Menu
Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media is part of t...

NAB VICTIM

NAB VICTIM

In late 2008 we became vi...

Banking In Australia Today

Banking In Australia Today

Visit Banking in Austra...

Donate Please

Donate Please

We need your support. ...

Prev Next

Members Login

Get Connected!

  • Connect and expand your network
  • View profiles and add new friends
  • Share your photos and videos
  • Create your own group or join others

Recent activities

  • elliot Srgareta's letter To Whom it May Concern says American Express lost billions. www.rila.org/Public-Policy/Documents/Ohi...t%20to%20Printer.pdf

    Read More...
    28 minutes ago
  • What's unclear to the same Commissioner McGarvie and the CEO McGarvie? The landlord Jones wasn't evicted and Jones threatened to sue them for defamatorily inventing a cover up story to coneal the infomation they were handing out to owners of 'litigation service companies' of ex martial artists with boastful claims of their underworld connections. And the DEA arrested Ravelo's narcotics operation that passed Reserve Bank Australia info in the same "Antitrust" cases. And Justice Randall sacked the lawyers that semed to have McGarvie's backing.

    ws.com/retail-associations-join-forces-american-express-credit-card-fee-case

    Read More...
    49 minutes ago
  • Hearing comin up in the US Supreme Court soon.
    By AnnaMaria Andriotis and
    Brent Kendall
    Updated Oct. 16, 2017 3:51 p.m. ET
    3 COMMENTS

    WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court intervened in a high-stakes case for the credit-card industry Monday, saying it will review a government antitrust challenge to American Express Co. AXP 1.49% rules that bar merchants from steering customers to cards that charge lower fees.

    The court’s move marks the latest turn in a long-running antitrust case against the credit-card giant. At issue are the fees that AmEx charges merchants when consumers use its cards at their stores. AmEx’s card policy says that merchants that choose to accept AmEx cards can’t steer consumers to use cards on other networks, like Visa V 2.12% or Mastercard .

    Federal and state antitrust enforcers have argued the AmEx rules are an unlawful restraint on trade. AmEx disputes the allegations and says its rules are good for cardholders.

    The company appeared to have the upper hand in the litigation last year after winning a major decision from the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. That ruling reversed a trial judge who said AmEx violated U.S. antitrust law because it didn’t allow stores that accept AmEx cards to encourage shoppers to use cheaper cards.
    Related

    American Express Admits to Offering Worse Credit-Card Terms in U.S. Territories
    American Express Profit Falls

    “The earlier decision by the Second Circuit panel protects a consumer’s right to choose how they pay, prevents our card members from being discriminated against and promotes competition in the payments industry,” a spokesman for AmEx said in a statement. “With the Supreme Court’s decision to take up this case, we will continue to vigorously defend the Second Circuit’s decision in favor of American Express.”

    Retailers and states praised the Supreme Court’s decision. “Retailers have long said AmEx’s rules are an antitrust violation that deny consumers truthful information about their credit cards,” according to a statement Monday from the Retail Litigation Center.

    “The issues in this appeal involve anticompetitive practices that hinder Ohio consumers and Ohio retailers and merchants. We look forward to making our arguments before the court,” Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine said.

    The Justice Department first sued AmEx in 2010, one of the early headline cases for U.S. antitrust enforcers in the Obama administration. The Trump Justice Department, however, took a different tack and chose not to continue the fight. It declined to seek Supreme Court review and urged the justices not to consider the ongoing appeal by attorneys general from 11 states, led by Ohio.

    Trump officials said the appeals court made errors in ruling for AmEx, but nevertheless said the case didn’t merit high court review. The states disagreed, arguing the case deserved the Supreme Court’s attention.

    The justices agreed with the states. In a brief written order issued Monday, they said they would hear the case. Oral arguments are expected early next year and a decision is expected by the end of June.

    AmEx shares fell more than 1% Monday after the Supreme Court’s announcement.

    The stakes are high for AmEx. The fees it charges retailers are often higher than for other cards. Some merchants choose not to accept AmEx cards as a result.

    AmEx in recent years has been working on raising its merchant acceptance in part by lowering its so-called swipe fees. Still, a ruling against the company’s current policy could lessen the number of AmEx card transactions and related revenue. AmEx has said in recent securities filings that losing the case could have a material adverse effect on its business.

    Visa and Mastercard settled similar government antitrust claims in 2010, agreeing to drop their policies that barred merchants from using discounts, rebates or other incentives to encourage customers to pay with cheaper cards.

    Write to AnnaMaria Andriotis at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and Brent Kendall at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

    Read More...
    1 hours 3 minutes ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Grand Jury Findings US v Pulier & Waldron' in the forum.
    McGarvie's customers claim his staff lent on them before he wrote up that he din't know about it. www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.690416.1.0.pdf

    Read More...
    2 days ago
  • Charles Ponzi replied to the topic grand jury charges usa vs pulier walron in the forum
    It all came true, said Dennis Sgargetta to the Victorian Ombudsman and here are the facts as determined by a grand jury.


    www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.690416.1.0.pdf

    Read More...
    2 days ago
  • Jones claims Howard Bowles tried to enlist him to cover up Bowles' role in getting inside information on this case?

    www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/16/16-145...0Ohio%20v%20Amex.pdf

    Read More...
    less than a minute ago
  • Eliot thinks zbowles was spying on the pro Royal Commission groups, and News.com.au's eadline says the CBA shares fell because of the Royal Commission and the terror financing scandals. Do you think that opinions like that prove causation?

    nking

    Commonwealth Bank’s first half net profit to $4.74 billion amid Royal Commission and money laundering scandal

    THE Commonwealth Bank’s profits have fallen 1.9 percent in the wake of the AUSTRAC money laundering scandal and the announcement of the Royal Commission.
    AAP
    News Corp Australia NetworkFebruary 7, 201811:44am

    Video
    Image

    CBA half-year profit flat, revenue up2:31

    The Commonwealth Bank, Australia's biggest retail lender, says its half-year cash profit has come in flat at $4.87 billion. It's statutory profit was also flat, at $4.91 billion, while revenue for the six months to December 31 was up two per cent at $21.3 billion. CBA has declared an interim fully franked dividend of $2 per share. AAP

    February 7th 2018
    9 days ago
    /display/newscorpaustralia.com/Web/NewsNetwork/Finance - syndicated/

    CBA has reported its final set of results under outgoing chief executive Ian Narev.Source:News Limited

    COMMONWEALTH Bank’s half-year profit has fallen 1.9 per cent to $4.735 billion after Australia’s largest bank set aside cash for potential penalties in its Federal Court tussle with AUSTRAC.

    CBA, reporting its final set of results under outgoing chief executive Ian Narev, has made a $375 million provision for penalties that could result from AUSTRAC’s allegations of money-laundering and terrorism-funding law breaches.

    It also made a $200 million provision for what it said were “currently known” regulatory, compliance and remediation costs, which include the banking Royal Commission.

    “We have focused a great deal of effort on fixing our mistakes, and becoming a better bank,” Mr Narev said in a statement today.

    “We recognise, and regret, that these costs arise from our failure to meet some standards that we should have.”

    RELATED: What Royal Commission could cost the banks
    Outgoing CBA CEO says the bank has not met standards it should have. Picture: AAP

    Outgoing CBA CEO says the bank has not met standards it should have. Picture: AAPSource:AAP

    Mr Narev said the $375 million provision was a reliable estimate of the potential civil penalty related to the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre allegations that CBA breached reporting rules on more than 53,000 potentially suspicious transactions.

    Analysts have estimated the cost could be in the region of $1 billion.

    Pro forma underlying cash profit excluding the provision rose 5.8 per cent to $5.11 billion — narrowly missing analyst expectations of $5.2 billion — and the bank lifted its interim dividend one cent to $2.00.

    Statutory profit for the six months to December 31 was flat at $4.906 billion, while cash profit, including the life insurance business that CBA has agreed to sell to AIA for $3.8 billion, dropped 0.7 per cent to $4.871 billion.

    Net interest margin rose 0.06 percentage points over the half year to 2.16 per cent, helped by mortgage repricing to help sway borrowers away from interest-only loans.
    Matt Comyn; the incoming CEO of the Commonwealth Bank, has his work cut out for him. Picture: James Croucher

    Matt Comyn; the incoming CEO of the Commonwealth Bank, has his work cut out for him. Picture: James CroucherSource:News Corp Australia

    MORE: Drug and firearm dealers used CBA ATM’s, watchdog claims

    Owner-occupier lending grew 7.5 per cent in the 12 months to December 31, while investor lending inched up just 0.5 per cent in the same period as APRA limits on riskier loans continued to take effect.

    CBA also trimmed its exposure to apartment development amid widespread concern of oversupply to $4.06 billion, down from $4.51 billion in the prior half and from $5.24 billion a year earlier.

    Mr Narev, who retires in April, said CBA remained positive about Australia’s economic prospects but warned about continued market volatility that could affect the country — and the bank under his successor, Matt Comyn.

    “Market volatility remains a risk given ongoing global uncertainty as to the pace and extent of rate rises,” Mr Narev said.

    “Market movements over recent days highlight this risk.”

    Read More...
    1 week ago
  • The FSI Review was 2015. A year later as this article confimed the Settlements were at ridk, Shirley Joseph and McGarvie carried out their threats. Elliot Sgargetta was threatened with jail by Howard Bowles as they trie to get info on the Protected Disclsers in Mary Jo White's and Sean McKessy's SEC Office of the Whistleblowers. Is the Victorian Legal Services Board liable for tipping off crims before the IRS and DEA arrests?



    News
    Opinion
    Business Review
    National Affairs
    Sport
    Life
    Tech
    Arts
    Travel
    Higher Ed
    Media
    Property

    WALL STREET JOURNAL
    Visa, Mastercard emails put deal at risk

    Robin Sidel
    The Wall Street Journal
    Save
    Share on Facebook
    Share on Twitter
    Share on email
    Share more...
    Share on Google+
    Share on Reddit
    Share on Whatsapp
    Print this article
    X

    The discovery of a trove of emails between two opposing lawyers who are also close friends is threatening to scuttle a $US6 billion ($8.2bn) class-­action antitrust settlement between Visa, MasterCard and millions of merchants.

    Lawyers representing about 100 big merchants, including Wal-Mart Stores, Home Depot, and 7-Eleven, are expected to formally notify the card networks that they will seek to unravel the three-year-old pact, according to people familiar with the plans.

    Those lawyers are expected to take the same steps in a similar case involving a pending $US79 million settlement involving American Express and roughly the same group of merchants, these people said.

    The twist in the case follows a remarkable series of events that began when Keila Ravelo, who represented MasterCard in the antitrust case when she was a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, resigned from the firm in November.

    Shortly thereafter, she and her husband, Melvin Feliz, were charged by the US attorney’s office in New Jersey with conspiracy to commit wire fraud by setting up two dummy companies to fraudulently obtain more than $US5m from Willkie Farr, law firm Hunton & Williams — where Ms Ravelo also had worked — and MasterCard.

    While investigating the alleged theft, Willkie Farr discovered emails and documents that were exchanged between Ms Ravelo and Gary Friedman, who represented merchants through his own law firm Friedman Law Group.

    The two lawyers were colleagues at another firm early in their careers, but the merchants plan to contend that the communication between them involved confidential information and resulted in the merchants getting inadequate representation.

    Details about the lawyers’ alleged behaviour have trickled out in court papers in recent months as parties in the case have wrangled over viewing the lawyers’ correspondence. The Wall Street Journal reviewed hundreds of pages of court filings in the case, though thousands more are under seal by a judge’s order.

    Willkie Farr said it found “certain documents that we believe raise questions that appropriately should be discussed with the court concerning communications in which Ms Ravelo was involved relating to this litigation and other matters”, according to a February letter submitted to Judge Margo Brodie, who sits in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

    Mr Friedman represented merchants in both the Visa-MasterCard case and the American Express case. A group of merchants last week filed papers asking the court to vacate a $US32m fee “that has been awarded or (he) expects to receive” in the Visa-MasterCard case and return it to the settlement fund.

    One filing from the law firm that is now representing MasterCard says the disclosures from Willkie Farr “indicate that its former partner and Mr Friedman may have violated protective orders, improperly disclosed confidential information and otherwise made improper and inappropriate communications”.

    Ms Ravelo and Mr Friedman couldn’t be reached for comment.

    A spokeswoman for Willkie Farr also declined to comment.

    Read More...
    1 week ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Dennis Sgargetta at the Royal Commission' in the forum.
    www.scribd.com/document/335429767/Lsbc-J...to-Waldron-Sgargetta
    Why can't she find the complaint with her file Com-2015-038 where the IC Unit of the FBI was aware what was going on - the Special Agent's email address is on her file and her foreign government server. McGarvie's brief on 4th August 2015 carried out the plans to 'spy' on what US Feds knew from her own customers like Sgargetta-Waldron.

    Perhaps the most exciting moment of the hour-long opening session of the royal commission into the banking and financial services sectors was provided by Dennis Sgargetta.

    The hitherto unknown protester leapt out of his seat just as commissioner Kenneth Hayne adjourned Monday's brief session.

    Sgargetta started quoting the "ninth divine law" (the ninth commandment is "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" for those who don't remember their Sunday school lessons) but Hayne gave him little in the way of a response, merely repeating that the commission was adjourned and rising from his seat as Sgargetta continued.

    According to a handout Sgargetta provided to journalists after the hearing, he has a 10-year dispute with National Australia Bank over $299,000.

    But unfortunately for the gentleman in question, Monday's outburst might be as close as he gets to being able to put his case to the commission.

    In what appears a win for the banks, Hayne used his opening statement to make it clear that his commission will simply not have time to examine a swath of cases from the public, and will not be a forum to decide on unresolved disputes.

    Instead, the focus appears likely to be on settled matters, looking at why they were settled in the way they were, and how behaviour inside the banks and financial services players changed as a result.

    "We will have to proceed by reference to case studies and examples with a view to identifying the kind of misconduct that has occurred, why it occurred … what was the response to discovering the misconduct, and what follows from those conclusions," Hayne said.

    "In many cases, perhaps very many cases, the fact that there has been misconduct or conduct falling short of community standards and expectation has been established previously or is now acknowledged or admitted.

    "In those cases the commission must focus upon why the conduct occurred, what was the response by the relevant entity and regulators, what should have been the response, and what, if any, recommendations should now be made."

    Clearly these case studies and examples are likely to cover some potentially explosive ground.

    But the banks are likely to be dealing with known knowns – cases they have dealt with previously internally and, in some cases, that have been dealt with by the 73 other inquiries the commission will refer to in its work.

    Indeed, the breadth of work already done was emphasised by Hayne and his counsel assisting, Rowena Orr.

    Again, this will please the banks and big financial services companies, who have long argued that much of the ground that the commission plans to examine has been raked over extensively.

    Hayne and Orr also referred to the tight time frame of the commission – a draft report is due by September 30, with a final report due by February 1 next year.

    If Hayne is to meet this timeline – and he specifically said one of his key directives from the terms of reference was to be "expeditious" – then is seems inevitable that he will need to move quickly, and at a high level, over some areas.

    All of this – the time pressures, the focus on settled cases, and the warnings to the public that the commission is not, in Orr's words, about "adversarial litigation" – would suggest that the banks are not going to be dealing with a flood of aggrieved customers telling their stories day after day.

    The focus on processes and procedures around misconduct – how it was allowed to happen and what happened afterwards – should take at least some of the emotion out of the hearings.
    Still, a few warnings

    But while that may be seen as a win for the banks, the commissioner and his counsel assisting did deliver a few warnings.

    There was an admonishment over their concerns about meeting his looming deadline for more information on the misconduct examples they identified in their early submissions, which were delivered a few weeks ago.

    There does seem to be an early disconnect between industry and the commission here.

    Having told the banks and financial services groups to keep their submissions on misconduct over the past decade to just 50 pages, Hayne appeared frustrated that they now want more time to collect extra data for him.

    He also appeared frustrated to be presented with laundry lists of misconduct "rather than, as my original request had asked, by specifying the nature, extent and effect of the conduct they had identified".

    Hayne clearly didn't want to be buried in paper by the banks when the original submissions came back. Now he seems frustrated he won't be buried in paper fast enough.

    There was also a warning to the banks about trying to sue customers or staff for breaching confidentiality clauses.

    Hayne said the commission would take an extra interest in any cases the banks seem keen to keep quiet.

    Perhaps the biggest surprise from the commission's opening came with news that one of its first targets would be car loans.

    This issue was a big focus for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which went after BMW Finance in late 2016 over its responsible lending practices.

    It's certainly a worthy area, and one where there will be some egregious examples of high-pressure tactics and inappropriate lending. But compared to mortgages and financial advice, where life savings are on the line, it does appear to be a niche, rather than a key focus.

    Read More...
    2 weeks ago
  • www.afr.com/brand/chanticleer/banking-ro...ring-20180212-h0vy5e

    Perhaps the most exciting moment of the hour-long opening session of the royal commission into the banking and financial services sectors was provided by Dennis Sgargetta.

    The hitherto unknown protester leapt out of his seat just as commissioner Kenneth Hayne adjourned Monday's brief session.

    Sgargetta started quoting the "ninth divine law" (the ninth commandment is "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" for those who don't remember their Sunday school lessons) but Hayne gave him little in the way of a response, merely repeating that the commission was adjourned and rising from his seat as Sgargetta continued.

    According to a handout Sgargetta provided to journalists after the hearing, he has a 10-year dispute with National Australia Bank over $299,000.

    But unfortunately for the gentleman in question, Monday's outburst might be as close as he gets to being able to put his case to the commission.

    In what appears a win for the banks, Hayne used his opening statement to make it clear that his commission will simply not have time to examine a swath of cases from the public, and will not be a forum to decide on unresolved disputes.

    Instead, the focus appears likely to be on settled matters, looking at why they were settled in the way they were, and how behaviour inside the banks and financial services players changed as a result.

    "We will have to proceed by reference to case studies and examples with a view to identifying the kind of misconduct that has occurred, why it occurred … what was the response to discovering the misconduct, and what follows from those conclusions," Hayne said.

    "In many cases, perhaps very many cases, the fact that there has been misconduct or conduct falling short of community standards and expectation has been established previously or is now acknowledged or admitted.

    "In those cases the commission must focus upon why the conduct occurred, what was the response by the relevant entity and regulators, what should have been the response, and what, if any, recommendations should now be made."

    Clearly these case studies and examples are likely to cover some potentially explosive ground.

    But the banks are likely to be dealing with known knowns – cases they have dealt with previously internally and, in some cases, that have been dealt with by the 73 other inquiries the commission will refer to in its work.

    Indeed, the breadth of work already done was emphasised by Hayne and his counsel assisting, Rowena Orr.

    Again, this will please the banks and big financial services companies, who have long argued that much of the ground that the commission plans to examine has been raked over extensively.

    Hayne and Orr also referred to the tight time frame of the commission – a draft report is due by September 30, with a final report due by February 1 next year.

    If Hayne is to meet this timeline – and he specifically said one of his key directives from the terms of reference was to be "expeditious" – then is seems inevitable that he will need to move quickly, and at a high level, over some areas.

    All of this – the time pressures, the focus on settled cases, and the warnings to the public that the commission is not, in Orr's words, about "adversarial litigation" – would suggest that the banks are not going to be dealing with a flood of aggrieved customers telling their stories day after day.

    The focus on processes and procedures around misconduct – how it was allowed to happen and what happened afterwards – should take at least some of the emotion out of the hearings.
    Still, a few warnings

    But while that may be seen as a win for the banks, the commissioner and his counsel assisting did deliver a few warnings.

    There was an admonishment over their concerns about meeting his looming deadline for more information on the misconduct examples they identified in their early submissions, which were delivered a few weeks ago.

    There does seem to be an early disconnect between industry and the commission here.

    Having told the banks and financial services groups to keep their submissions on misconduct over the past decade to just 50 pages, Hayne appeared frustrated that they now want more time to collect extra data for him.

    He also appeared frustrated to be presented with laundry lists of misconduct "rather than, as my original request had asked, by specifying the nature, extent and effect of the conduct they had identified".

    Hayne clearly didn't want to be buried in paper by the banks when the original submissions came back. Now he seems frustrated he won't be buried in paper fast enough.

    There was also a warning to the banks about trying to sue customers or staff for breaching confidentiality clauses.

    Hayne said the commission would take an extra interest in any cases the banks seem keen to keep quiet.

    Perhaps the biggest surprise from the commission's opening came with news that one of its first targets would be car loans.

    This issue was a big focus for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which went after BMW Finance in late 2016 over its responsible lending practices.

    It's certainly a worthy area, and one where there will be some egregious examples of high-pressure tactics and inappropriate lending. But compared to mortgages and financial advice, where life savings are on the line, it does appear to be a niche, rather than a key focus.

    Read More...
    2 weeks ago
  • McGarvie told the Counterterrorism & Police politican he knew nothing, except the use of dodgy docs to spy on proscution people fits his modus operandi to a tee. www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/News/Media-Rele...process-needs-fixing

    Read More...
    2 weeks ago
  • McGarvie typed up words like "PAC". His customers say his staff said to report his plans to violate the 'economic esponage act' before he typed up his story that a landlord was evicted. Gas Lighting is so Soviet era.


    Recent Australian Government data - direct Clinton Foundation taxpayer donations total $130M
    Wednesday, 07 February 2018

    Gettyimages-56904918_0

    On 22 February 2006 the Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and Bill Clinton signed a $25M MoU triggering the first round of Australian donations to the Clinton Foundation.

    The CF recipient entity was the Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative Inc (CHAI). Australian due diligence failed to detect that the entity did not hold the necessary US authority to operate in the treatment of HIV/Aids, further that the entity was wound up by the Massachusetts corporate regulator effective 31 December 2007.

    By December 2008 the Clinton Foundation reported that Australia was its largest Western Government donor.

    In 2010 Clinton incorporated a new CHAI entity, the Clinton Health Access Initiative. The Australian government on its websites and in reports retrospectively changed the name of the entity it was contracting with from the deregistered HIV/Aids Initiative Inc to the new CHAI Inc.

    On 22 September 2014 in New York, FM Julie Bishop and Bill Clinton witnessed the signing of a new MoU with the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) "committing Australia and the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) to work together to transform access to health in developing countries over the next five years".

    The MOU "superseded" the 2006 MOU with Clinton HIV/Aids Initiative. Bishop's media release included two financial metrics - she said the new CHAI MoU

    "will support Australia’s $5 billion aid program"; and,
    "Since 2006, Australia has contributed $88 million to CHAI and its sister organisation, the Clinton Foundation".

    As at June 2015, Bishop's department (DFAT) was funding the following CHAI programs

    Vietnam ($4.65 million from 2012- 2015)

    PNG ($27 million from 2011-15)

    Indonesia, ($33.95 million from 2007- 2016)

    By mid 2016 Australian donations to the Clinton Foundation (and related entities) from DFAT alone had topped $100M AUD. A further $24M was donated ostensibly for climate change related CF programs - $10M directly by Kevin Rudd and about $14M by GILLARD. And new donations were still being arranged.

    On 20 October 2016 the Australian Senate's foreign affairs committee heard evidence from Mr Blair Exell, First Assistant Secretary, Development Policy Division in Bishop's DFAT.

    ...........from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, since 2006 the total (donation) figure is $103,392,042 to the Clinton Foundation and subsequently to an affiliate organisation called the Clinton Health Access Initiative, CHAI.

    On 8 November 2016 Donald Trump won the US presidential election.

    On 22 November 2016 News Limited was leaked a false and misleading news story about DFAT which ran under the headline:
    Australia ceases multimillion dollar controversial donations to Clinton Family charities

    AUSTRALIA has finally ceased pouring millions of dollars into accounts linked to Hillary Clinton’s charities.
    Payments to the Clinton Foundation continued along with new contracts with the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership.

    On 17 March 2017 the Senate's foreign affairs committee heard the following exchange:

    Senator LEYONHJELM: At the previous estimates in October last year I asked about the Australian government funding to Clinton related charities.

    Mr McDonald : Yes.

    Senator LEYONHJELM: I was advised that payments were continuing to occur to the Clinton Health Access Initiative and that $11 million was paid to this initiative in 2015-16. Then there was an article on news.com.au on 28 November last year which ran under the headline, 'Australia ceases multinational dollar donations to controversial Clinton family charities'. My question is: have any decisions regarding Australian government funding to Clinton related charities been made since the previous estimates?

    Mr McDonald : I do not believe so. I will check that on notice. I think when we discussed this last time there was one program continuing under the Clinton health initiative, as you mentioned, and that is the only one that I am aware of.

    Senator LEYONHJELM: There is a memorandum of understanding between the government and the Clinton Health Access Initiative from September 2014 which included collaboration to address malaria control in the greater Mekong region for the next five years, which would carry it through to 2019. Is that the collaboration that you are talking about?

    Mr McDonald : I am not sure that had any funding associated with it. I am fairly sure it did not, but I will ask Mr Exell to confirm that. As I said earlier, I am only aware of one that is still continuing with funding associated with it.

    Mr Exell : Just to concur with that. Yes, my understanding is that there was a broad memorandum of understanding signed. There was no specific dollars attached to that. The only active activity funding with the Clinton Health Access Initiative is in Papua New Guinea, and we have already covered that.

    Senator LEYONHJELM: Is payment on that program continuing?

    Mr Sloper : Yes, it is continuing. The program runs through in three phases. We are currently in the last phase, being 2016. It is in relation to HIV—for which, as you would appreciate, PNG has one of the highest rates. We have engaged with the Clinton Foundation, who have particular expertise in that area on the ground there.

    Mr Exell : Can I suggest that it is important to recognise the difference between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Health Access Initiative. The article that you are referring to referred to agreements with the Clinton Foundation, of which there have been none for a number of years.

    Senator LEYONHJELM: You may need to take this one on notice. You said the Clinton Foundation was zero. For the Clinton Health Access Initiative so far in 2016-17 what is estimated for this year and next year? If you have that handy; otherwise you can take it on notice.

    Mr Exell : We will take that on notice. I would make one other point. You referred to a program in Vietnam. That program finished in December 2015.

    Senator LEYONHJELM: That is interesting because I was under the impression that the MOU was signed in 2014 and it was for a five-year collaboration. Is that not the case?

    Mr Exell : Again, we are confusing the broad MOU between the Clinton Health Access Initiative, which had no dollars and no specific activities, versus the Mekong activity that you referred to, which was a specific thing. I will double check. I will take it on notice but my understanding is that program finished in December 2015.

    Senator LEYONHJELM: I asked you what continuing funding there is. If that is included then that is fine. If not, otherwise, it is just the PNG project, I presume.

    Mr Sloper : I can address the question of continuing funding for PNG now. Phase 3 of the three-phased project that I mentioned earlier is valued at $3,320,540. It is expected to run from 1 April 2016 through to 30 June 2017.

    Senator LEYONHJELM: That is the only continuing project?

    Mr Sloper : That is right.

    Senator LEYONHJELM: That implies that the Vietnamese one has terminated?

    Mr Sloper : That is right.

    Senator LEYONHJELM: Thank you very much.

    By my reckoning, that's a total of about $130M in Clinton Foundation donations since 2006.
    Here are some more details on some of the factual assertions in this post.
    2006 - 2009

    By the end of 2008, almost 3 years after the Downer/Clinton MOU was signed Australia was the largest foreign government donor to the Clinton Foundation.

    Screen Shot 2018-02-06 at 10.06.29 pm
    2009 - 2015

    On 22 September 2014 the total of our "support" was $86M according to Julie Bishop in this press release.

    Screen Shot 2018-02-07 at 1.05.11 am

    In June 2015 this briefing paper was prepared for a Senate Committee - it was later released under FOI.
    CHAI programs funded through the Australian aid program (at June 2015)

    The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (OF AT) funds CHAI in PNG, Indonesia and Vietnam.

    In Vietnam ($4.65 million from 2012- 2015), CHAI aims to strengthen medical care and treatment for people living with HIV, with a focus on children and mothers.

    In PNG ($27 million from 2011-15) CHAI aims to improve access to clinical treatment ofHIV, drug supply chain management and laboratory strengthening; and extend services to rural areas in three Highlands provinces.

    In Indonesia, ($33.95 million from 2007- 2016), CHAI aims to extend and improve testing and treatment for HIV in Papua and West Papua provinces.
    Australian funding to the Clinton Climate Initiative

    In 2012 former AusAID entered into a contract with the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI), a program of the Clinton Foundation, for activities addressing climate change. Following the 2013 Australian Federal election, responsibilities for climate change and for this contract were moved to the Department of the Environment.

    Total as at June 2015

    Screen Shot 2018-02-07 at 1.00.35 am



    By 20 October 2016 - $103M so far to the CF - just from DFAT

    Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee
    20/10/2016
    Estimates
    FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE PORTFOLIO
    Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

    Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

    Senator LEYONHJELM: Have payments from the Australian government to the Clinton Health Access Initiative and the Clinton Foundation ceased?

    Ms Adamson : I will ask Deputy Secretary McDonald to answer that question.

    Mr McDonald : There are payments occurring at the moment, yes.

    Senator LEYONHJELM: On what date was the most recent payment made?

    Mr McDonald : When I say 'payment', I should clarify. There is an agreement in place for work in PNG. I will clarify whether the payment has actually been made. There is an arrangement in place for further work with—it is not called the Clinton Foundation. I will give you the exact name as well.

    Senator LEYONHJELM: How much has been paid to the foundation so far?

    Mr McDonald : Mr Exell could provide that.

    Mr Exell : Since 2006 there have been a number of agreements with activities in a range of countries. I cannot provide a figure across Australia entirely. Certainly, from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, since 2006 the total figure is $103,392,042 to the Clinton Foundation and subsequently to an affiliate organisation called the Clinton Health Access Initiative, CHAI.

    28 November 2016 - News reports - Australian Government has stopped payments to Clinton Foundation

    Screen Shot 2018-02-07 at 1.24.05 am

    AUSTRALIA has finally ceased pouring millions of dollars into accounts linked to Hillary Clinton’s charities.

    Which might make you wonder: Why were we donating to them in the first place?

    The federal government confirmed to news.com.au it has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million.

    The Clinton Foundation has a rocky past. It was described as “a slush fund”, is still at the centre of an FBI investigation and was revealed to have spent more than $50 million on travel.

    ENDS

    2 March 2017 hearing of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee

    Senator LEYONHJELM: I asked you what continuing funding there is. If that is included then that is fine. If not, otherwise, it is just the PNG project, I presume.

    Mr Sloper: I can address the question of continuing funding for PNG now. Phase 3 of the three-phased project that I mentioned earlier is valued at $3,320,540. It is expected to run from 1 April 2016 through to 30 June 2017.

    More on Rudd and Gillard's suspect $10M and $14M donations soon.

    Read More...
    3 weeks ago
  • The Pink Batts Green Loans scandal arises from .... a filing cabinet full of Cabinet's secrets.

    www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/...ort-in-cabinet-files

    Read More...
    3 weeks ago
  • FinCen's helpline contact details are here www.fincen.gov/news-room/enforcement-actions and the Australian newspaper say Fincen has 511 pages two years ago. McGarvie's letter dated 4 August 2015 even refers to the first victim of Fincen's elliot ness squad, Al Capone.

    looks like McGarvie and Gadens Ms Minassian don't like Fincen Geoffrey Graber's thinking or Racketeering laws on cabals of foreign officials and bankers and lawyers.

    Read More...
    3 weeks ago

News

Major Topics

Helpful Resources

Socialize

About Us