courts and tribunals;
    (h) act with honest, fairness and courtesy in all dealings with other practitioners and firms in a manner conducive to advancing the public interest; and
    (i) conduct all dealings with other members of the community and the affairs of clients that affect the interests of others with honesty, fairness and in a manner conducive to advancing the public interest.

    Division 2 – Complaints about practitioners’ and firms’ conduct
    137 – What are misconduct and unsatisfactory conduct?In this Part – “misconduct” means –
    (a) misconduct by a legal practitioner or firm in the course of engaging in legal practice, including –
    (i) wilful or reckless contravention of this Act, the regulations or practice rules that apply to the practitioner or firm or any other Act that relates to the legal practice;
    (ii) wilful or reckless failure to comply with a condition or restriction to which a practising certificate held by the legal practitioner is subject;
    (iv) unsatisfactory conduct that amounts to a substantial or consistent failure to reach reasonable standards of competence and diligence;
    (b) conduct by a legal practitioner or firm that is unconnected with legal practice but that would justify a finding that the practitioner or firm is not of good character or is otherwise unsuited to engage in legal practice;

    (b) ; Even though the fact that Wilson was an AWU employee makes Gillard’s misconduct worse, the fact that he was still a married man with two young children, would have brought her under the defininitions in this section.

    Had the equity partners of Slater & Gordon lived up to their legalobligations and reported Gillard to The Law Society of Victoria, at the very least IMHO ,she would have been struck off the Roll for these breaches alone, without including the subsequent crimnal acts she committed.

  3. hillbilly33
    October 5, 2012 at 8:01 am

    What can we do about it?

    Division 2 – Complaints about practitioners’ and firms’ conduct

    138 – Who may complain?
    (1) Any person may make a complaint about the conduct of a legal practitioner or firm –
    (a) to the Legal Ombudsman; or
    (b) to the RPA of which the legal practitioner or firm was a regulated practitioner at the time of the conduct allegedly occurred; or
    (c) to the Board, if –
    (i) The RPA referred to in para.(b) is no longer accredited; or
    (ii) the legal practitioner or firm was a regulated practitioner of the Board at the time the conduct alegedly occurred.
    (2) An RPA or the Board may make a complaint to the Legal Ombudsman about the conduct of a regulated practitioner.
    (3) An RPA or the Board must notify the Legal Ombudsman as soon as practicable after receiving a complaint under subsection (1).
    (4) As soon as practicable after receiving a complaint under sub- section (1)Legal Ombudsman must notify the RPA or the Board of which the legal practitioner the subject of the complaint is a registered practitioner.
    139.When may a complaint be made?
    (1) Subject to subsection (2), a complaint may not be made more than six years after the conduct complained of is alleged to have occurred.
    (2) The Legal Ombudsman, an RPA or the Board may accept a complaint made more than 6 years after the conduct is alleged to have occurred if satisfied-
    (a) that there was reasonable cause for the delay in making the complaint; or
    (b) that is otherwise in the public interest to do so.

  4. October 5, 2012 at 8:48 am

    Thanks Hillbilly33 – and even that seems strange –

    You have obviously expended a lot of time drawing the picture and then expressing it in the most eloquent of ways … well done. You’ll hear no objections from this blogger …

    Thank you for the input.

    Harry HD

  5. October 5, 2012 at 8:50 am

    Thanks again . sadly she won’t take any heed …

    People need a conscience to understand they have and are doing a wrong …

    Harry HD

  6. October 5, 2012 at 8:52 am

    When you say anybody – they have to have the evidence and knowledge to be able to explain the wrong doing and that falls to people within the AWU and Slater & Gordon. Kernohan had the documentary evidence and tried for 20 years to get it exposed …

    For whatever reason – it is just not that simple …

    Thanks again for the insight.

    Harry HD

  7. hillbilly33
    October 5, 2012 at 10:51 am

    Hi Harry. Thanks for your comments. Pressure is building rapidly as you’ll see at :

    http://www.michaelsmithnews.com

    This Legal Practice shot is only the first one in the locker. If necessary I’ll fire it myself. Wouldn’t be the first time! However, I think bigger things will overtake it but it’s an opening if nothing else eventuates. Thank you for accepting my post and we’ll see if we can get a few links going.
    Cheers H/B

  8. October 5, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    I take it you meant the Interview with George Brandis – well he is one of many lawyers who took up Politics because he was not good enough to cut it in Lawyer world – sorry HB, I like Mike Smith and think he got a raw deal at 2UE – his efforts to keep this AWU story alive are commendable. But using someone like Brandis to sink Roxon – neither have creditability and to give air to either does a dis-service to the debate.

    Roxon has shown us she is out of her depth – but Gillard has nowhere to turn – she can’t go back to McClelland. The whole front bench have turned out to be a bunch of handbag carrying fairies.

    I follow Mike Smith’s blog site and read his updates … there has not been much new Gillard/AWU scandal material there for some time – it’s also teh case with Pickering – where do you go when the media have moved on …

    The Australian’s Hedley Thomas was my hope – but he has only filed one story since late Agust and that was on the Wivenhoe Dam matter– I thought he was off doing some more deep research on the Slater & Gordon Partners …

    It will happen …. just gotta be on their case all the time.

    cheers – Harry HD.

  9. Meaghan G. Grant
    October 14, 2012 at 7:02 pm

    i wonder where i heard this before

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: