Menu
Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media

Cuzz Media is part of the...

NAB VICTIM

NAB VICTIM

In late 2008 we became vi...

Banking In Australia Today

Banking In Australia Today

View Banking in Australia...

Prev Next

About Me

Basic Information

  • Gender

  • Birthdate

    1956-12-19
  • About me

    Charles Ponzi sent me.

Contact Information

Education

Friends

    No friends yet

Groups

No joined groups.
Charles Ponzi

Charles Ponzi

  • Karma
  • Member since
    Sunday, 30 August 2015 04:33
  • Last online
    5 days ago
  • Profile views
    2,005 views

About Me

Basic Information

  • Gender

  • Birthdate

    1956-12-19
  • About me

    Charles Ponzi sent me.

Contact Information

Education

Friends

    No friends yet

Groups

No joined groups.
  • Writes Michael Smith News: These emails from the ABC tell the story of its refusal to report on Gillard and the AWU Scandal
    Wednesday, 05 April 2017

    Julia-gillard-bruce-wilson

    Last Friday I wrote about 4 Corners and its Pauline Hanson expose - here's a recap:

    4Corners is a very expensive national asset. It's not the plaything of the ABC's staff collective.

    The promo (for the Pauline Hanson expose) could equally have been written featuring Bob Kernohan and others in 2012 regarding Gillard and her secretive deals with the AWU.
    I know that 4Corners people set to work on a story regarding Gillard and the AWU Scandal in late 2012.

    I know people like Bob Kernohan were spoken to.

    In the end, the story of the prime minister who was under police investigation for fraud was canned.

    And as the ABC decided to drop the story on Gillard, Gillard gave them an extra $190M of our money.


    On Monday 19 November 2012 Jonathon Holmes in his Media Watch program nailed the issues - and confirmed discussions I'd had with him and the 4 Corners program.

    EPISODE 41, 19 NOVEMBER 2012
    News values, priorities and politics

    Has the ABC gone missing in action on a story that might bring down the Prime Minister? Or is it treating the story on its merits?

    .........the story is not going away. And my bet is that the ABC’s investigative programs can’t, and won’t, ignore it for much longer.



    I don't know how many people contacted the ABC calling for 4 Corners to devote a program to Pauline Hanson.

    I doubt it was as many as wrote asking for it to devote time and resources to The AWU Scandal.

    In October 2012 one of our readers complained about the lack of coverage.

    On 23 October 2012 the ABC's Canberra based news editor made this incredible reply - read it in the context of the time, resources and promotion given to the Hanson piece.

    From: John Mulhall <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

    To:

    Sent: Tuesday, 23 October 2012 2:08 PM

    Subject: ABC News query



    Dear Mr,

    Thank you for your email regarding Mr Blewitt's statements. The ABC is aware of these statements but we do not at this stage believe it warrants the attention of our news coverage.

    To the extent that it may touch tangentially on a former role of the Prime Minister, we know The Australian newspaper maintains an abiding interest in events 17 years ago at the law firm Slater and Gordon, but the ABC is unaware of any allegation in the public domain which goes to the Prime Minister's integrity. If indeed Ms Gillard has had questions to answer, ABC News reported those answers from her lengthy media conference of 24/8/12 in which she exhausted all questions on the issue.

    However, if any allegation is ever raised which might go to the Prime Minister's integrity, the ABC would of course make inquiries into it and seek to report it. As for matters concerning Mr Bruce Wilson, ABC News will cover the case against him as it proceeds.

    Once again thank you for your query.

    Best regards,

    John Mulhall

    ACT News Editor, ABC News

    This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

    After we published that missive our readers hit their keyboards and biros in droves.

    But beyond putting Bruce Wilson up (to say Gillard knew nothing) followed by Blewitt and Styant Browne on the 730 program, the ABC delivered very little coverage.

    When Victoria Police detectives flew to Queensland to interview Olive Brosnahan - the ABC reported nothing.

    When the Operation Tendement task force was set up - the ABC reported nothing.

    When the Fraud Squad raided Gillard's office on 15 May 2013 - the ABC reported nothing.

    On 17 June 2013 The Australia reported on the warrant - and the Victoria Police statement that issues of client legal professional privilege over some documents "should be cleared up within two weeks".

    The ABC reported nothing. Again our readers hit the emails and letters.

    On 19 June 2013 one of our readers received an emailed response from the ABC. Keep in mind Gillard was then PM and the police were preparing to argue that all the documents created by her and seized in the raid were created in the furtherance of fraud (which was the finding of the Chief Magistrate when he adjudicated on the matter).


    Original Message
    From: News-On1ine
    Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 10:01 AM
    To:
    Subject: RE: Victoria Police Raid on Slater and Gordon

    Dear Mr

    Thank you for your email.

    The ABC was aware that an alleged raid had occurred. However, we were unable to confirm

    it had happened and therefore, we did not report it.

    Kind regards

    ABC News Online

    Later in June, the Gillard Government made this announcement of $190M in extra funding for the ABC:
    Funding

    The ABC is primarily financed by the federal government through triennial funding arrangements. In the 2013-14 Budget, the government is providing the ABC with an additional $30 million over three years to meet the growing demand for its digital services. The ABC will also receive $69.4 million over four years from 2012-13 to expand its news and current affairs services. In addition, the government will provide a loan of $90 million over three years to the ABC to assist with the construction of a purpose-built ABC facility at Southbank, Melbourne.

    In 2013-14, government funding to the ABC will total $1.05 billion.


    July, August, September - nothing.

    Nothing as the privilege case worked its way through the courts.

    By September we were facing the Abbott election. And still nothing from the ABC.

    One of our readers wrote to the ABC and passed the note on to me:

    Date : 2-4/09/2013

    Contact type: Complaint

    Location: VIC



    Subject: Police Investigation into three people including J Gillard.

    Comments: I would like to know why the ABC has not reported the following information:

    1. Police removed boxes of evidence from Slater and Gordon in May, as a result of a search warrant that names Julia Gillard as a person of interest.

    2. Police have confirmed in writing that Julia Gillard is under investigation for her role in a Fraud. Copies of this document are publicly available!

    3.Police will be in Court on October 16 and will be asserting that Julia Gillard created documents that were created in furtherance of a fraud and will be seeking to use those documents to pursue the conviction of people, including possibly Julia Gillard herself.

    In summary; what the hell is wrong with you people? Why is it that you are deliberately avoiding reporting this issue, a matter of significant public interest? Why did you quickly end the coverage on live TV this week when Rudd was asked by a reporter about the matter? When is your recalcitrance on this issue going to end and when can we expect some factual reportage in exchange for our dollar ?

    Finally, can you PLEASE assure me that you will have a reporter in Court on October 16 to provide the community with factual reporting on the matter? As the best resourced news organisation in the Southern Hemisphere I think this is the least you can do!

    Network - Other

    RecipientName - Audience & Consumer Affairs Referer - Complaint


    The ABC's news and current affairs (which houses 4Corners) honcho replied.

    From: News Caff [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]
    Sent: Monday, 16 September 2013 2:12 PM
    To:
    Subject: Police Investigation into three people including J Gillard.

    Dear M

    Thank you for your email regarding investigations being conducted by Victoria Police.

    It is a matter of public record that some form of investigation is underway. We know this because the ABC extensively reported the fact that Ralph Blewitt and others took information to the Police.

    Beyond this, there are few confirmed facts which would reach the threshold of ABC editorial standards for reporting. We accept that other media may operate to a different standard, but we do not intend to compromise our own.

    Reporting that the (then) Prime Minister of the nation is under police investigation is an enormously significant call to make. It cannot be made on supposition, on rumour, or on hearsay.

    You have said that Vic Pol have confirmed this in writing, but we have not cited this media release or public communication. According to The Australian they’ve been collecting files but you would expect any Police investigation to gather up this sort of primary documentation. That does not mean Ms Gillard is under investigation.

    For all we know, the investigation could be into Ralph Blewitt, or Bruce Wilson or Slater and Gordon or any number of other individuals and entities.

    Rather than mimicking other media reports, the ABC is following fine principles of reporting confirmed fact.

    When such facts become available, you can be sure the ABC will report them.

    Yours sincerely

    Adam Doyle

    ABC News

    There was a bit more email toing and froing with Mr Doyle and our reader - and he explained the threshold for the ABC to report on the police raid and investigation.

    Sent: Monday, 16 September 2013 3:10 PM
    To: '
    Subject: RE: Police Investigation into three people including J Gillard.

    Dear M

    I can’t say for sure whether a reporter with a mic will be filing live reports on the steps of a court, but if and when Victoria Police announce that they are investigating Ms Gillard, you can be sure the ABC will report them.

    Yours sincerely

    Adam Doyle

    ABC News



    ABC 4Corners found no difficulty in resourcing and speedily presenting a program on Pauline Hanson based on disgruntled former members statements, apparently unlawfully recorded phone calls and the flagrant presentation by the ABC of legally privileged confidential communications in emails between Ms Hanson and her lawyers.

    But Gillard was protected from scrutiny.

    Anyone think the ABC is not broken?

    Read More...
    3 weeks ago
  • Larry Pickering

    Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.

    BLOG / FACEBOOK
    Mon 20 Mar 2017 12:12:03 pm/415 COMMENTS

    Labor’s vilification of RC Commissioner Dyson Heydon, when hearing evidence from Shorten and ex PM Gillard, turned out to be yet another of Shorten’s misguided missiles because Heydon let the criminality of both slide through to the keeper. Now those flawed decisions may come back to haunt him via an unpretentious bloke called Ralph Blewitt.

    Justice Heydon excoriated Shorten and determined that Gillard was an innocent tool of partner and union crook, Bruce Wilson.That was not true of Gillard and Shorten deserved to be charged over the monetary betrayal of his AWU members.

    Perhaps the Bench believes Labor leaders should be exempt from prosecution as it is they who screamed the loudest about Conservative interference. Labor demanded that dyson Heydon be sacked as a Conservative sympathiser. So the Commissioner (and others) will be watching Ralph Blewitt’s testimony with great interest.

    Blewitt has been told by WA Police that he will face over 30 criminal charges. Each of those charges will embroil Julia Gillard and she will find it hard to avoid the witness box in a normal trial. What that evidence leads to should concern Gillard more than Blewitt who has declared his intention to bring down both Gillard and her then boyfriend Bruce Wilson

    Despite having been assured of only partial immunity, Blewitt maintains he did not profit from any criminal venture of Gillard and Wilson.

    Bill Shorten had insisted the AWU forgo any attempt to recover stolen funds, which by now had amounted to, in total and as best we can determine, $1.4 million in 90s money, could be much more.

    Dyson Heydon made a serious mistake in not recommending charges be brought against Gillard and it is likely to leave egg on both his face and reputation when the truth is laid bare, as Blewitt is determined to do, no matter what the cost.

    The Commissioner cannot claim ignorance as The Australian newspaper had spelt out the facts behind Gillard’s actions while working as a solicitor for Slater & Gordon.

    Slater & Gordon, who are now teetering on the edge of insolvency, were deeply enough involved to sack Gillard in an attempt to appear clean handed.

    Anyway, Blewitt was owed a legitimate amount of $13,430 in AWU long-service leave but he was now ‘persona non grata’ with the AWU.

    A peeved Ralph needed his money, he was broke. So when he discovered his ol’ mate, and partner in crime Julia had knifed her way into a plum PM’s job, and therefore was now a "person of influence", he decided to give her a call. Remember, ol’ Ralph can be a bit naive too.

    “Can you arrange for me to get my severance pay, Julia?” asked Ralph politely. Gillard told him in no uncertain terms to "fornicate" off.

    Undeterred, Ralph called Gillard again. This time he couldn’t get past her minders. So he waited and called again, he was transferred to a staffer, “Piss off Blewitt or we will get the Commonwealth Police on to you.” Ralph pissed off and the AWU still owes him his severance pay. And the hurt still abides.

    Perhaps it wasn’t wise to piss ol’ Ralph off because when I enquired as to his whistle-blowing motives, he sent me this:


    “So we must fly a rebel flag,

    As others did before us,

    And we must sing a rebel song

    And join in rebel chorus.

    We'll make the tyrants feel the sting

    O' those that they would throttle;

    They needn't say the fault is ours

    If blood should stain the wattle!"

    The is no doubt that Gillard was complicit in, and profited from, at least $1.4 million stolen from the AWU, Slater & Gordon’s client. Her most damning action was that she posed as a solicitor for Slater & Gordon’s client, her boyfriend Bruce Wilson of the AWU.

    The WA Police are only moving against Blewitt on a figure of $400,000... there’s a million missing somewhere.

    If you have any doubts about Gillard’s guilt, have a read of the 10 part comprehensive series here on pickeringpost.com home page.

    Justice Heydon was swayed by Gillard’s “young and naive” defence. Yet Gillard was neither young nor naive, she was a partner in a Labor Party law firm and was fully cognisant of how Labor union criminality works.

    Slater & Gordon in fact held part of the mortgage on the now infamous property (above) at 85 Kerr Street Fitzroy, in Melbourne.

    Bill Leak's interpretation

    The Kerr Street property and others were renovated, including Gillard’s own house in Collingwood, using fraudulent funds paid to Wilson that were extracted from development companies in return for industrial peace.

    Gillard knew exactly how it all worked as Shorten is an expert at converting AWU union dues into available cash.

    Gillard was at least partly responsible for convincing Boulder AWU members, in her capacity as an AWU lawyer, to transfer their funeral fund to PO box number 157 in Perth, owned by Bruce Wilson. This money was spent on purchasing two holiday homes that had mysteriously been sold after renovations were completed. The profits promptly disappeared.

    Ralph Blewitt (left) claims he was dudded by Gillard, (right).

    Wilson has vowed to protect Gillard but she is most culpable when it comes to the Corporate Affairs hearing where she had to justify her setting up of the slush fund after Corporate Affairs had initially denied her request. Gillard's subsequent appeal could only be heard in a court of law that Wilson says he clearly recalls. That puts both he and Gillard in an appeals court that transcripts can be subpoenaed from.

    Julia had better have plenty of popcorn ready, it will be a long trial that should end with Blewitt on a bond and her and her ex in cuffs.

    Read More...
    1 month ago
  • Turnbull wants unionists & bosses in secret payments in jail - the perfect test case is now before court
    Monday, 20 March 2017

    6a0177444b0c2e970d01901efe2d7a970b (1)

    Secret commission payments are currently unlawful and were unlawful at the time of Gillard's AWU Workplace Reform Association.

    We do not need a new law to prosecute Gillard et al.

    To protect Gillard, police have allowed Thiess to pretend it knew nothing about the secret payments made by Thiess to Bill Ludwig, Bruce Wilson, Ralph Blewitt and Julia Gillard (the Heydon Royal Commission found that money to pay for her renovations came in cash from Bruce Wilson who had no other legitimate source than the unlawful slush fund she set up) - incredibly police have accepted Thiess's story that it was deceived by false invoices.

    We don't need new laws Mr Turnbull.

    We need competent investigations and prosecutions.

    And the will to allow justice to take its course, no matter where and to whom that path leads.
    PM pitches new union fight with Shorten

    Screen Shot 2017-03-20 at 10.48.21 am
    Jennifer Rajca, Australian Associated Press
    March 20, 2017 8:07am

    Malcolm Turnbull has opened up a fresh front on the industrial relations battleground, proposing news laws to jail union officials and employers who make illegitimate secret payments.

    As Labor leader Bill Shorten stood up in parliament to introduce a private bill to protect the take-home pay of workers, the prime minister strode into a press conference alongside his Employment Minister Michaelia Cash.

    The pair unveiled plans to penalise employers and union officials found to have made secret payments other than for clearly legitimate purposes.

    It would also require full disclosure of legitimate payments.

    "Trade unions have a solemn, legal, moral, fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their members," Mr Turnbull told reporters in Canberra on Monday.

    "We have seen through the Heydon royal commission and subsequently unions have let their members down and big unions have traded their rights away in return for payments."

    For payments with the intent to corrupt, penalties include up to 10 years in prison and $900,000 for individuals.

    Sentences of up to two years and $90,000 would apply for other illegitimate payments.

    Senator Cash said there was no consistency across Australia's bribery laws and the offence was often difficult to prove.

    "Employees should be aware and should have full knowledge of any payments that are made between their employer and a union," she said.

    "When you look at the level of penalty, it should send a very, very clear message to any employer or any union who wants to indulge in secretive payments.

    "It is wrong and compromises the integrity and lawfulness of the workplace."

    The pair described their announcement as a test for Mr Shorten.

    But the opposition leader was already pre-empting the attack as he addressed parliament about his bill aiming to stop future cuts to penalty rates following the Fair Work Commission's decision to align Sunday rates in the hospitality and retail sectors.

    "What I say to the prime minister is use whatever distraction that you think is necessary. Use every possible dishonest distraction you have in your book. Put up whatever story you want," he said.

    "But on this issue, when it comes to defending working families in this country, the living standards of working families, we will not be deterred or put off."

    Mr Turnbull will introduce the payments legislation on Wednesday.


    CRIMINALISING SECRET PAYMENTS BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND UNIONS

    20 March 2017

    Prime Minister

    Minister for Employment

    This week the Turnbull Government will introduce vital legislation banning secret payments between unions and employers.

    The new laws will criminalise payments or other benefits passed between employers and unions that could have a corrupting influence.

    Any union leader who is willing to accept benefits from an employer is placing themselves in a highly compromising position.

    The Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption found that such payments corrupt union officials and should be banned.

    Penalties will apply equally to employers and unions. The person offering or making the benefit will be subject to the same penalties as the person soliciting or receiving it.

    Those who make, receive, solicit or offer payments or benefits intended to corrupt a union official will face a maximum 10 years in prison, up to a $900,000 fine for an individual or $4.5 million fine for a company.

    Penalties for payments or benefits other than specified legitimate payments (such as genuine membership fees) will be 2 years in prison, up to a $90,000 for an individual or $450,000 for a company.

    The Bill will also require that any legitimate financial benefits obtained by an employer or union during enterprise agreement negotiations be disclosed to employees.

    If money changes hands between an employer and a union, both parties have an obligation to honestly disclose these payments to their employees and members.

    These vital changes will deliver on three key recommendations of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption.

    The Turnbull Government is acting to ensure that employers and unions act in the best interests of their employees and members.

    Bill Shorten and the Labor Party should now support this reform, to clean up the unfair, secretive, and often corrupt payments that have tainted Australian workplaces for decades.

    ENDS
    PRESS CONFERENCE WITH THE MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT, SENATOR THE HON. MICHAELIA CASH CANBERRA

    20 March 2017

    Prime Minister

    Minister for Employment
    Subjects:

    Corrupting Benefits Bill; 18C; GST distribution; Perth Freight Link

    E&OE

    PRIME MINISTER:

    All of our industrial legislation, that the Minister has negotiated through the Senate is designed to ensure that unions do their job, represent their members honestly and openly.

    Now, during the Heydon Royal Commission, Australians were horrified to see the extent of secret payments made by employers - big business, very often - to trade unions, and in particular, the Australian Workers Union.

    And very often, in circumstances where, in an industrial agreement, the union had agreed to trade away workers' entitlements, including penalty rates - the Cleanevent agreement, the Chiquita Mushrooms agreement and others.

    Australians were horrified because they said, how can this be lawful? How could it possibly happen that this would not be a breach of the law?

    Now, we are dealing with that right now. We are taking up the recommendations of the Heydon Royal Commission, to make it a criminal offence, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a union to accept or a union official to accept or an employer to make a payment that has a corrupting motive, a corrupting intent in the sense of encouraging a union or a union official to act improperly.

    We are also making it an offence, punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment, for any payment to be made by an employer to a union or a union official, other than for clearly legitimate purposes - such as the remittance of union dues or something of that kind.

    Finally, again implementing the recommendation of the Heydon Royal Commission - we are going to ensure that the law compels unions and employers, at the time an enterprise agreement is put to members of a union for their approval, that any payments to the union is fully disclosed, any legitimate payment is fully disclosed. Secrets payments are utterly unacceptable.

    Trade unions have a solemn, legal, moral, fiduciary duty to act in the interests of their members.

    And we have seen again and again, through the Heydon Royal Commission and subsequently the way unions have let their members down, how big labour, big unions have ignored the interests of their members and traded their rights away in return for payments from employers.

    Now, the law applies to all Australians and it applies to unions.

    We have seen Sally McManus from the ACTU say that the law should not apply to unions unless they agree with it.

    Well, that’s not the rule of law. That’s the rule of unions.

    Bill Shorten has said he wants to run the country like a union leader. That’s not the approach of a Prime Minister. That is not the approach of the leader of a nation whose foundation is freedom, democracy and the rule of law. That is the approach of a union boss, like Sally McManus, that thinks their unions are above the law.

    Well, they’re not and in one piece of legislation after another, we are restoring the rule of law to the Australian industrial sector, to the construction sector, to unions, to employer organisations and employers - we are restoring and defending the rule of law.

    MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT:

    Thank you, Prime Minister.

    This is all about transparency in the workplace.

    Employees should be aware and should have full knowledge of any payments that are made between their employer and a union.

    This is a government that is committed to ensuring our workplaces in Australia are transparent and they are at all times treated in a fair manner.

    This is a real test for Bill Shorten because Bill Shorten says he believes in the worker and yet, time and time again, by his actions, he confirms for the Australian people, he is only interested in big unions being able to do deals with big businesses.

    In terms of this legislation, as we know, the Royal Commission, in fact, successive royal commissions dating back to 1982 have stated that secret payments between employers and unions, should be banned.

    We should have transparency in our workplaces.

    Of course, we know potentially one of the worst offenders when it comes to secret payments being made, is Bill Shorten himself when he was with the Australian Workers Union.

    He was more than happy to have money paid by Cleanevent to his union in exchange for trading away the penalty rates of the lowest-paid workers in this country. But also, in exchange for receiving a list of workers that he could conveniently add to the AWU membership to bolster his power within the union movement.

    Well, enough is enough.

    Successive royal commissions, including the Heydon Royal Commission have said this is not acceptable practice within the workplace.

    So the Prime Minister and I are here to announce today that we will introducing into the Parliament laws to ban corrupting benefits.

    This should actually be a piece of relatively uncontroversial legislation. And the test for Bill Shorten and Labor is, they like to talk big on supporting the workers. Well, if that’s what you are all about, then quite frankly, this legislation should be able to go through the Parliament in an uncontroversial manner.

    What the legislation seeks to do, is to ban secret payments from employers to unions.

    Certain legitimate payments will continue to be allowed, such as payments for genuine services that are provided by a union or genuine payment of membership fees.

    Criminal penalties will apply to both the employer and the union. The party that makes the offer of the payment will be penalised in the same way as the party that solicits or receives the payment.

    As Commissioner Heydon basically acknowledged - it takes two to tango in these situations.

    In terms of the penalties, they reflect the seriousness of the offence.

    In terms of criminal penalties for payments with the intent to corrupt, they will be up to 10 years in prison and $900,000 for an individual, or $4.5 million for a company.

    Penalties for other illegitimate payments, will be two years in prison or $90,000 for an individual or $450,000 for a companies.

    As the Prime Minister has also stated though, transparency is key. So when legitimate payments are being made in the course of negotiating an enterprise agreement, the legislation will require the disclosure of these legitimate payments, to the employees so that when they are considering whether or not to vote the agreement up, they will be doing so in full knowledge of all of the payments or benefits that have been given to either the union or the employer.

    If money changes hands between an employer and a union, both parties have an obligation to honestly declare what has occurred and why.

    As I have said, this is basically all about transparency. If you do believe in integrity within workplaces, if you do believe for standing up for Australian workers, then we should be standing side-by-side here today with all parties supporting this vital piece of legislation, which will ensure that employers and unions that exchange money, are no longer allowed or in the event they are a legitimate payment, this is disclosed to the employees.

    JOURNALIST:

    Who will determine what is a genuine service and when will the legislation be introduced?

    MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT:

    That will be for the trier of fact to ultimately determine whether or not it is a genuine service. For example, if a payment is being made into a safety training fund, you would need to show that you actually have an actual program of, basically, safety training. You would need to show that that has been undertaken. But you would also need to show that it has been charged out at market rate.

    In terms of the legislation, the Prime Minister will introduce the legislation into the House of Representatives on Wednesday.

    JOURNALIST:

    Isn’t a payment that has a corrupting intent already illegal under existing laws? Isn't what you are announcing just an IR dog whistle?

    MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT:

    No not at all, Andrew. One of the issues that the Royal Commissions, in particular the Heydon Royal Commission made note of, was that across Australia there are differing laws in relation to bribery. There is no consistency and it is often very difficult to prove.

    So in particular, in relation to the industrial relation relations regime, Commissioner Heydon recommended that a Commonwealth offence be introduced and a very clear offence which outlawed basically all payments full stop, unless they are legitimate.

    And that is exactly what we have done, so you have consistency across the board in the industrial regime.

    JOURNALIST:

    [Inaudible] is quite different from already being illegal?

    MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT:

    But, basically, across the board different jurisdictions have different penalties. They are often not utilised and as I have said, a lot of it is actually in relation to the corruption of a Commonwealth official.

    This is specifically now, in relation to the industrial context and that is what was lacking and Heydon identified that.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    This was recommended by the Royal Commission, presided over by one of the most distinguished judicial figures in contemporary legal history. So this was a very thoughtfully considered recommendation which we have adopted.

    JOURNALIST:

    Had these laws been in place in the past, some reasonably serious CEOs would have found themselves at risk of going to the slammer as well as unionists. Have you got the support of the construction companies, businesses for this?

    MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT:

    Yes, we have. When Heydon was first announced, companies came out and said they supported the recommendations.

    One of the things we’ve got to be very clear here - this applies equally to employers as it does to unions.

    When you look at the level of penalty, it should send a very, very clear message to any employer or any union, who wants to indulge in secretive payments. It is wrong and compromises the integrity and lawfulness of the workplace.

    JOURNALIST:

    If the laws are so important, why has it taken 14 months since the handing down of the final report from the Royal Commission to unveil them? Secondly, in your personal view, should “offend and insult” be removed from Section 18C and replaced by “harass”?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well thank you. In terms of the timing of this, this is a very important priority. As you know, we’ve dealt with some very substantial pieces of industrial legislation already since the 45th Parliament convened, particularly relating to the Building and Construction Commission, Registered Organisations Bill, obviously, the legislation that affected the Country Fire Authority.

    But both the ABCC and Registered Organisations have the same intent of restoring the rule of law, accountability. Registered Organisations in particular required union officials and indeed officers of employer organisations to have the same level of accountability as company directors do to their shareholders.

    Again, this is the same principle. But this is a very real, significant gap in the law that Justice Heydon identified in the Royal Commission. It should be utterly unthinkable, unacceptable, that employers would be making payments to unions and in particular, secret payments and in circumstances where - as the Commission found in case after case - the context or the result was that employees' rights were traded away.

    JOURNALIST:

    Prime Minister on Section 18C?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    All of those matters are being considered. As you know, there was a Parliamentary Committee that considered it and the Government is considering its response to that.

    JOURNALIST:

    If Australians were horrified by the findings of Commissioner Heydon, why did you make scant or almost no mention of them during the election campaign?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well that’s not correct. That is absolutely not correct. The whole election campaign, the election was triggered by those two pieces of industrial legislation which were fundamental to the recommendations of the Heydon Royal Commission.

    JOURNALIST:

    If payments are disclosed transparently, why go the extra step and ban them? How can you say that corporate payments to unions corrupt industrial bargaining outcomes, but corporate donations to political parties don’t corrupt public policy outcomes?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, you’re not seriously suggesting to me that a corrupting benefit should be allowed, as long as it’s disclosed? Is that what you are putting to us?

    JOURNALIST:

    Why aren’t political donations a corrupting benefit to politicians? Why do you assume they don't impact public policy outcomes?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I wouldn't have thought there would be anybody here actually defending employers paying bribes to unions, but there it is. It is a broad church.

    JOURNALIST:

    Prime Minister, what chance do you believe you’ll have of getting this through Parliament? Are you expecting the Labor Party to come on board with this?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well they should. Look, the Labor Party is not going to take advice from me on industrial matters, I know.

    When union membership is declining, we know that. Having said that, the power of a relatively small number of very cashed-up militant unions - CFMEU most prominently - is getting greater and greater within the union movement. You can see the culture of the CFMEU, the lawless culture of the CFMEU, is overtaking the Labor movement.

    Bill Shorten is not a Labor leader in the mold of Paul Keating and Bob Hawke. He is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the CFMEU.

    You see Sally McManus there, defending the lawlessness of the CFMEU. The head of the ACTU saying unions don't have to obey the law. If they don't like the law, they can disobey it. That is exactly what the CFMEU says.

    So that’s the type of Australia that Bill Shorten wants us to be. He wants an Australia where there are two classes of Australians; those who obey the law – that’s most of us - and those who don't have to, unless it suits them, and that’s the CFMEU and the AWU and some of these unions.

    Now if the union movement is fair dinkum about restoring its credibility and its integrity and recovering its membership, then it would have backed this in. Just like as it would have backed in the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Bill. But the reality is, we know that Bill Shorten - as I said - he is completely controlled by some militant unions who have utter contempt for the law of the land.

    What we are doing is ensuring that the law of the land does apply to them, that the law is strengthened. We are doing so in order to protect the very members of those unions who have so little regard for the laws of our nation.

    JOURNALIST:

    Prime Minister, on the GST distribution, a poll in The Western Australian on Saturday showed five federal Liberals would lose their seat and a big reason for that is the anger over the GST injustice that WA gets over the distribution. 92 per cent of West Australians say that it’s important that you act on that before the next election.

    Can you give a commitment that you will take on board those concerns, rather than waiting for several years? Four years, which Treasury’s estimated before WA’s share recovers to 70 cents. Will you act sooner on that?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, we explained during the last year - and I have been very consistent about this - that we understand the sense of grievance that West Australians feel. Michaelia of course, is a West Australian Senator.

    MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT:

    West Australian Senator.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    We understand that very well. I am the first Prime Minister to take action on this.

    What I said was, in consultation with Colin Barnett and my colleagues, I said, we will have an opportunity in several years’ time - and the estimate at that point was 2019-20 - when the Western Australian GST share, under the formula, rises back up to 70 per cent. That was the West Australian Treasury’s estimation, not mine. I said, that is an opportunity then, to set a floor so that nobody loses. But then, West Australians will feel, as indeed will citizens in other states, that no state's share is going to sink down to the levels of 30 per cent and so forth, where Western Australia that found it.

    This is what I did. I made that commitment to seek to achieve that. I wrote to all the Premiers and Chief Ministers, I raised it at COAG. I was attacked, unrelentingly, by the Labor Party, including by Mr Shorten.

    So, really, the question now is we will seek to achieve that. That is our goal, we think it is fair and it is achievable with goodwill.

    But the fiercest opponents of what I proposed, were Bill Shorten - federal Labor leader - and the Labor Premiers, including South Australia, Victoria and Queensland. So the challenge for the new Labor Premier of Western Australia, is how is he going to get his own party onside? That’s the real question. Because Labor is absolutely rock solid at the federal level, so far anyway, in defending the existing arrangements on the GST distribution.

    I believe there is an opportunity to set a floor. But to do so at a time when nobody is actually going to lose. That’s the point. I have been completely consistent about that.

    I know there has been some reporting in Western Australia that I had made a commitment that was different to that, but if you look at my statement in August, to the West Australian division of the Liberal Party State Council, and subsequent statements, they have been completely consistent, including the correspondence I had with the Premiers.

    I saw somewhere it said I hadn't raised the matter with the Premiers, I did. I raised with them both in writing and in a meeting. Now, we might just have one more?

    JOURNALIST:

    Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, are you expecting the Government's position on that issue to be resolved this week? Why won't you say what your own personal view is?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well I am the Prime Minister. So the Government has a view on matters of this kind, the Government will have a response. It will be the collective response of the Government. Perhaps one more?

    JOURNALIST:

    On penalty rates, do you plan to respond on penalty rates to the Fair Work decision this week, will you be recommending take-home pay orders?

    MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT:

    Yes, we will be making a submission in relation to chapter 11 and the transitional provisions. In terms of what we’ll be recommending, I won't be disclosing it here obviously. That it is something the Government is considering.

    JOURNALIST:

    Mr Turnbull are you going to carry through your threat during Western Australia election to fund only the Coalition's planned roads project and not fund the new Labor government's rail project?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Michelle, the Freight Link project - which is what you are referring to - is a high-priority project of Infrastructure Australia and we have committed to fund that.

    The new Western Australia Labor Government does not want to proceed with it and so therefore doesn't want our money for that project. They would like to secure Federal Government support for alternative infrastructure projects. The position is that we will look at them and Infrastructure Australia will look at them. We’ll examine them in good faith and in the normal way.

    Again, it would be quite absurd to do anything else. You can't just say you have got a project that is fully developed, fully costed, fully analysed, prioritised by Infrastructure Australia and then when the Government comes in and says despite all that, we don't want to do it, here, commit the same amount of money to another project, that is at this stage basically a press release.

    There is no business case. There is no plan for it. They have got a way to go. We are all in favour of investing in infrastructure and we do so to the tune of tens of billions of dollars around the nation. I am an enthusiast for urban rail, I think we’ll need more urban rail in all of our big cities. I welcome governments that want to get on with that.

    But as to manner and the extent of Federal Government funding, that is going to be on the basis, after due consideration, of what is proposed. This idea that the State Government can put out a press release and then say give us the money, on the basis of the press release.

    Australians would not think well of my government if we were as careless as that in dealing with their taxpayers' dollars.

    Thanks very much.

    Read More...
    1 month ago
  • There are some interesting times indeed ahead for Julia Gillard and her cronies in crime. Ralph Blewitt has penned a letter to police offering to open up and tell all, even if it has consequences for him. Gillard may not be flying high with the United Nations for much longer.
    Over the weekend Ralph Blewitt submitted this notice to Western Australia Police.
    *****************************************************************************
    Police will have their own view about what charges should flow from their investigations - but Ralph's position which he makes so clearly in this letter will have to be taken into account.
    Put yourself in Ralph's shoes. He faces an uncertain future. He is under no compulsion to return to Australia, he's voluntarily making himself available to police.
    Ralph knows full well that his destiny is in the hands of authorities. It must have been very, very tempting to drop the whole AWU matter and just get on with his very full life. But he hasn't done that. And I admire him for his guts and sense of right and wrong.

    Dear Detective Sergeant (Name withheld),
    I have recently become insulin dependent in the management of chronic Diabetes Type 2.
    My wife and carer Ruby and I are adjusting to managing daily insulin injections and I have to be a little more prudent in managing my movements with a lot more pre-planning.
    May I ask a few questions about my attendance at your offices “to deal with the matter”?
    Will I be under arrest?
    Will I be under caution?
    Do police anticipate charging me with any offence(s)?
    If so what offences?
    If so will I be bailed, remanded or summonsed to appear in court?
    Will I be permitted to leave Australia and return to my home in Malaysia after the meeting with you “to deal with the matter”? (my wife and carer Ruby does not yet have a long term visa to remain in Australia).

    Background
    Since late 2012 I have been available to and actively assisting police in their enquiries about the secret commissions paid by Thiess executives through the AWU Workplace Reform Association and the associated frauds, forgeries and other offences that I observed and was a part of from 1991 to 1995.
    I want to tell all that I know - and I wish to co-operate with police and the courts by pleading guilty to the offences I know I helped others commit.
    I am, however, not willing to cooperate in the furtherance and coverup of the offences of my co-offenders, particularly Julia GILLARD and Bruce WILSON.
    I did not set out to commit any offence of my own volition.
    I will not plead guilty to charges singling me out to take the fall on behalf of others. I was part of a criminal conspiracy. I didn't have the ability to do what I did without direction of others.
    Every time I offended during the 1991 to 1995 course of conduct I did so at the behest (as Ms GILLARD put it during her exit interview from Slater and Gordon) of Bruce WILSON and/or Julia GILLARD.
    Where I completed the application to incorporate the AWU Workplace Reform Association, so did GILLARD.
    I wrote what GILLARD and WILSON told me to write.
    It would be unjust and wrong just to charge GILLARD and not to charge me.
    These were offences in which we were jointly involved. The same applies in reverse - it would be dishonest and unjust to charge me but not to charge my co-offenders WILSON and GILLARD as we were acting together.
    When I signed the false document, Specific Power of Attorney I knew that GILLARD was not in the room to witness it. I knew the document was not signed on 4 February 1992 as it falsely states. I knew I was creating a false document and I admit to that offence. However I did not act alone and I am concerned that the courts and the public would get the wrong impression about the criminal behaviour involved in making that false document if GILLARD and WILSON are not charged with me.
    When I conspired with WILSON and GILLARD to buy the Kerr Street property I wrote out a cheque for about $67,000 from the AWU Workplace Reform Association cheque book. The entry in the Slater and Gordon Trust Account ledger says the money came from me, not the association. That is false. I know that Bill Ludwig’s lawyer Con Sciacca sent a fax to GILLARD’s law firm on the day I paid the money in. The contents of that fax can only have been in the furtherance of fraud and I will consider it a neglect of police duty if that fax is not seized and produced for me to consider - as it is apparently central in the efforts to fraudulently represent that the $67,000 came from me and not the Association GILLARD, WILSON and I fraudulently set up.
    Detective Sergeant, I will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There is a very important proviso in that statement - that it is the whole truth.
    I didn’t set out to create the AWU Workplace Reform Association. I wouldn’t have a clue where to start. I did not brief any lawyer to act for me or to give me legal advice about incorporating the association. GILLARD was not acting as my lawyer, she was in on the conspiracy.
    I look forward to meeting with you to tell all and “to deal with the matter” in its entirety once and for all.

    Regards Ralph Blewitt.
    **************************************************************************
    Gillard and Wilson may have managed to cover their tracks so far, but I personally feel the truth is about to be told, and their run is about to come to an abrupt end.
    The money Gillard has been gifting to the “Clinton Foundation” may never be recovered (Nearly half a billion dollars). The damage she has done to Australia during her governance is also irreversible in the short term.
    It is now Australia needs to turn to honest government willing to govern for the people, not their own rotten vested interests!

    www.michaelsmithnews.com/…/ralph-blewitt-to-plead-gu…DesiredUserName wrote:
    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

    www.michaelsmithnews.com/2017/02/they-go...ly-unprosecuted.html

    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.

    Yours Faithfully


    Read More...
    2 months ago
  • Charles Ponzi replied to the topic How Long Does FOS Take in the forum
    Fos has been known to take years. One criticism at Parliamentary Inquiries is that it 'closes' cases if customers can't get an obscure document from the bank - why can't FOS get the bank to prove its case?
    How to hurry FOS up, you ask? No idea. Seriously. Some home owners 'waited' for years, only to get a 'dud' deal + accrued Default Interest that wiped out their Equity.

    Read More...
    2 months ago
  • 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

    www.michaelsmithnews.com/2017/02/they-go...ly-unprosecuted.html

    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.

    Yours Faithfully

    Read More...
    2 months ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Pay to Play?' in the forum.
    Michael Smith's Submission for an Inquiry into Pay-To-Play Donations

    www.michaelsmithnews.com/2016/09/senate-...ce-2006-the-aus.html

    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
    Executive Summary

    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.

    From: Huma Abedin This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

    To: Valmoro, Lona J

    Sent: Monday, Jul 27 06:02:01 2009

    Subject:

    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?

    From: Valmoro, Lona J [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

    Sent: July 27, 2009 6:03:54 AM

    To: Huma Abedin

    Subject: Re:

    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?

    From: Huma Abedin [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]

    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.

    www.michaelsmithnews.com/2016/03/backgro...ve-incorporated.html

    www.michaelsmithnews.com/2016/03/foreign...hivaids-initiat.html
    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.

    Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 6.19.05 pm

    www.clintonfoundation.org/files/2005_Audit.pdf

    And here's 2006 (the first few months of Australia's $25M MOU with the PNG association established in late August).

    Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 6.17.55 pm

    www.clintonfoundation.org/files/clinton-...cial-report-2006.pdf

    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.

    www.michaelsmithnews.com/2016/08/aust-go...-we-paid-anyway.html

    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
    no targets

    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.

    Contributions

    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.

    www.michaelsmithnews.com/2016/03/who-car...-that-will-make.html

    6a0177444b0c2e970d01b8d20e4cec970c-pi.png
    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.”

    Kind regards

    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.

    ENDS

    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.

    pastedGraphic.png



    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.

    www.michaelsmithnews.com/2016/08/warning...d-narrow-in-png.html

    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.

    www.michaelsmithnews.com/2016/08/the-ill...apua-new-guinea.html

    Screen Shot 2016-09-03 at 8.51.35 pm


    The Clinton Foundation was receiving money from other funders in at least PNG and Indonesia for work that Australia was paying for.

    www.michaelsmithnews.com/2016/08/warning...d-narrow-in-png.html


    Screen Shot 2016-08-26 at 4.08.23 pm

    Read More...
    2 months ago
  • Slater and Gordon shares smashed to pieces - record low - continues to bleed cash
    Thursday, 16 February 2017

    Screen Shot 2017-02-16 at 7.49.41 am

    I think Andrew Grech and his generous board might be starting to get the message.

    This line from their try-to-be-upbeat announcement to the ASX explains:

    Slater and Gordon's Australian business has more recently started to show signs of being impacted by negative sentiment about the business



    Screen Shot 2017-02-16 at 7.30.10 amScreen Shot 2017-02-16 at 7.30.24 am

    Screen Shot 2017-02-16 at 7.29.26 am

    Read More...
    2 months ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Trevor Mctaggart's Case' in the forum.
    NSW Crest
    Supreme Court
    New South Wales

    Medium Neutral Citation:
    Premium Green Batts v McTaggart [2011] NSWSC 838
    Hearing dates:
    02/08/2011
    Decision date:
    02 August 2011
    Jurisdiction:
    Equity Division
    Before:
    McDougall J
    Decision:

    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.
    Catchwords:
    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.
    Legislation Cited:
    Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
    Category:
    Principal judgment
    Parties:
    Premium Green Batts Pty Limited (Plaintiff)
    Trevor Shane McTaggart (First Defendant)
    Tarek Bhatti (Second Defendant)
    Representation:
    Counsel:
    J Horowitz (Plaintiff)
    Trevor McTaggart (Self Represented) (First Defendant)
    Solicitors:
    Swaab Attorneys (Plaintiff)
    Trevor McTaggart (Self Represented) (First Defendant)
    File Number(s):
    2010/321321

    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".

    The issues

    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.

    Factual findings

    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.

    Other matters

    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.

    Costs

    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.

    Orders

    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.

    Decision last updated: 22 August 2011


    Read More...
    2 months ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' President Trump's Order - international crime' in the forum.
    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

    EXECUTIVE ORDER

    - - - - - - -

    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.

    DONALD J. TRUMP

    THE WHITE HOUSE,
    February 9, 2017

    Read More...
    2 months ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Barry Landa - Sub116 PJC' in the forum.
    Home News NSW News

    August 26 2010
    Save
    Print
    License article

    11th hour payout in $15m fraud case

    Joel Gibson and Ellie Harvey

    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.

    Read More...
    3 months ago
  • 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.

    Charles explained why to me today.

    Part Two

    Read More...
    3 months ago
  • Perth13–20°C

    News
    Sport
    Entertainment
    Business
    Lifestyle
    RealEstate
    Video
    Classifieds

    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.

    Miranda Devine:

    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.

    Comments

    Newest | Oldest | Top Comments
    Gerrit
    Gerrit
    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


    QUOTE


    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.


    END QUOTE



    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.

    Read More...
    3 months ago
  • Charles Ponzi replied to the topic Royal Commission into Pedo Priests. in the forum
    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.

    ww.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/royal-commission-vile-extent-of-catholic-church-child-sex-abuse-exposed-in-full/news-story/49ad5fc861be48500963449b04c83f67

    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.”
    Featured Video
    Play Video
    Play
    0:00
    /
    1:47:05

    Fullscreen
    More videos

    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)

    Diocese of Lismore — 13.9%

    Diocese of Wollongong — 11.7%

    Catholic Archdiocese of Canberra-Goulburn — 8.4%

    Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle — 7.9%

    Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney — 7%

    Diocese of Parramatta — 2.2%

    Read More...
    3 months ago
  • Armstrong Economics says:

    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

    clinton-foundation-irs

    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.

    Read More...
    3 months ago
  • Charles Ponzi created a new topic ' Directors Insurance - Prof Bob Baxt' in the forum.
    Why wasn't Keith Robert Hunter covered in the I.T bribery case that ensnared the Clinton Global Initiative's IT expert, Pulier?

    www.companydirectors.com.au/director-res...-matter-of-insurance
    A matter of insurance
    Share
    | Print Page

    Date:
    01 Aug 2015
    Type:
    Company Director Magazine

    Professor Bob Baxt explains why directors can legally seek financial indemnity when fighting claims brought against them.

    Company directors generally will be aware that sections 199A and 199B of the Corporations Act 2001 (the Act) prohibit companies from indemnifying directors for penalties imposed upon them for breaches of the Act, and for breaches of other legislation, where penalties may be imposed. There are, however, still good reasons why directors (and other officers), should negotiate appropriate deeds of indemnity.

    Through these, directors can often obtain some financial support from their companies in the event that they need to defend prosecutions/other legal cases during the course of their “employment”. The drafting of the deeds will be important: the language could well exclude the possibility of directors or officers from receiving financial support pending the final outcome. The recent decision of Note Printing Australia Limited v Leckenby [2015] VSCA 105 decided by a strong Court of Appeal, also showed that, providing the document is drafted in a “commercially” sensible way, it can provide the relevant director with a satisfactory financial indemnity, at least on a temporary basis, for his or her legal costs.

    John Leckenby was the chief executive officer of Note Printing Australia Limited (NPAL). He and other officers of the company were prosecuted for allegedly conspiring to bribe foreign officials to secure bank-note printing contracts for the benefit of the company. The trial had not yet taken place. He incurred considerable legal costs and expenses in defending the proceedings, and sought reimbursement under a deed of indemnity entered into between him and NPAL on 27 July 2001, for his legal costs. The indemnity was described in the deed in the following terms: “to the fullest extent permitted by law, NPAL hereby indemnifies [Leckenby] against each and every liability for legal costs and expenses [he] may incur and for which [he] may become liable in defending an action for a liability incurred as such an officer.”

    The clause also provided cover for him in resisting criminal proceedings. Leckenby brought legal proceedings against NPAL in March 2013 alleging that the company had refused to indemnify him on the basis that it was prohibited under the law, to reimburse him. Justice Sifris in Leckenby v Note Printing Australia Limited [2014] VSC 538 ruled that Leckenby was entitled to be reimbursed under the deed.

    Two considerations
    In the Court of Appeal, Justice Tate, on behalf of Justices Whelan and Ferguson, considered two major questions in dismissing the appeal and upholding Leckenby’s right to the indemnity. The first legal issue, but one I will discuss later (it was in fact only dealt with in the last few pages of the written judgment), was whether leave to appeal should be granted (it is now necessary to obtain leave to appeal in the Victorian courts). The bulk of her very interesting and important judgment, however, considered whether Justice Sifris was correct in allowing Leckenby to claim under the insurance policy.

    As noted above, the relevant provisions in the Act prohibit the payment by companies to directors and officers for their legal costs if they are held guilty in relevant proceedings. If companies advance funds to persons who are eventually found guilty, those funds have to be paid back. As explained by Justice Tate, the relevant indemnity obligation contained in the agreement signed by Leckenby “was one which asked the company to provide indemnity ‘to the fullest extent permitted by law’”. The construction of the deed adopted by Justice Sifris, and which the Court of Appeal agreed with, “permitted payments to be made to officers of the relevant company” (paragraph 22). Justice Tate added that clause 6.1 of the deed “confirms that Leckenby can ‘enforce immediately’ a present entitlement to the payment by NPAL of the ongoing legal costs and expenses prior to verdict” (paragraph 28).

    The Rickus case
    In reaching her (and the court’s) conclusion Justice Tate was assisted by her interpretation of the decision in Rickus v Motor Trades Association of Australian Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd (2010) 265 ALR 112. In that case, the full Federal Court was concerned not so much with an interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act, but more the drafting of the relevant deed under which Rickus was seeking payment and adopted a “permissive” interpretation of the arrangements.

    The fact that eventually, a person who is held liable under relevant proceedings pursuant to which a penalty may have to be paid, is thereby required to repay any advance or loan that was made to that person by the company, or any payment that would otherwise contravene the provisions, was a factor which in the Victorian court’s view, should not prevent an advance being made to enable that person to defend the case. The Court of Appeal’s view, as expressed by Justice Tate, was that the relevant drafting of the deed in the Leckenby case permitted the relevant payments to be made in the circumstances of the document drawn up to assist persons to defend or resist criminal proceedings until a verdict was given.

    It is my view that the court is correct in stating that it would be “cruel” for a court to interpret the provisions in a different way. As Justice Tate noted at paragraph 64 of her judgment: “the deed was analogous to an advance that required repayment in the event that Leckenby was found guilty. [Justice Sifris] did not conclude that the agreement was for a loan and he was careful to distinguish it from a loan, acknowledging that the obligation to repay would not become operative except in the eventuality of a guilty verdict. Not being a loan, it is not surprising that the deed does not make provision for security, interest and so on. In effect [Justice Sifris] found the deed was an agreement to make a payment “otherwise than by a strict indemnity loan advance.” In my view he was correct in that conclusion.

    Insurance interpretation
    In one of the two recent cases in which the High Court has had to consider the impact of section 199A of the Act, Justice Callinan in Wilkie v Gordian Ronoff (2005) 221 CLR 552 (the other case is Silbermann and anor vs CGU Insurance Ltd (2005) 214 ALR 370) had to interpret the terms of an insurance policy challenged as not permitting payment to directors in the event of a guilty verdict.

    He noted, at paragraphs 537 – 538 of the High Court judgment: “the adoption of the construction for which [the company in this case] contend would mean that in the real and practical sense they could become the final arbiters of the extent of their obligations because their insureds [i.e. the directors] will frequently lack the means to defend themselves adequately against the charges levelled against them unless they put in funds to do so. It would not have been a difficult matter for the [company] to have insisted upon a policy that put beyond doubt their right to postpone payment of defence costs until the outcome is known had they so wished”. Justice Tate agreed that this represented a better interpretation of the law.

    The Leckenby case also raises a matter of importance that was critical to the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal to grant leave for the appeal to be brought. While the company had lost its appeal, this did not mean that the court was wrong in allowing the appeal to be brought, especially as it dealt with a matter of such importance. The discussion of the reasons of why leave to appeal was to be granted reflects, in my view, an encouraging interpretation of how the law should operate.

    In conclusion, it is useful for me to set out one further quote from the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal, which emphasises the “clear common sense”. In discussing the interpretation of the relevant law and the deed that was signed by the parties, Justice Tate felt (applying the reasoning of Justice Callinan referred to above) that the interpretation adopted by Justice Sifris, was supported “by the need for a business-like approach to be adopted in the interpretation of a commercial contract. It would be apparent to a reasonable person in the position of NPAL and Leckenby, at the time of entering into the deed, that, in the eventuality of a criminal prosecution, unless there was an agreement for ongoing legal costs to be paid prior to verdict, Leckenby could incur significant liability with his cost in the matter that could be potentially compromising of his defence”.

    It is uncertain whether leave to appeal this decision to the High Court will be pursued. It is an important question but in my view, the decision is one that should be welcomed by directors and hopefully even if leave to appeal is granted to the High Court, a similar conclusion will be reached on the facts of this case.

    Read More...
    3 months ago
  • Charles Ponzi replied to the topic Gaslighting - sick officials do it too. in the forum
    Why would ethics lawyer Mcgarvie and Bowles pull trust account inspectors off from an investigation into an old lady and her son?

    www.churchilltrust.com.au/media/fellows/...ind_closed_doors.pdf

    Read More...
    3 months ago
  • WA Police investigation into the Gillard forgery
    Wednesday, 25 January 2017

    I have today written to the Commissioner of the WA Police.



    Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan APM,

    WA Police



    Dear Commissioner,

    On 25 October 2016 I reported serious indictable offences arising from Trade Union Royal Commission to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. My report is attached to this letter.

    On 2 November 2016 the CDPP wrote to me advising my report had been considered and passed on to the AFP/State Police Trade Union Task Force for further action (letter attached).

    On 5 December 2016 Superintendent Mark McIntyre of the Australian Federal Police wrote to me stating in part (full letter attached):

    The AFP, as the coordinator of the Trade Union Joint Police Task Force (TUTF), provided your correspondence to Taskforce Heracles, being the Victorian component of the TUTF. I can advise that Victoria Police has provided Western Australia Police with all relevant material in regards to this investigation. It is now being reviewed by them and all enquiries regarding the investigation should be directed to Western Australia Police.

    Pursuant to Superintendent McIntyre’s instruction I respectfully now make the following enquiries.



    1. Has WA Police initiated or completed an investigation into the making and use of an apparently false document, to wit a letter dated 15 May 1992 purporting to be from Ray Neal and addressed to Julia Gillard?

    2. If so, has WA Police identified an offender?

    3. Has WA Police taken a statement from Mr Ray Neal?

    4. When does WA Police anticipate concluding the broader investigation and prosecution of apparent offences in The AWU frauds dating from the early 1990s?



    I propose to treat this communication with you and any response you might make as an open communication and to publish it to the internet.

    Yours sincerely,



    Michael Smith



    ATTACHMENTS



    1. Email to CDPP reporting apparent forgery and false evidence offences.

    2. Response from CDPP

    3. Advice from AFP Superintendent McIntyre







    From: Michael Smith [This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.]
    Sent: Tuesday, 25 October 2016 5:53 AM
    To: CDPP Inquiries
    Subject: For Ms McNaughton SC - report regarding serious indictable offences arising from Trade Union Royal Commission



    Dear Ms McNaughton,

    On 13 May 2014 the following documents were tendered to the Trade Union Royal Commission and received into evidence marked as Blewitt MFI7:

    www.tradeunionroyalcommission.gov.au/Hea...2014/BlewittMFI7.pdf

    The letter purporting to be from Ray Neal is a forgery.

    I have interviewed the purported author Ray Neal. He tells me he did not write the letter and did not authorise any other person to write a letter on his behalf.

    He stated that his office held a rubber stamp to affix his signature to Certificates of Incorporation and in an initial conversation he stated it may have been affixed to the letter by another staffer on his behalf.

    I asked him to compare the rubber stamp impression (taken from a Certificate of Incorporation he issued to the AWU WRA Inc) with the signature on the forged letter. He states the rubber stamp was not used on the forgery, eliminating the possibility that another official in his office may have produced the letter on his behalf.

    He nominated Mr Ray Mineif (who was in charge of incorporated associations at the time of the purported letter) as the only other person who may have had a lawful right to author or send a letter such as the reported forgery.

    I interviewed Mr Mineif at his home in Sydney and he was 100% certain that he did not and would not author such a preposterous offer.

    I audio taped my interviews with Messrs Neal and Mineif and the recordings are located here:



    audioboom.com/posts/5184707-wa-corporate...addressed-to-gillard



    audioboom.com/posts/5189668-ralph-mineif...ion-in-incorporation



    There are several forensic indicators pointing to forgery compared with genuine correspondence from the Office of State Corporate Affairs at the time - to do with font, formatting, Officer handling the matter details/phone number, internal reference etc.

    However each of Ray Neal and Ralph Mineif point to the preposterous nature of the purported offer-to-incorporate the subject association on the vague promise of it changing its rules 30 days post-incorporation.

    The offer is beyond the powers granted to the Commissioner in The Act. The Association was ineligible for incorporation under its existing rules and objects and the Commissioner had no power in those circumstances to incorporate it. Each of Mineif and Neal told me there was strict compliance with the Act at the time and no ultra vires actions were ever contemplated much less taken.

    The new "Rule 3A" is not described, nor is there any reference to the origin of the proposed rule. Further the letter refers to "the Commission" being prepared to grant incorporation - The Act defines a Commissioner but there is no Commission to perform the function described in the letter.

    Each of Neal and Mineif were intelligent lively men with their wits about them. Each was emphatic in stating no such offer would or could have been made by their office. Each appeared offended at the proposition that this letter has standing in the Final Report of a Royal Commission of Enquiry as a unchallenged record of their work.

    Bruce Wilson in his Witness Statement describes the circumstances in which he "found" the letters in a box in 2013. They were tendered by Dr Hanscombe QC on Wilson's instructions for the purpose of cross examining Ralph Blewitt as to his purported role as the architect and responsibility-taker-in-chief for the AWU WRA Inc fraud.

    The consequent Memo from Julia Gillard to Ralph Blewitt is itself a dubious document. Had it been sent and complied with Ray Neal would have been alerted to the forged letter in 1992.

    On 10 September 2014 Julia Gillard gave extensive evidence on her oath in answer to examination by Jeremy Stoljar SC before the TURC. Much of the evidence about these two Exhibits is false.

    As the Commissioner noted, before 13 May 1992 the WA Office of State Corporate Affairs notified Ralph Blewitt that his application to incorporate the AWU WRA Inc had been refused as the entity was a trade union for the purposes of the WA incorporated associations act.

    The Act sets out the only recourse available to an applicant refused incorporation on the ground the entity is more suited to incorporation under another act (the Trade Unions Act in this instance). That is a request for a review of the Commissioner's decision by the Minister. The fee for that review is $22 - and a cheque for $22 was the first cheque drawn on the fraudulently opened CBA Bank Account for the AWU WRA Inc cheque account.

    The WA State Records Office holds a file for the Office of State Corporate Affairs 1992 correspondence on the AWU WRA Inc. It is there in the archives, I've held it in my own hands. It is empty. There is no record of the refusal to incorporate, the appeal to the minister, the representations made on behalf of the AWU WRA inc by Julia Gillard urging incorporation and arguing that the entity was not a trade union.

    Nor is there any record of the Ministerial direction to incorporate the Association.

    Ralph Mineif remembers the matter and recalls the Minister's intervention and direction to incorporate.

    Julia Gillard argued the case to the Minister in written representations and perhaps in person. She flew to Perth apparently immediately on notification that the application had been refused. and was there during the relevant time when the application for a review of the Commissioner's decision was made.

    Gillard must have therefore known that the Commissioner did not merely make enquiries about the status of the association as a trade union. He refused the application.

    She must know of the appeal to the Minister because she made it. She must have known that her appeal was successful because the Association was incorporated under the Act on the instructions of the Minister.

    It follows that she must have known that the purported Ray Neal letter was a forgery and not a very good one at that.

    I have published summaries of some of the relevant evidence that you may find useful here:

    www.michaelsmithnews.com/2016/10/julia-g...rporate-affairs.html

    www.michaelsmithnews.com/2016/10/more-on...porate-affairs-.html

    I give you an undertaking that my communication with you will remain confidential to me and my advisors in advance of your reply. If you ask me to maintain that confidentiality regarding my report to you I will honour your request.

    If you've not given me any guidance on the confidentiality issue by the end of the week I'll consider my confidentiality undertaking to have lapsed.

    I have further details to support this report and the original audio evidence as well as my observations regarding the provenance of the Exhibits each of Mr Neal and Mr Mineif commented on.

    For the avoidance of doubt, I am reporting this matter to you as a report of serious indictable offences. Given the use of the apparently false instruments at the TURC in the process of it hearing false and misleading evidence and the Commissioner's acceptance (in the absence of any enquiries having been made about their provenance) of the Exhibits as good and valid copies of the documents they purport to be, the use of the false instruments is an ongoing offence (particularly to the purported author) and the record should be corrected.



    Yours sincerely,

    pastedGraphic.png



    2 Attachments



    Screen Shot 2017-01-25 at 10.29.31 am Screen Shot 2017-01-25 at 10.29.51 am

    Read More...
    3 months ago

News

Major Topics

Helpful Resources

Socialize

About Us