Michael McGarvie's wife works for Slater and Gordon and his Howard Bowles must know the trust accounting rules for funds passed through trusts for the deposit on a house. What do you think about this theory from one on the investigative reporters that Howard Bowles was 'spying on'?
ATO Commissioner asked for tax ruling on "the scheme Bernard cooked up" for GILLARD
Monday, 20 February 2017
Moments like this make it all worthwhile!
KC read our post yesterday about GILLARD and the "scheme Bernard cooked up" to provide her with a lump sum "loan".
Another of our brilliant readers and regular contributors had provided a professional tax litigator's view on the scheme/combination/conspiracy. Yesterday we published that on the website, today KC has dispatched this note to the Commissioner of Taxation.
Just magnificent work, thank you to all concerned.
Sent this off to the ATO (to whom I remit close to $900K a year). Be interesting to see what response I get.
Commissioner of Taxation
I write to seek a tax ruling relative to the apparent accepted practice of a corporation providing a loan to employees, and then, over time, forgiving the loan, as some form of incentive/bonus scheme to extend the time staff remain in the employment of the corporation.
This would appear, most easily understood in the practice of Slater & Gordon expose on
As a substantial employer I seek clarification from the ATO as to the clear precedent set by this established, if somewhat unusual method of remunerating staff whilst, apparently avoiding taxation obligations.
I would also seek clarification as to whether the forgiveness of this loan, over time, is also a deductable expense for the employer.
While I would understand that Slater & Gordon are a large and powerful law firm with deep connections into the body politic this country is still the land of the “fair go”. If this matter is known to the ATO, which I am aware has been brought to its attention, is the ATO turning a blind eye or at least is it determining no ATO fraud has occurred and payment arrangements, by way of a forgiven loan is not taxable income. If this is in fact the case it should be available to all businesses to offer a salary package with this type of tax free incentive included.
Feb 16 2017 at 11:00 PM Updated Feb 16 2017 at 11:00 PM
Print License article
Nationals fume as One Nation wins rural bank inquiry
Share via Email
Share on Google Plus
Post on facebook wall
Share on twitter
Post to Linkedin
Share on Reddit
Senator Pauline Hanson has won a deal for a Senate inquiry into rural banks.
Senator Pauline Hanson has won a deal for a Senate inquiry into rural banks. Andrew Meares
Share on Facebook
Share on twitter
by Phillip Coorey
The federal Nationals are fuming over a deal in which Pauline Hanson's One Nation will chair a parliamentary inquiry into the lending practices of banks to farmers.
The Nationals lashed out on Thursday, saying they were sick of being traded off against other third parties without consultation, as they were with the Palmer UnitedParty in the last term of Parliament.
The Senate Select Committee into Lending to Primary Production Customers was promised to Senator Hanson when she and her team first met Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in July last year.
Senator Hanson had demanded a royal commission into the banks but Mr Turnbull talked her out of it, saying a Senate inquiry would be quicker.
A One Nation spokesman insisted the promise was not in return for the minor party's support for any piece of legislation.
He said either Senator Hanson or Senator Malcolm Roberts will chair the committee, which will seek to call bank executives.
High bank discontent
Senator Roberts is no friend of the banks. He belonged to the international Galileo Movement and contends that international bankers are surreptitiously trying to gain global control through environmentalism.
The Nationals, who are under threat from One Nation, especially in rural Queensland where discontent with the banks is high, feel they have been undercut by their Coalition colleagues in their own constituency.
When the Senate voted on Thursday to establish the select committee, Queensland Liberal-National Senator Barry O'Sullivan boycotted the vote.
He, like his colleagues, believes One Nation will use the committee to steal the credit for the work that has already been done by the Nationals.
"The National Party has made no secret of the fact that we have been working long and hard on the issues surrounding debt loads and banking regulations in the rural sector," he told The Australian Financial Review.
"I consider this matter to be one of our most important 'bread and butter' issues we deal with in this Parliament. Good public policy takes time and there is significant work that goes on behind closed doors.
"I do not believe my government should support a new inquiry that allows the crossbench to jeopardise the work of the National Party."
Mr O'Sullivan suggested One Nation was given the committee in return for passing legislation, saying there was no problem with Mr Turnbull "reaching sensible agreements" to secure the passage of bills.
"But I believe Liberal Party ministers should first consult the National Party Senate team before doing any deals with the crossbench on issues that are traditional, National Party heartland matters," he said.
NSW Nationals senator John Williams, who has devoted his political career to hounding the banks, is believed to be similarly aggrieved. He intents to sit on the committee and fly the flag for hs party.
The banking industry, under constant threat of a royal commission and ever-increasing government regulation, is watching the inquiry nervously.
Share via Email
Share on Google Plus
Post on facebook wall
Share on twitter
Post to Linkedin
Share on Reddit
Banking Royal Commission a Shorten ‘tyre pumping’ exercise
16 February 2017by Mike Taylor | 0 Comments
The Federal Treasurer claims the major beneficiary of a Royal Commission into the banking and financial services industry would be Federal Opposition leader, Bill Shorten.
The Federal Treasurer, Scott Morrison has continued to deflect calls for a Royal Commission into the banking and financial services industry claiming it would only serve to "pump up the tyres" of Federal Opposition leader, Bill Shorten.
Speaking on television, Morrison argued that the Government's responses in the form of a Parliamentary Committee review, better resourcing of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and the involvement of the Small Business Commissioner were more effective than a Royal Commission.
"I think we have already seen from the Government's response, which has been significant, we have increased the resources for ASIC, we have increased the powers for ASIC, we have ensured that there is a greater transparency and accountability through the process with the House of Representatives Standing Committee," he said.
Home equity drawdowns threaten aged care funding
Tax practitioners get help for cloud tech regulation
Morrison said the Government also already had underway a review about more cost effective, affordable dispute resolution for bank customers along with the Small Business Commissioner working over many problematic cases.
"Now, why have I gone through all of that? Because that is actually getting outcomes for the concerns of people who have genuine issues with the banking sector," the Treasurer said.
"What a Royal Commission does is pump Bill Shorten's tyres up but doesn't give anybody anything if at all for years. So, that is a political exercise for a political hack."
"What we are doing is focusing on delivering real changes and on top of that we have seen banks respond themselves with their six points which they have been working through," the Treasurer said.
Australian Senate Enquiry into Australian Government Donations to the Clinton Foundation
Sunday, 04 September 2016
I have asked several Senators to cause our Senate to use its powers to order an Enquiry into the "pay to play" allegations concerning the Clinton Foundation and the Australian Government's donations to it.
Here is some of my submission.
Senate Enquiry into “Pay to Play” donations from the Australian Government to the Clinton Presidential Library
Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 5.28.30 am
Since 2006, the Australian Government has donated around $100 million directly to the Clinton Foundation, one of America's 13 Presidential Libraries.
The 13 libraries were established and are operated under the following US legislation:
Presidential Libraries Act of 1955
The Presidential Libraries Act (PLA) established a system of privately erected and federally maintained libraries.
Freedom of Information Act
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), enacted in 1966, generally provides that any person has the right to request access to federal agency documents or information.
Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act of 1974
Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA) applies only to the Nixon Presidential Materials.
Presidential Records Act of 1978
The Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978 governs the official records of Presidents and Vice Presidents created or received after January 20, 1981.
Presidential Libraries Act of 1986
The Presidential Libraries Act of 1986 made significant changes to Presidential Libraries, requiring private endowments linked to the size of the facility.
Executive Order 12958
Signed by President Clinton on April 17, 1995, Executive Order 12958 mandates a review of classified documents older than 25 years. Executive Order 12958 was amended by Executive Order 13292 on March 25, 2003.
Presidential Historical Records Preservation Act of 2008
Controversially, about 5 or 6 years into the Clinton Foundation's life, the directors of the Clinton Presidential Library began to exploit the privileges and to interpret the provisions which apply to all Presidential Libraries so broadly that the original purpose of the foundation has been obscured.
The Clinton Foundation was founded 3 years before Clinton left the White House by 3 citizens of the former President's home state Arkansas. Its statement of purpose and the approvals for it to operate as a charitable tax exempt foundation were the same as the 12 other Foundations established under the Presidential Libraries Act.
Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 5.51.30 am
During his presidency Clinton famously debated the meaning of the word "is".
He continues his presidential tradition of semantic debates with the Clinton Foundation's unique interpretation of what operating a "Presidential Archival Depository" means.
Initially the Clinton Foundation "honoured the legacy" of the Clinton Presidency.
Clinton extended the meaning of honouring the legacy into continuing the "work" of his Presidency.
By the time Clinton started soliciting donations from Australian taxpayers, honouring the Clinton Legacy included a range of dubious activities with suspect partners around the world - including lobbying foreign governments to assist Clinton Foundation donors to buy uranium mines and other continuations of the Clinton Presidential code of personal conduct.
Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 5.49.47 am
The Clinton Foundation is continuing the "work" of Clinton's presidency in ways that reflect the worst excesses of his time in office.
On 24 January 2001 the Washington Post delivered this lead editorial as the Clintons moved out of the White House, taking with them a substantial inventory of household goods including $190,000 of home furnishings solicited as gifts to order.
Count the Spoons
The list makes it sound as if the Clintons registered for wedding gifts: some $22,000 worth of china, including several gifts of about $5,000 each; about $18,000 for flatware, some in similar increments; $19,900 for two sofas, an easy chair and an ottoman; $3,650 for a kitchen table and four chairs; $2,993 for "televisions and DVD player." Denise Rich of New York, also a significant campaign contributor whose fugitive former husband Mr. Clinton pardoned in the final hours of his presidency, provided two coffee tables and two chairs valued at $7,375.
The list demonstrates again the Clintons' defining characteristic: They have no capacity for embarrassment. Words like shabby and tawdry come to mind. They don't begin to do it justice.
Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 5.11.27 pm
In addition to its $100M in direct donations, the Australian Government has paid more than $100 million for the purchase of pharmaceuticals from companies that have suspect financial arrangements with the Clinton Foundation.
Australian aid money was spent buying drugs from the Indian manufacturer Ranbaxy during the time when Ranbaxy was selling adulterated and worthless tablets that killed people.
Several shady Indian businessmen were made into wealthy shady Indian businessmen through Clinton's arrangements exploiting the removal of patents and other trade protections from expensive brand name drugs for delivery to patients in designated developing countries. While Clinton claims credit for "negotiating" reduced price lists for HIV/Aids drugs, the lower prices for HIV/Aids medicines were the result of World Trade Organisation negotiations and lobbying of many governments, notably George Bush's for the removal of patents protections and other competitive restraints on the importation of brand name pharmaceuticals into developing countries.
It is not clear why the Clinton Foundation has received so much Australian taxpayer funding when the legislation under which it is established precludes its own federal government from funding it.
Nor is it at all clear why Australian taxpayers should donate $100M to "honour the legacy and continue the work of the Clinton Presidency" when we have provided no money to honour the legacies held at these foundations;
Herbert Hoover Library
Franklin D. Roosevelt Library
Harry S. Truman Library
Dwight D. Eisenhower Library
John F. Kennedy Library
Lyndon B. Johnson Library
Richard Nixon Library
Gerald R. Ford Library
Jimmy Carter Library
Ronald Reagan Library
George H. W. Bush Library
William J. Clinton Library
George W. Bush Library
The exposition of emails in former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email server show the Clinton Foundation's role as receiver for the "pay to play" solicitation of tax-deductible bribes now developing in the United States.
Emails released just this past week by Judicial Watch include this intercession by "wjc" through his staff to his wife the Secretary of State, seeking special treatment for a significant donor to the Clinton Foundation.
A July 27, 2009, exchange of emails begins with Abedin advising Clinton scheduler Lona Valmoro that “wjc” (William Jefferson Clinton) wants special treatment for high-dollar Foundation donor and Dow Chemical’s CEO Andrew Liveris. Dow donated between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, making it one of the largest corporate donors in Foundation history.
To: Valmoro, Lona J
Sent: Monday, Jul 27 06:02:01 2009
Wjc wants to be sure hrc sees Andrew Liveris, ceo of dow tomorrow night. Apparently he is head of us china business council. Is he definitely going to be there?
Sent: July 27, 2009 6:03:54 AM
To: Huma Abedin
I will check. He declined our invitation to dinner tonight at State.
From: Valmoro, Lona J
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 9:24:08 AM
To: Huma Abedin; Narain, Paul F [Clinton aide]
Subject: Re: CEO of dow
Paul, Andrew Leveris, CEO of Dow Chemical, is going to be at the dinner tomorrow night. We would like HRC to see him, perhaps they can do a brief pull aside upon arrival. Huma, would that work for you?
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 9:24:55 AM
To: Valmoro, Lona J, Huma Abedin, Narain, Paul F
Subject: Re: CEO of dow
Yes pull aside on arrival
From: Narain, Paul F
Sent, Monday, July 27, 2009 7:56 PM
To: Valmoro, Lona, Abedin Huma
Subject: RE: CEO of dow
Lona, I have arranged this pull aside for on the arrival in the Hold Room across the hall from the ballroom, immediately prior to the Secretary’s entrance and remarks.
More than 50% of Secretary of State Clinton's meetings with parties from outside the United States Government took place only after the party had donated a significant sum of money to the Clinton Foundation.
Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 5.21.47 pm
Former Australian Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard were featured participants in New York at the annual Clinton Global Initiative. Bill Clinton introduced Rudd as one of "the smartest, most well read and intelligent leaders in the world today" to the crowd of global leaders in town for the UN leaders week around which the CGI is based.
In March 2008 Rudd was recorded whispering "let me know if there's anything we can do to help" to a fundraising Hillary Clinton in presidential campaigning mode.
One week before the September 2008 Clinton Global Initiative, Rudd announced an unbudgeted $400M white elephant called the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.
When Rudd appeared at the CGI that year he signed an MOU between the Australian Government and Clinton declaring a partnership with the Clinton Foundation Climate Initiative and the yet to be incorporated Global Carbon Capture Institute. The Commonwealth donated $10M to Clinton before December 2008 and that donation was "novated" from the books of the Commonwealth to the off-balance-sheet GCCI after its incorporation. Unfortunately for Mr Rudd, the Clinton Foundation reported the Australian Government as donor.
Hillary Clinton was Gillard's personal tour guide and interlocked fingers hand-holder during her 2012 CGI week of appointments in New York, paving the way for Gillard's post-retirement sinecures.
Clinton had 3 months left to exploit the pay to play cash generated during her term as US Secretary of State and her price was at its peak. 3 days before Gillard left for the CGI, Greg Combet announced the deal under which the Clinton Foundation would be paid $14M for work he'd already been paid for by the Rockefeller Foundation using systems, software and expensive purpose built platforms paid for by the Australian Government.
Australians are entitled to know where their money went, who sent it, what it was used for and why the Clinton Library is worthy of our donations.
Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 5.22.48 pm
The history of the unique US Presidential Library system
Short of death, a mid-term electoral disaster or impeachment, America’s heads of state lead the nation for eight years.
America has no castles nor formal dynastic succession with ancestral homes displaying collections through the ages.
America's Presidential Libraries are intended to be symbols of the country's egalitarian values and its government by for and of the people.
Without a hereditary monarchy, it’s America’s Presidents who mark out the chapters of America’s history as it happens. Presidents are tied to the big things like the December ‘41 date that will live in infamy, the 11th of September terror attacks and all the way with LBJ to war in Vietnam. President Kennedy inspired mankind’s giant leap to the moon and when Walter Cronkite announced that he “died today at 1PM” history froze for millions who’d remember tiny details about that moment in time for the rest of their lives.
Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 5.31.03 am
Like the layers of rock that hold earth’s history, each American President’s time in office captures unique insights into a chunk of the nation’s timeline.
It was President Roosevelt who first noted the amount of priceless historical material his time in The White House produced.
Roosevelt felt that Presidential papers are an important part of the national heritage and should be accessible to the public. He sought out expert historians, librarians, archivists and curators to help create an institution to house and display the artefacts of his time.
On 10 December 1938 a non-profit entity was incorporated with a charter to raise money for the construction of the Roosevelt Presidential Library to be built on Roosevelt’s Hyde Park estate.
An admirable element of the evolution of this program is the mandating of a private foundation raising private donations to build and fund the operations of each library. That important consideration means no politician should be able to direct funds to the personal aggrandising of a politicial fellow traveller or himself.
No US taxpayer funding has been provided for any Presidential Library. In every case, community-minded citizens have come together to create a not-for profit charitable foundation to raise the money to construct and operate the Library.
After the Roosevelt foundation's success, Harry S. Truman decided in 1950 that he, too, would build a library to house his Presidential papers. In 1955, Congress passed the Presidential Libraries Act, establishing a system of privately erected and federally maintained libraries. The Act encouraged other Presidents to donate their historical materials to the government and ensured the preservation of Presidential papers and their availability to the American people.
Under this and subsequent acts, more libraries have been established. In each case, donations were raised by a non-profit charitable foundation specifically established to fund the library. Once completed, the private organization turned over the libraries to the National Archives and Records Administration to operate and maintain.
Until 1978, Presidents, scholars, and legal professionals held the view dating back to George Washington that the records created by the President or his staff while in office remained the personal property of the President and were his to take with him when he left office. The first Presidential libraries were built on this concept.
The Presidential Records Act of 1978 established that the Presidential records that document the constitutional, statutory, and ceremonial duties of the President are the property of the United States Government. The Act provided for the continuation of Presidential libraries as the repository for Presidential records.
The Presidential Libraries Act of 1986 also made significant changes to Presidential libraries, requiring private endowments linked to the size of the facility. The US national archives uses these endowments to offset a portion of the maintenance costs for the library.
President Reagan’s Presidential Library is huge. It houses the actual Air Force One aeroplane from Reagan’s time in office
President Ronald Reagan often spoke of America as a “shining city on a hill,” and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library perched on top of a hill in California seems like a realization of that vision. The Reagan Library complex, with its huge expansion to house a decommissioned Air Force One, is by far the largest presidential library. At 240,000 square feet it is 90,000 square feet larger than the runner-up, the William J. Clinton Library in Little Rock, Arkansas.
Reagen's may be the most extensive foundation physically. But no presidential foundation comes close to the spread of tax exempt business operations established by the Clinton Foundation to raise and spend incredible amounts of money used to fund the continuing Presidential Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous Clinton Family.
The physical building is but a small part of "continuing the work" of the Clinton Foundation's operations. The opacity of its financial accounts make it difficult to match donations given to revenues reported, however it's easy to see the links to donations and the timing of meetings or other favourable decisions for donors.
In most jurisdictions, bribery or the solicitation or offering of a secret commission is illegal.
Establishing a scheme where a bribe or secret commission is a tax deductible donation would be likely to engage the interest of most national regulators.
It appears that it's possible for a country like Australia to engage the Clinton Foundation on an ostensible fee for service basis for a large and usually round number.
In return for the fee for service, the Clinton Foundation delivers a few photographs representing its shovel ready dealings in a 3rd world jurisdiction in return for the large round number from the funder, regularly that's Australia.
The potential for favours to accrue to the political approvers behind the transfer of taxpayer funds to the Clintons is an obvious invitation to malfeasance.
It may all be innocent. It may be that Australian politicians are uniquely naive to the possibility a global celebrity like Bill Clinton might have in his past indicators of dishonesty or an intention to deceive. There may be other more sinister explanations for the Australian Government to cause more meaningful inquiries into the obvious concerns swirling around the Clintons and our money.
Putting to one side the motivations, the facts about our money aren't in dispute. We sent it, the Clintons spent it.
$100M donated to the cause of consecrating a Clinton shrine is a very big taxpayer investment. Perhaps it's time it was delved more deeply into.
February 22 2006 - The Australian Government signs a $25M Memorandum of Understanding with Bill Clinton
Here are former Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and current Foreign Minister Julie Bishop signing the first MOU with Clinton and the second MOU expunging some of the uncomfortable recitals of the first.
Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 6.32.52 pm
This paper provides a summary of more detailed analysis of the $25M donation Clinton solicited from the Australian Government which can be found here.
Pavlova sittings, golf, wet T-shirt competitions and the millions Bill ...
Editorial - the lying conman behind the Clinton Foundation frauds on ...
Warning signs for Australia that Bill Clinton was way off the straight ...
Bill Clinton and Australian officials in CHAI multi-million $$$ fraud and ...
Bill Clinton's a lucky bloke, he might avoid a fraud conviction in ...
During the period under my review, the Clinton Foundation's "audited" financial reports showed that it maintained bank accounts in Asia, South America and Africa. Papua New Guinea was the most significant area of Australian taxpayer funded operations under the $25M MOU (PNG operations received $15M).
Contemporaneous with the start date of the funding agreement for the Australian funded PNG operations, the Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative -PNG Inc was unlawfully incorporated by the PNG regulator.
Under PNG law the lowest level of oversight for an incorporated entity applies to incorporated associations. The structure is typically offered to groups of altruistic citizens who can prove their members are jointly engaged in pursuits like children's washing children's football guernseys, judo, ladies lawn bowling or the creation of patchwork quilts and complex knitted garments. Laundering money through a patchwork of complex international transfers is an unusual reason for the regulator to allow incorporation, because as well as the low level of financial activity expected of an incorporated association, there is no requirement for it to lodge a financial return of any type to anyone. Ever.
The Clinton Foundation reported spectacular growth in its offshore (ie offshore from its home jurisdiction, the USA) accounts after funds commenced to flow following the incorporation of its clinton foundation association with the tea-club level of scrutiny in 2006. These amounts are drawn from a series of Clinton Foundation financial accounts filed at its early website.
Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 6.11.19 pm
The money held in those offshore accounts was not transferred from the Clinton Foundation's US entity. It was deposited and the accounts were operated in countries which share the dubious distinction of joint appearances near the bottom of the Transparency International corruption index. In many of these countries it's not unknown for regulators to eschew diligent law enforcement for financial friends.
The amounts above are what the Clinton Foundation reported as year end balances. Who knows what transactions took place or what bagman tours of the third world were conducted in between.
More details about the Clinton Foundation's offshore bank accounts and the specific countries are filed with the IRS, here's a screenshot of the 2005 jurisdictions.
The US IRS appears to take little interest in the incorporation of associations in PNG and their bank accounts. So Australians would hope their government's level of oversight of the Australian millions donated to the Clintons in PNG was closely examined for probity breach potential.
Unfortunately, the Australian Government seems to share the IRS disinterest. Our government routinely reports on its payments to the Clinton Foundation in a manner that discloses poor due diligence and lack of understanding about the donations the Foundation solicits.
The Clinton Foundation was a single legal entity during the period of our 22 February MOU funding 2006-2009. The MOU is imprecise as to the Clinton entities covered by the agreement, the Clinton Foundation appears in the headings and recitals, while Clinton (then a disbarred lawyer and not a fiduciary or authorised representative of either entity) signed for the Clinton HIV/Aids Initiative Inc.
The Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative Inc (CHAI) was a separately incorporated non-profit corporation which existed until dissolved by regulators for breaches of financial reporting legislation effective 31 December 2007.
The Clinton Foundation claim that the CHAI was merged into the Clinton Foundation on 31 December 2005 is false. A merger of two non-profit corporations requires the non-surviving entity to be dissolved, while some assets moved between the entities, the CHAI Inc maintained its registration as a separate trading entity and its directors remained as officers of the entity until its dissolution.
On 8 March 2015 Australia's DFAT sent me a statement in response to queries I made about Australian donations solicited by Clinton.
The statement reads:
“Former US President Bill Clinton signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Australian Government in 2006 in his capacity as the Founder and Representative of the William J Clinton Foundation. The MOU is a non-binding cooperation agreement with the intent to fight HIV/AIDS in China, Vietnam and Papua New Guinea. All funding arrangements are accompanied by specific legal funding agreements with specified outcomes, deliverables, budgets and conditions. No donations were provided to the Clinton Foundation.”
“All DFAT funding agreements are with Clinton Health Access Initiative - a separate legal entity from Clinton Foundation since 2010 – to deliver HIV/AIDS treatment to a range of Asia-Pacific countries.”
For your background, the “range of measures concerning transparency and accountability” of the Foundation mentioned in DFAT’s briefing document refers to an agreement between the Clinton Foundation and the US Government concerning Hillary Clinton’s nomination as Secretary of State. It bears no relation to the Australian Government’s funding agreements with Clinton Health Access Initiative.
Firstly to the "funding arrangements accompanied by legal funding agreements with specified outcomes, deliverables, budgets and conditions".
I have reviewed the Independent Completion Reports and other documents regarding the Funding Agreements DFAT agreed with the Clinton HIV/Aids Initiative Inc. It's significant that the ICR reports lament the absence of "specified outcomes and deliverables".
Here is my analysis of the ICR in respect of the PNG donation to Clinton.
The ICR paints a frightening picture of an Australian Government aid program that handed over more than $11M to the Clintons - and as the report says did it with:
no statement of project goal or purpose,
no clear Program Area objectives and
The Australian Government need not burden taxpayers with the cost of further enquiries to establish the nature of is donations to the Clintons. The Clinton Foundation exhibits the details on its returns to the IRS justifying its tax-exempt privileges.
The Clinton Foundation is explicit about the tax-exempt purpose for which it is authorised to do business - that is honouring Bill Clinton's legacy through a Presidential Library. Clinton's extension of "honouring the legacy" by "continuing the work" of his presidency is quoted on the Foundation's annual returns as the purpose for which the Foundation solicits donations. At some point the IRS may investigate and even revoke the extended "continuing the work of the Clinton Presidency" extension of the Clinton Foundation's authorised tax-exempt status, but as to the circumstances that prevailed during 2006-09 and continue to today, the Library and Clinton worship is the purpose for which each and every revenue dollar is received.
IN each of the years 2006-09, the Clinton Foundation reported that 100% of its revenues were donations made for the purpose set out in its authority for tax exemption.
Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 7.15.41 am Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 7.16.00 am
In those two questions filed with the Foundation's annual IRS returns, the Clinton Foundation confirms that every cent it received is a deductible donation (from the payer's tax, whether claimed or not) made for the purpose of honouring Clinton.
The Financial Reports also display to donors and the general public, including the Australian Government this precise definition of the way the Foundation treats any and all revenue.
Gifts of cash and other assets received without donor stipulations are reported as unrestricted revenue and net assets. Gifts received with a donor stipulation that limits their use are reported as temporarily or permanently restricted revenue and net assets. When a donor stipulated time restriction ends or purpose restriction is accomplished, temporarily restricted net assets are reclassified to unrestricted net assets and reported in the statement of activities as net assets released from restrictions. Gifts that are originally restricted by the donor and for which the restriction is met in the same time period are recorded as temporarily restricted and then released from restriction.
DFAT can put whatever spin it wants on the loose agreements that accompanied the millions we sent to the Clintons. The facts are that each payment of our money was solicited by the Clintons as a donation, was received and accounted for as a donation and the purpose for which that donation was paid was the very loose and arguable "continuing the work" or lifestyle of Bill Clinton's Presidency through a library foundation. That a poorly executed AIDS initiative in PNG is part of that purpose of praising Clinton is very much incidental.
The nett effect of the way the Clintons solicited and received our money is that after the period of time covered by DFAT's contracts was completed, 100% of our money was immediately released into the consolidated Clinton donations pool to be spent as the Clinton Foundation sees fit. One way it's spent our money is to employ people and contractors who've been assigned to the Hillary Clinton campaign teams, either at ostensible arms length or in many instances working within the Clinton Foundation. It's a concern that DFAT's misunderstanding of the nature of the Clinton Foundation and the matters displayed in the notes to its financial returns is so materially wrong - and that as a result Australia is donating money that it can't control and which is being used to support a candidate for election as President of the United States.
Australia's claim that Bill Clinton is the founder of the Clinton Foundation is false
One of Sydney's harbour ferries is the Dawn Fraser. The Australian swimming champion was honoured to have a small ship named in her honour, but she's never asserted rights to the ticket money or late night parties on board with friends.
The claim that Bill Clinton founded the Clinton Foundation is false - and his perjury and propensity to lie publicly and under oath are relevant factors in the Australian Government's assessment of its history of donating money in answer to Clinton's solicitations.
Like the other presidential libraries, the “William J Clinton Presidential Foundation” was founded on 23 October 1997 by 3 citizens from Arkansas. Bill Clinton was 10 months into his final 4 year term as President. During 3.25 years he had to run in that term he’d be impeached, charged with perjury, found in contempt of court and disbarred as a lawyer. Doing the legwork to create a foundation to honour his legacy may not have been his top personal priority.
Clinton’s perjury and disbarment disqualified him from acting as an officer or authorised representative of a US charitable organisation, so it’s an important background consideration in the context of the donations he has solicited from Australian taxpayers.
During 1995/97 President Clinton and 22 year old Monica Lewinsky maintained a clandestine sexual affair. Nine known sexual encounters took place in the Clinton family home and Hillary Clinton was present in the home for 7 of them. Lewinsky started out as an Intern in the President’s office but in April 1996 her supervisors transferred her to The Pentagon because of the amount of “time” she was spending with Clinton.
Ms Lewinsky confided her distress at being moved along with details of the affair to a friend Linda Tripp who also worked at The Pentagon. Tripp told Lewinsky to retain the gifts Clinton had given her and not to dry clean a semen stained blue dress. Ms Tripp also spoke to a literary agent Lucianne Goldberg who advised Tripp to record her telephone conversations with Lewinsky and Tripp started doing that in September 1997. Goldberg started briefing reporters about the Lewinsky affair but no media outlet would report the story.
Around that time Bill Clinton was being investigated over the Whitewater scandal, White House interference in FBI files and the sacking of the longstanding White House Travel Office who were replaced by friends of the Clintons. Clinton was also being sued by at least one former lover Ms Paula Jones.
In January 1998 Lewinsky told Tripp that she’d sworn a false affidavit denying her affair with Clinton for use in Clinton’s defence in court in the Paul Jones matter. Lewinsky asked Tripp to lie under oath about their conversations. As a result, Tripp delivered the tape recordings of her conversations with Lewinsky to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.
Goldberg wanted to sell books and she tried to sell the story into a range of mainstream media with the lurid details of the gifts, the semen stained dress and the recorded conversations. Still no main stream media outlet reported the story.
On 17 January 1998 a conservative website run from the home of its founder Matt Drudge reported that Newsweek was sitting on a story by reporter Michael Isikoff (a friend of Goldberg) about Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky. On 14 January 1998 the Washington Post followed up on the Drudge Report’s story. Reporting of the Lewinsky scandal became a very big mainstream story.
The story swirled in the media and as details emerged Clinton was under pressure to answer specific allegations about Lewinsky.
Clinton had sworn a deposition in the Paula Jones matter in which he denied allegations put by the Jones legal team of "similar fact" or "propensity" conduct on the part of Clinton with Ms Lewinsky.
The public wanted to know if Clinton could explain why Ms Lewininsky turned her mind to the Paula Jones proceeding swore an affidavit that supported Clinton but was at odds with the recorded conversations she'd had with Tripp. Or why Lewinsky asked her friend Tripp to lie under oath about her conversations regarding Clinton.But most directly, importantly, and problematically for Clinton was the request for him to explain the presence of the unique evidentiary DNA recovered from the contribution squirted on Ms Lewinsky's blue dress.
By 24 January 1998 President Clinton recognised the public wanted answers. And Bill gave them answers. Totally false but answers nonetheless.
At a Press Conference with his wife Hillary by his side and Vice President Gore standing behind him Clinton spoke about unrelated matters for a lengthy warmup, then looked down the barrel of the camera to deliver this famous statement:
Now, I have to go back to work on my State of the Union speech. And I worked on it until pretty late last night. But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.
On 27 January Hillary Clinton went on the NBC Today show to support Clinton lies with her own. ”The great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.”
Because Bill was dealing with this matter and the subsequent prosecutions, impeachment, fines, perjury charges and disbarment as a lawyer for 5 years over his contempt for court proceedings and the truth, Bill didn't have much spare time left to be the Founder of a Library.
Skip Rutherford and 2 other locals were the founders of “The William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation”, a “Presidential Archival Depository” ( defined in 44 USC Sec 2010(c)) incorporated as a Non-Profit Corporation by the Secretary of the US State of Arkansas.
The Clinton Foundation which Australia's DFAT says was founded by Clinton may have metastasised as a function of his influence, but he's not the founder.
In 1997 the 3 founding officers of the Clinton Foundation applied to the US IRS for registration as a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation exempt from income tax. The IRS formally registered the Clinton Foundation as a charitable foundation in 1998 and as of today the only purpose for which it’s registered to trade is the operation of the Presidential Archival Depository set out in the original 1997 application.
Because the Clinton Foundation operates as a 501(c)(3) charitable foundation, money it receives is recorded and treated at law as donations. A donation is a gift - while donations to a 501(c)(3) may be “tied” to a particular purpose, the recourse for those who make donations and later become dissatisfied is different from a client or customer purchasing a service or goods that turn out to be deficient. Likewise the Clinton related purpose to which the Foundation puts our donated money may be something vastly different from the intention conveyed to Australian taxpayers.
In each of the Australian Government’s dealings with the US based Clinton Foundation the Australian Government has donated money for Clinton’s Foundation to do with it what it will.
At the time Clinton personally signed the 2006 MOU with Alexander Downer he was not authorised to act for the US Registered 501(c)(3) charity because, unique among the presidents, he had a perjury finding against him and was a disbarred lawyer as a result.
Which entity did Clinton represent at the MOU signing?
Until 2013 William J. Clinton was not an officer or fiduciary of the Foundation. He was not a fit or proper person to be an officer of a 501(c)(3) from 2001 to 2006, the period during which he was a disbarred lawyer following court judgements against him for lying under oath. Nor could he represent or act for the Foundation under a Power of Attorney.
The “Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative Inc” (which marketed itself as “CHAI”, a very widely used and popular acronym) was incorporated in March 2004. It was registered with Massachusetts corporate regulatory authorities and operated as a separate discrete entity from the Clinton Foundation from a head office at 225 Water Street Quincy, Massachusetts.
CHAI applied for 501(C)(3) registration for the purpose of distributing HIV/Aids medicines and strengthening health systems but was knocked back. It was apparently never registered as a 501(c)(3) for that purpose. The US laws about charitable foundations is replete with cases where a charity sought to compete with the conventional business and trade of the free market economy, in particular in the pharmaceutical industry. Governments levy taxes on all sorts of businesses who could argue they act as a community good. Distributing pharmaceuticals with a tax exemption in order to undercut existing distributors of pharmaceuticals who pay taxes is not a charitable purpose in the United States.
It's a particularly odious basis upon which to claim tax exemption from US taxes when the major financial beneficiaries are dubious characters from India like the friends of the Clintons in the deadly drug manufacturing company Ranbaxy.
The sordid history of Australia's deals to 'facilitate' the Clinton Foundation's access to Asia
On 23 October 2003 The Clinton Foundation announced that it had negotiated price reductions for the supply of HIV/Aids drugs with the following companies:
Aspen Pharmacare Holdings Ltd., of Johannesburg, South Africa;
Cipla Ltd., of Mumbai, India;
Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd., of Delhi, India; and
Matrix Laboratories Ltd., of Hyderabad, India.
The agreement covered antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) for delivery to African countries and the Caribbean through the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative. Business for those pharma companies went through the roof.
Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 8.07.33 pm
Screen Shot 2016-08-15 at 7.39.06 amThat's Indian pharma executive and conman Nimmagad PRASAD on the right behind Clinton. Prior to the Clinton deal PRASAD bought a rundown Indian pharmaceutical company and renamed it Matrix Laboraties.
The deal with Clinton was very good for him.
He sold most of Matrix to the US pharma company Mylan and by 2006 had taken his initial investment of Indian Rs. 30Million ($500K AUD) to 5.7Billion ($110M AUD).
In 2012 he was charged with corruption and jailed for 17 months.
Ranbaxy's history is worse. By 2004 Ranbaxy was on notice of a formal investigation by the World Health Organisation over the sale by Ranbaxy of adulterated and worthless drugs labelled as the genuine article. In May 2013 Ranbaxy paid a record fine of USD $5ooM to settle the US Department of Justice criminal complaints. As the final US DoJ details settling the long running and very public case against Ranbaxy were completed, Bill Clinton jetted off to India to give what he thought was a private paid speech praising Ranbaxy and its executives. This is from the Indian Times, April 2013.
Screen Shot 2016-08-15 at 7.50.31 am
Australia is implicated in the Ranbaxy scandal. On 23 March 2013 a DFAT official wrote to me:
“Prior to 2013, a small amount of Australian aid money was expended on Ranbaxy pharmaceutical products in Papua New Guinea to support the PNG Government’s health programs.”
Media Liaison Officer
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
At least $100M of taxpayer funded Australian aid money has been used in the purchase of pharmaceuticals under a relationship established between the Clinton Foundation and the Australian Government in February 2006. That is in addition to amounts donated directly to the Clinton Foundation.
Prior to his jailing, the pharmaceutical purchases were explained by Matrix Laboratories Mr Prasad,speaking here to DNA India in 2009.
Bill Clinton "facilitated" the deals
Screen Shot 2016-08-15 at 8.10.17 am
After working his way forward from being a professional executive in a pharma company to a promoter of the pharma major Matrix Laboratories, Nimmagadda Prasad is now an entrepreneur with interests in multiple and unrelated segments. After handing over Matrix to Mylan, the focus now is on managing the investments with an objective of creating pancha ratnas (five jewels), Prasad reveals in an interview. Excerpts:
After handing over Matrix Labs to Mylan, you seem to have turned into a serial entrepreneur. Are you still with the pharma sector or is there any plan to diversify into new areas?
Yes, after Matrix, I started looking at various other sectors basically from an investment point of view. But, even during the Matrix days, I was keen on evaluating options in other areas. With that plan in mind, I had decided to create pancha ratnas (five jewels) for myself to invest. .....................
From being a citalopram player, Matrix has played its cards to ally with former US president Bill Clinton to sell anti retrovirals (ARVs) in some developing markets. How much revenue does the Clinton Foundation provide to Matrix?
The Clinton Foundation does not buy anything from us. They only facilitate the supply of drugs to affected markets by creating the necessary logistics. At a time when Indian products did not have much credibility in the market, the Foundation gave buyers the required confidence about the products. They had set up the distribution channels. They prepared the protocols for compliance and guided the teams in the affected countries on usage of the drug.
Do you discuss price with the Foundation?
Yes, even today, the Foundation negotiates with us on the price. But they don’t buy it directly. They negotiate the price on behalf of the governments willing to buy the product.
And Australia was there with more than $100M of taxpayer money buying often useless Clinton "facilitations".
The Clinton Foundation claimed in its 2005 annual financial return that the Clinton HIV/Aids Initiative Inc had been merged into the Clinton Foundation. That claim is false. The CHAI entity continued to exist as a separate registered corporation until it was dissolved by the Massachusetts regulator in March 2008 for failing to file financial returns.
In its 2005 filing with the IRS, the Clinton Foundation disclosed its relationship with the Clinton Foundation HIV Aids Initiative Inc (note the "Inc' referring to a separate incorporated entity).
Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 8.10.50 pm
DFAT originally described the MOU as a partnership with the William J. Clinton Foundation.
Australia was to provide $25M to be supplemented by Clinton Foundation funding for projects in China, Papua New Guinea and Vietnam over 4 years. Separate funding agreements were to be negotiated for each country/project.
Austender details record the actual contracts under the MOU as being between DFAT and the Clinton HIV/Aids Initiative with its address in Water Street, Quincy - i.e. the entity that was dissolved during the term of these contracts.
Independent completion reviews of the CHAI contracts were damning. The reviews reported there were no agreed outcomes established at the beginning, no performance indicators or milestones, no targets to be met before payments were made and no means to effectively monitor the CHAI in the countries in which they operated.
A $15M contract for PNG is reported as having a commencement date of 14 August 2006, however Austender did not publish details of the contract award until July 2010. The independent review of the contract found there was no clear start date, no agreed deliverables, and no document recording what the Clinton Foundation was to deliver and when.
In the second half of 2006 a young graduate from New York who was working as an accounts payable clerk in a compensation authority was appointed as the PNG head for the Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative. He had no experience in HIV/medicine/start-ups or PNG.
At the MOU signing in February 2006, Bill Clinton acknowledged the new PNG head’s predecessor Ruby Shang. Ms Shang was the head and only Clinton employee for not only PNG but of all Asia/Pacific operations for the Clinton Foundation. Simultaneously, Ruby Shang ran the family earthmoving equipment dealership for Caterpillar in Vietnam, Clinton operations in PNG, Indonesia, Vietnam and China that Australia was paying for as well as providing the Clinton Foundation’s climate change expertise.
Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 8.46.31 pm
PNG law requires registration of foreign entities or the incorporation of a PNG corporation before foreign businesses can trade or open accounts in PNG.
To receive payments due to it in PNG that second half of 2006, the Clinton Foundation somehow secured the obviously unlawful and improper incorporation of an incorporated association named the “Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative - PNG”. It was unlawfully registered by the PNG regulator even though no rules or objects of the association were produced, there was no evidence of a committee agreeing to nominate and authorise a representative to apply for incorporation and despite the unwaivable requirement for 30 days to elapse after an intention to incorporate was advertised (to allow for objections), the Clinton Foundation HIV/Aids Initiative Inc was incorporated on the day the application was hurriedly lodged.
ESET Smart Security 9 Activation Key 2017 Free Download
ESET Smart Security 9 Activation Key is the most vital for the activation of demo or expires ESET Smart Security 9. These username and password are collected from reliable resources for preserving time and revenue of students..These performing ESET Smart Security 9 License Key 2017 are deeply checked by specialists. ESET Smart Security 9 Username and Password is practical for whole safety of your Pc, Electronic Equipment, Laptops, Mac, and hooked up equipment. ESET-NOD32-Smart-Security-9-activation-code.png?resize=220%2C320 ESET Smart Security 9 Activation Key is also greatest for the Security of web searching, info sharing, on the net transactions, and password obtain. So, Download ESET Smart Security Most current variation and activate with given keys for complete protection.ESET Smart Security 9 Activation Key Free Download is greatest defense system. ESET intelligent security 9 mechanically switches to silent manner if any program is administered in entire-screen gadget updates and notifications are postponed to store methods for gaming, video, snap pictures or displays. It aids you to personalize the conduct of the system in more detail offers you the choice to specify hints for equipment registry.It is really light pounds software. Its set up is extremely straightforward. it is very uncomplicated to use ESET-Smart-Security-9-c.png ESET Smart Security 9Crack an all-in-just one protection remedy on the Laptop and laptop computer .ESET Smart Security 9 deliver proactive protection in opposition to all kinds of on line and offline threats and protect against Malware spreading to other shoppers. Entirely Shields in opposition to assaults on internet browsers, PDF viewers and exceptional apps, consisting of Java-primarily based. ESET Smart Security 9 will run in the qualifications and protects your Pc silently from assaults coming from the web and malware assaults. Its will allow progressed detection of long-term malware that employs several levels of encryption to hide its pastime. ESET-Smart-Security-9-Activation-Key-Username-Password1.png ESET Smart Security 9 Activation Key Free Download When performed, insert the Home windows installation CD or DVD and so on. into the travel and restart your. If you have the installationsetup image (of OS) burnt to an USB flash drive, then insert it and would favor to boot from that.What the spot you cant obtain the Activation Key for the Windows OS (Operating Process), or acquiring ended up that are privileged enough to have remembered to adhere it towards side of your device, how numerous do are not with their Microsoft office Key?As quickly as checked all of the components is performing in secure mode and that any configurations have earlier been altered are place back again to how these have been prior to restart your netbook. The moment you have performed this restart your computer system in normal manner and once again login with the administrator amount of.
Banking and rate protection.
Advanced universal overall performance while copying files (with LiveGrid enabled).
Firewall troubleshooting wizard allowing for a fast choice of issues because of firewall.
Allows progressed detection of chronic malware that employs multiple layers of encryption to hide its pastime.
It has provide 100% fully protection.
Blocking fine conversation.
Network signatures for regular malicious community conversation.
New application updates known as micro PCUs.
New licensing device that replaces the username and password.
made over installer for quicker and further dependable set up.
Even more secure verbal exchange with ESET’s servers (updates / LiveGrid).
Redesigned GUI added capability to reveal critical messages in the software’s GUI.
The documentation protected in model nine has been updated to apply ESET on line help
It has Advanced Memory Scanner.
Full Strong Vulnerability Shield.
Fully provides Botnet Protection.
For more info Click here
Tally ERP 9 Crack is a full remedy for the business associated works and management of the utility costs and with the distant entry it manage all stuff. It is the perfect small business management resolution for the organizations and businesses. The management of the software can be carried out remotely. The person can be employed which are qualified. Distinct possibilities are added for the management of the franchises and support facilities. The accounting, inventory, product sales, positions and payroll administration can also be accomplished. Tally-ERP-9-Crack-Activator-Serial-Key-Full-Version-Latest-Download.png
ERP 9 Serial Key is a wonderful utility and additional Explain Tally ERP 9 crack featuring its all of the figures featuring obligatory for specialised, superior-performance crack and globally organization management. Tally ERP 9 Crack + Activation Key Full version Down load may possibly be employed regularly that are you will have the ability to pay out lender and charges from crack home and wherever, what really should your company dealings expertly. Or get in contact with a accumulating crack posture report the document and get a print a replicate from your place later. Tally ERP 9 License Key continues to be prepared withholding you inside the thoughts. Its Influential crack connectivity helps make data available from your CA, workers alongside with other experts, round-the-clock, on any place. Tally ERP 9 can also be rapid to set collectively and permits incremental implementation. Tally-ERP-9-Crack-plus-Serial-Key-Full-Free-Download-2.jpg Tally Erp 9 Crack with Activation Key Full version could be an effective small business keep resolution mostly helpful for fiscal crack claims, vouchers, on top of that to retail providers. Tally ERP 9 include all-in-a person utility tools additionally to functions permits the customers to cope with their accounts, transactions, stock data, income and purchases in the easy to operate crack atmosphere. This Tally ERP 9 Patch is particularly developed applying all most recent systems to fulfill all requires of medium-sized crack corporations. Tally ERP 9 Induced was used by heaps of customers all around the world. Mainly because Tally ERP 9 includes all essential instruments to proficiently control the business. The major cause at the rear of this Tally ERP 9 to create your organization management responsibilities significantly easier that you just just can't think about. Tally-ERP-9-Download-with-Crack-2015-64-Bit-Full-Version2.jpg Tally ERP 9 Serial Key can make your existence Full less complicated and will allow you to raise the company effectiveness based on your satisfaction crack stage. This Tally ERP 9 delivers the best option for the enterprise business people about suggestions of functions, personalization, moreover for their more further crack connections. Applying this interface of Tally ERP 9 Crack & Serial Key Most up-to-date Update Down load Cost-free, you’ll have the ability to attain all of the offers and take care of business functionalism connected along with your get the job done industry. Tally ERP 9 could be a comprehensive helpful crack computer software if you are fascinated, you are going to have the capability to organize it. Tally ERP 9 Latest version is effective organization program which is employed in all fields of business like management, accounting, promoting, sale, Import and export. It retains report of all details, data files and slips. It is built to fulfil the requires of compact as properly as large small business and it is pretty speedy and trustworthy computer software. It is quick to operate and set up by everybody and make your business enterprise extremely uncomplicated. It is formulated by Bangalore Business and also utilised in India, Middle East and United Kingdom. erpben.jpg Tally ERP 9 License Key has great versatility and manual its customers how to management their small business and it covers all the areas in enterprise. It retains updating all info and information and gives you speedy result of your get the job done and allows its consumers to manage data from large length any where and at any time and transfer info from a single area to another. Thus person can view anything from everywhere and give big entry to its buyers.
Features of Tally ERP 9 Key:
Improved Look & Feel.
Excise for Manufacturers.
New Licensing Mechanism.
Improved Payroll Compliance.
Simplified Installation procedure.
Improved Tax Deducted at Source.
NET (to be read as Tally.NET).
Auditors’ Edition of Tally.ERP 9 (Auditing Capabilities for Auditors’).
Installation Process Tally ERP 9 Download with Crack:
In first step click on download option and download Tally ERP 9 free.
After downloading setup install installer.
Don’t launch until installation process complete.
Finished it is ready to run.
Hard Disk:60 MB.
Memory: 1 GB RAM.
Operating system: windows XP/7/8/2000.
Internet connection should be available.
Processor: Intel Pentium 4 processor 1.70 GHz.
For more info Click Here
Bb Flashback crack is a complex method created to aid you make online video recordings of your display as perfectly as procedure clips. It can be applied to produce video tutorials or animations, for occasion. The interface of the software is thoroughly clean and intuitive. BB Flashback Express 5 comes total with a developed-in editor that will allow you to annotate motion pictures with text and report a spoken commentary. Publisher edition can export to Flash and AVI formats so videos can be embedded in internet web pages and documents. 3eb9.png BB Flashback Express 5 License Key is a computer software pretty beneficial. This application has a dimensions which is really gentle, but its purpose is very useful is ideal for you who want to make a video clip tutorial on the Personal computer / computer. The organization, which will make the application began in 1997 as "Blueberry Consultants", tailor made growth in the generation of specially made software program initiatives. In the summer season of 2003 "Blueberry" develop and run the very first variation of BB FlashBack. hqdefault.jpg BB Flashback Professional 5 Full Version is known as a monitor recorder software package. This is a elaborate application . Its specifically designed to aid you make movie recordings of your screen . It utilized a quantity of distinctive recording systems to get the very best from PCs outdated and new. It can be utilized to build movie tutorials or Animation for instance. You can make also your notes at report time & edit them in playback. By getting this software you can simply history indefinitely. You can give limit the file size by preserving only the final couple minutes. BB-FlashBack-Express-5-Crack-Serial-Key-Free-Download1.png BB Flashback Pro 5 Free download It also supports webcam recording. As soon as the recording is carried out, you can open it in the tool’s media player and commence processing it. FlashBack Pro 5 crack is lets you to include textual content boxes, illustrations or photos, buttons, highlights and arrows. It also implement effects (e.g. blur), incorporate Zoom-Pan, transitions and a cropping/automobile-scroll region, spotlight the mouse cursor, as properly as edit the start off and close titles.
Main Features BB Flashback Pro 5 :-
Easy Interface to use
Record a window or region
Also Record audio from mic/speakers
Easily Record from webcam
Save to all major formats
Upload to YouTube
Add callouts and text
Edit audio tracks side by side.
High performance recording
Create compelling videos and presentations
It can provide you so many formats such as AVI,Flash, Quick time & MP4
1 GHZ Processor
512 Mb RAM
800 * 600 Display
8 Mb memory required, 64 Mb recommended
if you want more info Click here
Medium Neutral Citation:
Premium Green Batts v McTaggart  NSWSC 838
02 August 2011
Judgment for plaintiff against first defendant in the sum of $2,803,143.24. First defendant to pay plaintiff's costs on solicitor and client basis.
CONTRACT - contract for supply of insulation batts - failure by purchaser to perform obligations under supply contract - enforcement of guarantee and indemnity given by director of purchaser - claim made out - failure of defences - damages awarded in accordance with terms of guarantee.
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Premium Green Batts Pty Limited (Plaintiff)
Trevor Shane McTaggart (First Defendant)
Tarek Bhatti (Second Defendant)
J Horowitz (Plaintiff)
Trevor McTaggart (Self Represented) (First Defendant)
Swaab Attorneys (Plaintiff)
Trevor McTaggart (Self Represented) (First Defendant)
Judgment (ex tempore)
1HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff (PGB) imported glass wool installation batts from China and sold them in Australia. One of its customers (for all I know, its only customer) was a company called Aussie Home Saver Pty Ltd (AHS). PGB's case is that it agreed to sell, and AHS agreed to buy, a substantial quantity of batts, but that AHS has not paid for what was agreed to be sold to it. PGB says, further, that the first defendant (Mr McTaggart) guaranteed the liabilities of AHS to PGB, and agreed to indemnify it against loss.
2In these proceedings, so far as they remain to be decided, PGB claims an amount of about $2.5 million, plus interest, from Mr McTaggart pursuant to what PGB says is his guarantee and indemnity.
The sale contract and guarantee
3PGB provided a quotation to AHS on 20 October 2009, for the sale of 100 containers of batts per month (the batts being of a specified kind) delivered to Melbourne, for a period of three months. The payment terms stipulated in the quotation were for a deposit of five percent on order and for payment per container 14 days after delivery. On the same day, PGB sent AHS a proposed delivery schedule for the containers to which I have referred. The delivery schedule was later revised, but nothing I think turns on this.
4On 28 October 2009, AHS gave PGB its purchase order for the supply of the containers (100 per month for a period of three months) in accordance with the quotation. The purchase order was expressed to be "strictly per quote reference" (and there followed the precise reference given on the quotation of 20 October 2009).
5On the same date, AHS applied for a credit account. That application was signed by Mr McTaggart. He was then, and at all material times has been, a director of AHS.
6Immediately above his signature, Mr McTaggart certified to the truth and correctness of the information that was given in the document, and as to his authority to make the application on behalf of AHS. He said also that he had "read and understood the terms and conditions of trade" that PGB had furnished, and acknowledged that they were part of, and to be read in conjunction with, the application. He agreed further to be bound by them.
7At the conclusion, in bold italicised print and immediately above the signature of Mr McTaggart, the following words appear:
"I agree that if I am a director or a shareholder (owning at least 15 percent of the shares) of the buyer I shall be personally liable for the performance of the buyer's obligations under this contract."
8There is no doubt that a contract was formed by offer and acceptance through the mechanism that I have just described.
The terms and conditions
9The terms and conditions that I have referred to stated, in clause 4.4 that:
Time for payment for the goods shall be of the essence and will be stated on the invoice or any other forms. If no time is stated, then payment shall be due fourteen (14) days following the delivery date of the goods.
10Clause 13.3 of the terms and conditions stated:
If the buyer defaults in payment of any invoice when due, the buyer shall indemnify Premium Green Batts from and against all costs and disbursements incurred by Premium Green Batts in pursuing the debt including legal costs on a solicitor and own client basis ...
The guarantee and indemnity
11On 11 October 2009, Mr McTaggart, and another director, executed a document described as "Personal/Director's Guarantee and Indemnity". This document was executed after the contract for supply had been made but, on the evidence, before deliveries had commenced. The introductory words stated that the guarantees and indemnities were given "n consideration of [PGB] at the request of the Guarantor... supplying and continuing to supply goods and/or services ...". The description of the buyer was left blank but as a matter of construction it was obviously AHS. If any point had been taken that no buyer was specified, that could have been cured either as a matter of construction or by rectification. The document stated, in clauses 1 and 2, that the guarantor would:
1. GUARANTEE the due and punctual payment to Premium Green Batts of all moneys which are now owing to Premium Green Batts by the Buyer and all further sums of money from time to time owing to Premium Green Batts by the Buyer in respect of goods and services supplied or to be supplied by Premium Green Batts to the Buyer or any other liability of the Buyer to Premium Green Batts, and the due observance and performance by the Buyer of all its obligations contained or implied in any contract with Premium Green Batts. If for any reason the Buyer does not pay any amount owing to Premium Green Batts the Guarantor will immediately on demand pay the relevant amount to World Oyster.
2. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFY Premium Green Batts on demand as a separate obligation against any liability (including but not limited to damages, costs, losses and legal fees (as defined hereunder in paragraph (b) hereof) incurred by, or assessed against, Premium Green Batts in connection with:
(a) the supply of goods and/or services to the Buyer; or
(b) the recovery of moneys owing to Premium Green Batts by the Buyer including the enforcement of this Guarantee and Indemnity, and including but not limited to Premium Green Batts' nominees costs of collection and legal costs calculated on a solicitor and own client basis; or
(c) moneys paid by Premium Green Batts with the Buyer's consent in settlement of a dispute that arises or results from a dispute between, Premium Green Batts, the Buyer, and a third party or any combination thereof, over the supply of goods and/or services by Premium Green Batts to the Buyer.
12For greater precaution, the document stated that it was "executed as a deed".
13The case that PGB brings claims against Mr McTaggart, pursuant to his guarantee, for:
(1) the cost of goods sold and delivered, and for other charges incurred by PGB on account of AHS; and
(2) damages for breach of contract in respect of containers of batts that were procured to fulfil the contract between PGB and AHS, but which were not delivered.
14The issues raised by Mr McTaggart's defence, apart from putting PGB to proof of the ingredients of its cause of action, are that:
(1) the contract between PGB and AHS was varied in a way that had the effect of reducing the liability of AHS; and
(2) ownership of the batts never passed to AHS in any event.
15The plaintiff's evidence (which was relevantly unchallenged) satisfies me that it invoiced AHS for the deposit, and for so many of the containers of batts as were either delivered to AHS or made available for AHS to collect at Melbourne Port. It satisfies me, further, that in respect of containers of batts that were made available for collection at Melbourne Port but not collected, PGB incurred storage costs and other costs (both to the Melbourne Port Authority and to the shipping company) as detailed in its calculation of its claim, to which I will turn in a moment.
16Finally, as to the claim in respect of unliquidated damages for breach of contract, the evidence (again, relevantly unchallenged) satisfies me that PGB did lose profits on the goods that were not taken, the profit being calculated as the margin between the price payable by PGB for those goods to the supplier in China and the price for them payable by AHS to PGB.
17The evidence satisfies me also that, apart from about $75,000 on account of the five percent deposit, AHS has not made any payments to PGB, either for the rest of the deposit, or for such goods as were sold and delivered to it.
18It follows, subject to consideration of the defences to which I have referred, that PGB has made good the elements of its cause of action, and that it is entitled to succeed unless one of those defences suggests otherwise.
The defences fail
19The second defence - that property never passed to AHS - is one that I do not understand. The question is not whether, on the terms of the contract, property in the goods passed to AHS, but, rather, whether a contract for sale was made and whether it was performed or breached. In the ordinary way, the fact that this aspect of the defence was not addressed in submissions would confirm my understanding of its legal irrelevance. However, in this case, Mr McTaggart represented himself, and I do not draw any inference from the fact that this aspect of the defence was not addressed in submissions.
20I turn to the suggested variation to the contract. The difficulty with that is that in my view it is not supported by the evidence. It is common ground that a meeting occurred between Mr Azzopardi and Mr Xenos of PGB, and Mr McTaggart, in Melbourne on 16 February 2010. It is common ground that there was discussed at the meeting a proposal for AHS to reduce, and ultimately satisfy, its debt to PGB. Even taking Mr McTaggart's oral evidence as to that meeting at face value, (and putting to one side the fact that his oral evidence is in some ways inconsistent with the unchallenged affidavit evidence of Messers Azzopardi and Xenos), it does not amount to proof of an agreement to vary the terms of the sale contract. On Mr McTaggart's own evidence, it is clear that there was an agreement to negotiate a repayment plan, and that although elements of a proposed plan were discussed, there was no acceptance of a concluded position.
21That this is so is confirmed by an email sent by Mr McTaggart to, among others, Messers Azzopardi and Xenos the following day. There is no suggestion in that email that any concluded variation had been negotiated and agreed.
22Further, as Mr McTaggart conceded, AHS did not make any payment at all to PGB after the alleged variation was made.
23Thus, at the level of fact, I conclude that the defence relating to variation has not been made good.
Quantum of PGB's claim
24I said earlier that the evidence satisfied me as to the quantification of the components of PGB's claim. The first component is $23,752.50 remaining owing on the deposit. The second component is $1,243,623.87 for goods actually invoiced and sold but not paid for. I note that credit is included within that quantification for the resale of some of the goods once it was plain that AHS could not take them, nor pay for them.
25The next component is storage and disposal costs, incurred to Melbourne Port Authority and the shipping company. That is quantified at $432,473.
26The total of those amounts is $1,699,849.37.
27The claim for damages, being the difference between the amount payable by PGB to its supplier in China and the amount payable by AHS to PGB, is $844,734.76.
28I am satisfied that each of those elements is proved to the requisite standard.
29I should mention that in final submissions, Mr McTaggart raised a number of points based on matters that had not been pleaded. He noted that the deal (if I can call it that) between PGB and AHS was underpinned by the Commonwealth Government home insulation scheme, and that this scheme was first suspended and then stopped shortly after the discussions of 16 February 2010. That may very well explain why it is that AHS found itself in the position that it could not pay, but it does not seem to me to provide any defence.
30Mr McTaggart suggested that PGB had put its case together "very skillfully". I am not sure what this means except (as I have said) that every element of its cause of action is proved.
31Mr McTaggart raised questions as to whether PGB contracted with AHS knowing that AHS could not pay, and queried how PGB could continue to trade when not even the full five percent deposit had been paid. The only matter that is proved is that the full deposit had not been paid. The knowledge asserted is not otherwise made good. In any event, those things do not seem to me to provide a defence.
32Mr McTaggart raised a number of other issues, but since they were not pleaded and they are not supported by any evidence, I will not go to them in these reasons. It is sufficient to say that even if it were open to Mr McTaggart to rely upon the further matters that I have just summarised, when they were not pleaded, they do not seem to me to offer any suggestion of a defence to the claim.
33PGB claims interest. It has produced a printout of a spreadsheet calculating interest in accordance with s 100 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The contents of that schedule are agreed. It follows from the schedule that the total of the amount payable under the guarantee, together with interest to today's date, is $2,803,143.24.
34I referred earlier to the fact that the form of guarantee and indemnity included both a guarantee in respect of amounts payable by AHS to PGB (Clause 1) and an indemnity in favour of PGB for any liability (including for breach of contract) that AHS might have to PGB "in connection with...the supply of goods and/or services" to it (Clause 2).
35I am satisfied that on the proper construction of that document, the liability that Mr McTaggart undertook pursuant to it included not only a liability to pay the guaranteed sums due under the contract for sale by AHS to PGB, but also such other losses as PGB sustained "in connection with" the supply of goods pursuant to that contract for sale. Thus, I am satisfied that Mr McTaggart's liability under the guarantee and indemnity extends to all the ingredients of PGB's claim. It is accordingly unnecessary to consider whether (for example) the claim for storage charges and the like is properly recovered pursuant to the indemnity or pursuant to the guarantee.
36For the reasons that I have given, and at the risk of repetition, I am satisfied that PGB has made good its claim for judgment and that the defences have not been made good.
37The final matter to be discussed is the question of costs. As will be seen from Clause 2 of the guarantee and indemnity, and indeed from the terms of conditions of the guaranteed contract of sale, there is a liability to pay costs on a solicitor and own client basis. PGB asks that any costs awarded in its favour be assessed on that basis. That is its contractual entitlement.
38For those reasons I direct entry of judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $2,803,143.24. I order the first defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings and I order that those costs be assessed on a solicitor and own client basis.
39I direct that the exhibits be retained.
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
February 09, 2017
Presidential Executive Order on Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking
- - - - - - -
ENFORCING FEDERAL LAW WITH RESPECT TO TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS AND PREVENTING INTERNATIONAL TRAFFICKING
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. Transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, including transnational drug cartels, have spread throughout the Nation, threatening the safety of the United States and its citizens. These organizations derive revenue through widespread illegal conduct, including acts of violence and abuse that exhibit a wanton disregard for human life. They, for example, have been known to commit brutal murders, rapes, and other barbaric acts.
These groups are drivers of crime, corruption, violence, and misery. In particular, the trafficking by cartels of controlled substances has triggered a resurgence in deadly drug abuse and a corresponding rise in violent crime related to drugs. Likewise, the trafficking and smuggling of human beings by transnational criminal groups risks creating a humanitarian crisis. These crimes, along with many others, are enriching and empowering these organizations to the detriment of the American people.
A comprehensive and decisive approach is required to dismantle these organized crime syndicates and restore safety for the American people.
Sec. 2. Policy. It shall be the policy of the executive branch to:
(a) strengthen enforcement of Federal law in order to thwart transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, including criminal gangs, cartels, racketeering organizations, and other groups engaged in illicit activities that present a threat to public safety and national security and that are related to, for example:
(i) the illegal smuggling and trafficking of humans, drugs or other substances, wildlife, and weapons;
(ii) corruption, cybercrime, fraud, financial crimes, and intellectual-property theft; or
(iii) the illegal concealment or transfer of proceeds derived from such illicit activities.
(b) ensure that Federal law enforcement agencies give a high priority and devote sufficient resources to efforts to identify, interdict, disrupt, and dismantle transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, including through the investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of members of such organizations, the extradition of members of such organizations to face justice in the United States and, where appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, the swift removal from the United States of foreign nationals who are members of such organizations;
(c) maximize the extent to which all Federal agencies share information and coordinate with Federal law enforcement agencies, as permitted by law, in order to identify, interdict, and dismantle transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations;
(d) enhance cooperation with foreign counterparts against transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, including, where appropriate and permitted by law, through sharing of intelligence and law enforcement information and through increased security sector assistance to foreign partners by the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security;
(e) develop strategies, under the guidance of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, to maximize coordination among agencies -- such as through the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF), Special Operations Division, the OCDETF Fusion Center, and the International Organized Crime Intelligence and Operations Center -- to counter the crimes described in subsection (a) of this section, consistent with applicable Federal law; and
(f) pursue and support additional efforts to prevent the operational success of transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations within and beyond the United States, to include prosecution of ancillary criminal offenses, such as immigration fraud and visa fraud, and the seizure of the implements of such organizations and forfeiture of the proceeds of their criminal activity.
Sec. 3. Implementation. In furtherance of the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence, or their designees, shall co chair and direct the existing interagency Threat Mitigation Working Group (TMWG), which shall:
(a) work to support and improve the coordination of Federal agencies' efforts to identify, interdict, investigate, prosecute, and dismantle transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations within and beyond the United States;
(b) work to improve Federal agencies' provision, collection, reporting, and sharing of, and access to, data relevant to Federal efforts against transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations;
(c) work to increase intelligence and law enforcement information sharing with foreign partners battling transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, and to enhance international operational capabilities and cooperation;
(d) assess Federal agencies' allocation of monetary and personnel resources for identifying, interdicting, and dismantling transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, as well as any resources that should be redirected toward these efforts;
(e) identify Federal agencies' practices, any absence of practices, and funding needs that might hinder Federal efforts to effectively combat transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations;
(f) review relevant Federal laws to determine existing ways in which to identify, interdict, and disrupt the activity of transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, and ascertain which statutory authorities, including provisions under the Immigration and Nationality Act, could be better enforced or amended to prevent foreign members of these organizations or their associates from obtaining entry into the United States and from exploiting the United States immigration system;
(g) in the interest of transparency and public safety, and in compliance with all applicable law, including the Privacy Act, issue reports at least once per quarter detailing convictions in the United States relating to transnational criminal organizations and their subsidiaries;
(h) to the extent deemed useful by the Co-Chairs, and in their discretion, identify methods for Federal agencies to coordinate, as permitted by law, with State, tribal, and local governments and law enforcement agencies, foreign law enforcement partners, public-health organizations, and non governmental organizations in order to aid in the identification, interdiction, and dismantling of transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations;
(i) to the extent deemed useful by the Co-Chairs, and in their discretion, consult with the Office of National Drug Control Policy in implementing this order; and
(j) within 120 days of the date of this order, submit to the President a report on transnational criminal organizations and subsidiary organizations, including the extent of penetration of such organizations into the United States, and issue additional reports annually thereafter to describe the progress made in combating these criminal organizations, along with any recommended actions for dismantling them.
Sec. 4. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
PERPETUAL Trustees Australia has settled a High Court case brought by the brother of the late attorney-general Paul Landa at the eleventh hour, avoiding a potentially damaging judgment over its handling of a $15 million fraud case.
Mr Landa's brother Barry, daughter Sophie, brother-in-law Tom Sendro and the estates of his mother-in-law Klari Sendro and wife Anne, a noted philanthropist, lost about $6 million to the convicted fraudster Dominic Cincotta.
The court was due to hand down its decision today in the case in which Dr Barry Landa, a Vaucluse doctor, sued Perpetual for $2.7 million in cheques he says the company cashed despite knowing the Cincotta account was suspect.
The settlement is understood to be close to $3 million, but Dr Landa, when contacted last night, said he was prohibited by a confidentiality clause from commenting on the matter.
Other Landa family members are seeking $2 million-plus for losses incurred by Mr Sendro, Sophie Landa and the estates of Mrs Landa and Mrs Sendro in the NSW Supreme Court. It is not known if these matters were privately settled also.
Cincotta was sentenced to five years' jail in 2008 after pleading guilty to seven charges involving more than $6.5 million stolen from investors in Sydney and Coffs Harbour.
A mortgage agent, he had promised investors up to 10.75 per cent with Perpetual Trustees Australia.
Dr Landa won in the NSW Supreme Court, which found Perpetual had breached its duty of care by not establishing and following cheque guidelines.
He went to the High Court after the result was overturned in the NSW Court of Appeal. Perpetual Trustees were uncontactable last night for comment.
I interview Charles Ortel - FBI investigation and Australia's involvement in the Clinton Frauds
Monday, 31 October 2016
This is very very bad news for Rudd, Gillard et al.
Very bad indeed.
Charles Ortel is the Wall Street analyst who blew the whistle on GE. He is widely regarded as the man who has caused the current FBI investigation into the Clinton corruption and frauds. Their friends will be caught in that net. Many here in Australia.
Andrew Bolt Blog Posts
Why have we donated to Clinton's Foundation?
Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
October 31, 2016 7:24am
Why have Australian governments tipped money into Hillary Clinton's Clinton Foundation? That it gave Julia Gillard a job and effectively a platform to now spruik Hillary Clinton for president shows just how this very dodgy Foundation works.
The Australian taxpayer shovelled at least $88 million into the Clinton Foundation and associated entities from 2006 to 2014, reaching a peak of $10.3 million in 2012-13, Gillard’s last year in office.
On the Clinton Foundation website, AusAID and the Commonwealth of Australia score separate entries in the $10 million-plus group of donors, one rung up from American teacher unions.
In 2009-10 Kevin Rudd handed over another $10 million to the foundation for climate research, part of $300 million he squandered on a Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute.
Gillard also donated $300 million of our money to the Clinton-affiliated Global Partnership for Education.
Lo and behold, she became chairman in 2014 and has been actively promoting Clinton as president ever since — in a campaign video last December slamming Trump, in opeds trumpeting the next woman president and in appearances with Clinton spruiking girls’ education.
The Abbott government topped up the left-wing organisation’s coffers with another $140 million in 2014, bringing total Australian largesse to $460 million, according to a press release from Foreign Minister Julie Bishop.
Newest | Oldest | Top Comments
Jan 5, 2017
I am a self-educated constitutionalist who successfully representing myself on 19 July 2006 comprehensive defeated the Commonwealth on constitutional grounds that compulsory voting was unconstitutional. This because I am not promoting nonsense of any legal studies, politicians or the judiciary.
With the monies paid to the Clinton foundation and others it appears to me that each and every payment had to be authorized by a special Appropriation Bill and only for so far it could be used for public purposes that is for Australians.
Hansard 8-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. ISAACS.-I should hope that the expenditure caused by a bush fire would not be part of an annual service.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-Would it not into the Appropriation Bill?
Mr. ISAACS.-Yes; but not as an annual service.
Mr. MCMILLAN.-The annual services of the Government are those which we distinguish from special grants and from loan services. The difficulty is that we have got rid of the phraseology to which we are accustomed, and instead of the words Appropriation Bill, we are using the word law.
Mr. ISAACS.-A difficulty arises in connexion with the honorable members proposal to place expenditure incurred for bush fires in the ordinary, it would not be annual, and it would not be a service.
Therefore, if the donations/payments, etc, to some foreign entity was not part of annual services a special Appropriation b ill would be needed for teach and every time monies were paid out.
No such thing as ‘AusAID’ and/or ‘Clinton-affiliated Global Partnership for Education’ and/or whomever else getting monies that are not even part of an annual cost to a Department. Therefore, I view that the AFP (Australian Federal Police) should investigate matters and have those involved charged with defrauding the Commonwealth of Australia (so us taxpayers) and held legally liable?
Likewise so why did the Commonwealth Auditor-General not investigate these issues?
See for the balance of this post (too long to post) at my blog.
Will IRS investigate Australia’s donations to Clinton Foundation?
July 28, 2016
Will IRS investigate Australia’s donations to Clinton Foundation?
IRS investigators should dig into the millions of dollars of unresolved reporting disparities on exactly how much money Australian government agencies shoveled into the Clinton Foundation, Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee tells The Daily Caller News Foundation.
Clinton Foundation listings include contributions from the Commonwealth of Australia and the Australian Agency for International Development in a range between totals of $20 million and $50 million. The foundation does not provide the date of the contributions.
Even with the highest number — $50 million — in the range, however, there is a disparity of as much as $39 million with reports from the Australian government. Using the foundation’s lowest number of $20 million, the disparity could be as much as $68 million.
A September 22, 2014, statement by Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop said that “since 2006, Australia has contributed $88 million to [the Clinton Health Access Initiative] and its sister organization, the Clinton Foundation.”The $88 million figure Bishop claimed was contradicted earlier this week when Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade released documents under that nation’s Freedom of Information laws. The documents included a listing of 11 separate grants to the Clinton Foundation, its HIV/AIDS, CHAI and a “China Clinton Foundation” that totaled almost $71 million.
The disparity prompted Blackburn, vice-chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to tell TheDCNF that “reports have shown that the Clinton Foundation has failed to accurately report tens of millions of dollars in foreign government grants, including some while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.”
Blackburn said she first raised the issue with the IRS in a May 2015 letter to the federal tax agency’s chief, John Koskinen. Earlier this week, Koskinen told Blackburn that he had asked the IRS exempt organizations division to determine whether the Clinton Foundation uses a “pay-to-play” strategy in its operations.
Koskinen was responding to a July 15, 2016, letter carrying the signatures of Blackburn and 64 other Republican members of the House of Representatives.“This should be troubling to all Americans as it gives the appearance that there could be a pay-to-play arrangement between the Clintons and foreign governments while the interests of the American people were pushed aside. The tax-exempt status of the foundation should be reviewed immediately,” Blackburn told TheDCNF.
A variety of factors complicate resolving disparities, including the lack of precise dates and amounts in the Foundation’s published donor tallies, the variability in the official exchange rate between U.S. and Australian currency and uncertainty about the reliability of the foundation’s tax returns and consolidated financial statements.Further complicating efforts to resolve multi-million dollar disparities is the foundation’s longstanding failure to observe ‘good governance’ practices recommended by non-profit experts.A related issue concerns whether the Clinton Foundation complied with longstanding tax rules that require an exempt non-profit to get prior approval from the IRS for changes in its charitable purpose. The foundation was granted IRS exemption for the purpose of building and operating former President Bill Clinton’s presidential library in Arkansas.
Charles Oretel, a non-profit accounting expert, contends the foundation lacks IRS approval for overseas activities.
“The Clinton Foundation provides no credible evidence on its website (principle interface w the public) that it lawfully obtained clearance from the IRS to pursue international activities of any kind,” Oretel told TheDCNF.
“It also provides no consistent evidence concerning the extent of its foreign operations, or the financial consequences of these activities.
“Regarding Australia, the Clinton Foundation does not explain how much money it sourced from the Australian government, how it spent these sums, whether it registered lawfully to solicit inside Australia, and whether it registered in nations including China, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Papua New Guinea, to deploy donations from Australia and other donors in these places.”
A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation did not respond to a request for comment by TheDCNF.
Almost 4500 alleged abuse in Catholic institutions over 35 years, royal commission told
Contact via Email
Follow on Twitter
The extent of alleged paedophilia in Catholic institutions has been laid bare for the first time with a royal commission hearing that almost 4500 people have made claims of child sexual abuse over the past 35 years.
Data gathered by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse show certain Catholic orders had a high proportion of alleged abusers, including the Christian Brothers, the Marist Brothers and St John of God.
More National News Videos
Extent of alleged abuse in Catholic ...
Counterfeit Holden Commodore bonnet ...
Malcolm Turnbull's extraordinary spray
Pollies' perks under pressure
Why Labor is laughing at the PM
A giant sinkhole opens up in Sydney.
Sinkhole opens up near PM's house
What makes a great teacher?
Childcare, PPL changes announced
Extent of alleged abuse in Catholic institutions revealed
A royal commission hearing has been told that almost 4500 people have made claims of child sexual abuse in Catholic institutions over the past 35 years. Vision courtesy ABC News 24.
Francis Sullivan, chief executive of the Catholic Church's Truth, Justice and Healing Council, which assisted the royal commission's analysis of alleged abuse, became emotional as he addressed the packed public hearing before Justice Peter McClellan.
"These numbers are shocking," he said. "They are tragic and they are indefensible. Each entry in this data ... represents a child who suffered at the hands of someone who should have cared for and protected them."
Share on Facebook SHARE
Share on Twitter TWEET
Pin to Pinterest PIN
Francis Sullivan, CEO of the Truth, Justice and Healing Council.
Francis Sullivan, CEO of the Truth, Justice and Healing Council. Photo: Jeremy Piper
The commission heard between 1980 and 2015, 4444 people alleged they were abused as children in more than 1000 Catholic institutions however the true number of victims may never be known as many do not come forward.
"This data . . . can only be interpreted for what it is: a massive failure on the part the Catholic Church in Australia to protect children from abusers and predators, a misguided determination by leaders at the time to put the interests of the Church ahead of the most vulnerable and, a corruption of the Gospel the Church seeks to profess," Mr Sullivan said. "As Catholics we hang our heads in shame."
The average age of female victims at the time of the alleged abuse was 10, while the average age for alleged male victims was 11, the commission heard. The data showed it took an average of 33 years for victims to come forward.
Counsel assisting the commission Gail Furness SC said 1880 alleged perpetrators were identified in claims of child sexual abuse. Of the 1880, 32 per cent were religious brothers, 30 per cent were priests, 29 per cent were lay people and 5 per cent were sisters.
Share on Facebook SHARE
Share on Twitter TWEET
Pin to Pinterest PIN
Royal commission chairman Justice Peter McClellan.
Royal commission chairman Justice Peter McClellan. Photo: Jeremy Piper
The research examined 75 Catholic authorities over a 60-year period between 1950 and 2010, determining that, overall, 7 per cent of priests were alleged perpetrators.
Of religious orders with only religious brother members, the highest proportion of alleged perpetrators were members of St John of God (40.4 per cent), the Christian Brothers (22 per cent), the Salesians of Don Bosco (21.9 per cent), Marist Brothers (20.4 per cent) and the De La Salle Brothers (13.4 per cent).
The dioceses of Lismore, Wollongong, Port Pirie, Sandhurst and Sale had the highest proportion of allegations of abuse.
The royal commission will spend the next three weeks examining allegations of child sexual abuse within Catholic institutions at a public inquiry to hear from more than 70 witnesses, including five archbishops.
Over the past four years, the commission's private sessions have taken testimony from more than 2400 people who were allegedly abused in Catholic institutions.
Fifteen public hearings have been conducted into Catholic authorities since the commission started in 2013, with evidence from more than 260 witnesses including Australia's most senior Catholic figure, Cardinal George Pell.
Ms Furness described the testimony of survivors as "harrowing".
"The accounts were depressingly familiar," she said. "Children were ignored or worse, punished. Allegations were not investigated. Priests ... were moved. The parishes and communities to which they moved knew nothing of their past. Documents were not kept or they were destroyed. Secrecy prevailed as did cover-ups.
"Many children suffered and continue as adults to suffer from their experiences in some Catholic institutions."
The royal commission has made 309 referrals to police around Australia involving alleged child abuse in Catholic institutions, with 27 prosecutions resulting.
Dr Michael Whelan, a Marist priest and director of the Aquinas Academy, told the hearing verbal apologies for past abuse were meaningless without action.
"The most powerful apology we can make is to change," he said.
So why was Michael McGarvie's Board determined to use Gas Lighting to spy on Podesta's 501 foundations before the IRS Criminal Division proved Ravelo and criminals were in cahoots? Andrew Kogan should look into moneylaundering through lawyer trust accounts in case the mob rely on Catholics in McGarvie's Board to yank trust inspectors off from seeing files. TarotCard Tina's tip offs were scarey accurate.
Royal Commission: Vile extent of Catholic Church child sex abuse exposed in full
CARLEEN FROST, The Daily Telegraph
February 7, 2017 12:00am
4444 PEOPLE SAY THEY WERE ABUSED BY THE CHURCH
THE vile extent of child sex abuse within the Catholic Church has finally been unmasked with yesterday’s Royal Commission revealing worshippers now hang their “heads in shame” after decades of systemic exploitation within its ranks.
The Royal Commission into Institutionalised Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has identified 1880 alleged perpetrators along with 4444 victims who have come forward to report an incident within the Church between 1980 and 2015.
Ninety per cent of the alleged offenders were men — with the highest number acting as religious brothers, followed by priests and lay people associated with the Church.
Victims were an average age of 10.5 for girls and 11.6 for boys, with an average 33 years between the alleged abuse and official complaint.
ABUSE ROYAL COMMISSION: YESTERDAY’S LIVE BLOG RECAP
Francis Sullivan, CEO of the Truth, Justice and Healing Council delivering a message at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse yesterday. Picture: AAP
The figures were revealed by Senior Counsel Assisting Gail Furness SC and tendered to the Commission yesterday along with an in-depth report documenting child sexual abuse from 1950-2010. The report compiles data from a survey of 75 Catholic Church authorities — with priest members — and 10 Catholic orders whose members are religious brothers and sisters. It classes 7 per cent of priests over that period of time as alleged perpetrators of sexual abuse. The St John of God Brothers had the highest proportion of religious brothers who were classed as alleged perpetrators (40.4 per cent) followed by Christian Brothers (22 per cent), Salesians of Don Bosco (21.9 per cent) and Marist Brothers (20.4 per cent).
The highest proportion of alleged perpetrators who were priests came from the Benedictine Community of New Norcia (21.5 per cent) along with the Salesians of Don Bosco (17.2 per cent) and Marist Fathers (13.9 per cent).
All Australian archdioceses and dioceses were represented at the hearing by The Truth Justice and Healing Council.
Chief Executive Francis Sullivan cried as he told the public gallery the number of sexual abuse claims was “tragic” and “indefensible” and had left Catholics disgusted.
“This data, along with all we have heard over the past four years, can only be interpreted for what it is — a massive failure on the part the Catholic Church in Australia to protect children from abusers and predators, a misguided determination by leaders at the time to put the interests of the Church ahead of the most vulnerable and a corruption of the Gospel the Church seeks to profess.
“As Catholics we hang our heads in shame.”
The Truth Justice and Healing Council has proposed a national independent child abuse redress scheme to determine “fair and compassionate” compensation for abuse survivors. Under their plan, the scheme would be operated by the Commonwealth but funded by the institutions in which the abuse took place.
Protesters gathered outside the hearing at Governor Macquarie Tower to lobby for a similar compensation system for victims of sexual abuse.
The Royal Commission will continue over the next three weeks and include appearances from the most senior members of the Church in Australia including seven archbishops.
Yesterday parish priest Dr Michael Whelan, from St Patrick’s Church Hill, said he could not explain why alleged perpetrators did what they did.
“I know one family where two members of the family became male religious — one turned out to be a terrible paedophile and the other turned out to be a fine religious,” he said.
Also at the hearing it was revealed the chair of the Royal Commission had requested documents from the Vatican in relation to former Wollongong priest John Gerard Nestor which were refused.
The Holy See responded it was neither “possible nor appropriate to provide the information requested” and would only respond “in future to appropriate and specific requests”.
Dr David Ranson, Diocese of Broken Bay Vicar General, told the hearing he was invited by the Jesuit community to give a reflection on “celibate sexuality” in the early 1990s. Dr Ranson said he was later asked to speak to other religious houses on the same topic at a time that coincided with the “increasing revelation” of child sex abuse in the church.
He said during his workshops he “would put up different sexual fantasies, different scenarios that represented sexual misconduct just using different case studies. What I was trying to do was simply create all these different scenarios that were possibilities and to try to get people to understand what ... were the driving factors underneath this.”
WARNING - Graphic Content: Investigation of the secret crimes of a charismatic priest who abused over 200 deaf children in a school under his control the film shows the face of evil that lurks behind the smiles and denials of authority figures and institutions who believe that because they stand for good they can do no wrong.
Silence in the House of God: Mea Maxima Culpa
SO HELP US GOD
Proportion of priests identified as alleged perpetrators (1950-2010)
Clinton Foundation Being Investigated now by IRS, FBI & Intelligence
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Facebook1.5KShare to TwitterShare to LinkedIn13Share to Google+Share to More305
Blog/2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Posted Nov 4, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
Wikileaks has also revealed that the Clinton Foundation, which is the closest thing to a Racketeering Organized Crime Family, is being investigated by the IRS. However, sources also say that the FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation is far more serious than did she have classified info on private emails.