Is this Julia’s hair trigger defence? A semantic play on words saves Julia you hope.

Ah - now lets look at the critical point - when did Gillard know - or more importantly should reasonably have known that the Association was a vehicle for a Wilson & Blewitt’s slush fund.

Gillard’s defence is that she was a naive victim of Wilson’s devious plan for the slush fund and she only found out about it after allegations were made in 1995.

Well what was this “Workplace Reorm Assoc at al” Gillard registered with the WA Authorities then?? She attested that it was not a Trade Union, and she had no idea that it was a vehicle for a slush fund in 1992. Well what on earth did she think it was??

Wilson and Blewitt were not just a couple of blow-ins who were referred to Gillard the disinterested professional lawyer.

Gillard was the bedmate of Wilson for 3-4 years and both close to Blewitt in this period.

Gillard was brought up on this Labor movement stuff - she was a Partner in a Labor Lawyering firm - she was not a kid - she was in her early thirties and had as she says now signed thousands of documents.

So the story that she had no idea that the Association was Wilson’s shush fund vehicle when she registered it in 1992 is pure fantasy - unbelievable and farcical as a defence.

With her experience climbing the greasy poles of the Labor movement

Did he produce any evidence? None that I’m aware of. Instead he pronounced the PM to show ‘conduct unbecoming.’ Coming from him this was a rich brew of poison.

Looking slightly sheepish, Malcolm Turnbull didn’t seem overjoyed to be reminded of the Godwin Grech scenario which had helped to place the skids under him. What a bunch of embittered old men, and a couple of women, are, who inhabit the Coalition front/back benches.

Tony Rabbott might care to pass my regards to his little ankle-biter. As with him, she is all front and no depth. I wish them all an unhappy Christmas, and a dreadful New Year.

‘Bony Arse’ - A little ungracious Karen?

Clearly you prefer Germaine Greer’s ‘big arsed Julia’

A good summary of the Gillard position Karen - hinging all on whether Gillard knew in 1993 that the Association was a ‘slush fund’, when she was setting it up for her bedmate.

She claimed that she only became aware of this in 1995 in the S&G exit interview, after allegations were made against Wilson & Blewitt.

She has repeated this claim in Parliament.

She told S&G partners in 1995 it was a slush fund for union election campaigning but the incorporation application form filled out by her described its purpose as ’development of changes to work to achieve safe workplaces’.

When queried by WA Authorities about whether the ‘AWU Workplace Association et al’ was a trade union organ, she wrote to attest that it had nothing to do with the AWU Trade Union.

Her office yesterday said: Ms Gillard ‘has no recollection of receiving or sending the claimed correspondence in this matter’.

Clearly, Gillard’s claim in 1995 that she did not know that the Association was Wilson & Blewitt’s slush fund in 1993 when she set it up - is false.

In that case - the likelihood is that she colluded with Wilson and Blewitt in 1993 to set up an entity labelled ‘AWU Workplace at al….’ to get ‘donations’ from big builders but was in fact a slush fund for Wilson & Blewitt’s re-election and subsequent fraudulent activities.

Clearly that is why S&G considered her behaviour a ‘resignation’ offence.

If she lies to Parliament - she is gone - that’s why she is stonewalling and blustering and her bedmates and faceless puppeteers are all rushing to the barricades.

I did say earlier that liars have to have a good memory.

“And why did she send a letter to the WA Corporations Body and l1e about it not being related to union matters?” Did she l i e? Was the fund strictly “union related” - to me the whole point of the association was to be removed from the normal union operations.

And why did she send a letter to the WA Corporations Body and l1e about it not being related to union matters?

Didnt she say this was a union slush fund? Sounds pretty union related to me. Of course we later find out it was a bit like the HSU, everyones got their hands in the cookie jar.

This apparent proof today is firstly nothing new and secondly doesn’t show she did anything wrong - even Abbott won’t outline what apparently it was she did that was illegal, just used the vague words of smear - “it may of been”

Having problems getting your illegal slush fund setup with the answers written on the establishment form? Why… Gillard can FIX that for you, and according to Bruce Wilson amend the answers so they don’t raise suspicions from the powers that be.

All of the books of course so her employers don’t raise any suspicions.

“1)If Gillard either had knowledge or was in on the scam, why did she wait to dump Wilson until 1995 as a boyfriend? The timing of the determining the relationship coincided with the surfacing of the allegations.

Gillard not opening a file to advise on the setting up of the incorporated association for the AWU may have been on account of the fact that she was doing pro bono work. As a partner of the firm, Gillard may have felt (rightly or wrongly) that she had a discretion not to open up a file. In hindsight, not a wise move.”

She was not a 21 year old in her first year, she was in her early 30’s and a star Partner in a Labor Lawyer firm.

The AWU was a big customer so if all was above board, and if she believed that Wilson’s Association was a bona fide AWU organ, why did she not open a file?? Surely it would have been a billable job for Slater & Gordon?

If not, doing it pro-bono with no file simply confirms that she knew the Association was a slush fund right from the start. Her poor judgement and ethics at best, collusion with Wilson at worst. Again Slater & Gordon Partners thought it a job resignation offence.

Dumping Wilson when the allegations surfaced simply shows the self-preservation instincts of the woman. Plausible deniability; “I didn’t know he was bent”.

(1)If Gillard either had knowledge or was in on the scam, why did she wait to dump Wilson until 1995 as a boyfriend? The timing of the determining the relationship coincided with the surfacing of the allegations.

Gillard not opening a file to advise on the setting up of the incorporated association for the AWU may have been on account of the fact that she was doing pro bono work. As a partner of the firm, Gillard may have felt (rightly or wrongly) that she had a discretion not to open up a file. In hindsight, not a wise move.

(2) Agree that Wilson is not a reliable witness, however, why would he bother to come out and defend Gillard, especially given she dumped him and has had nothing to do with him since the proverbial hit the fan.

Hem now reckons he put $5,000 in JG’s account on instruction from Blewitt. How convenient of him to say this AFTER JG said she had gone to the Commonwealth Bank to verify this deposit, only to be told that the Commonwealth didn’t keep records going back that far. Hem can say anything he likes knowing it can’t be disproved, at least by bank records.

(3) Agree that Blewitt is even less reliable and, is arguably, the guy who is alleged to have benefited the most, if not entirely, from the scam. If I am incorrect about this, why did he flee to Malaysia. In any event, the Libs are pinning much of their hopes on Blewitt to implicate Gillard. Blewitt, for his part, now gets a free trip into Australia seeing Gillard as a potential meal-ticket for him to move back with the promise of immunity. Yet, notwithstanding, all of these treats and promises, not even Blewitt will go so far as to say, yeah, Gillard is in on it. And as for Blewitt having documents, I very doubt it, given his background.

Pat Drane and Gee Wizz (Troofie) - your theses is undermined by (1) Gillard dumping Wilson in 1995 when she found about the fund, having realised she had been used (there has been no contradictor in this), (2) Wilson defending her when he didn’t have to and (3) Blewitt not having actually alleged Gillard knew anything.

1) Clearly Slater & Gordon did not think that Gillard was an innocent victim of Wilson. Wilson’s in the ABC 7.30 interview last night said that he had trouble with the paperwork trying to set up the ‘Association’ and Gillard filled in the forms and made it all work. Not a simple routine bit of work flicked to the paralegal in the office. A lawyer would know that an incorporated association needs to be advertised and there is a duty of care to ensure it has a proper purpose.

No Slater & Gordon file was created which is unknown in a legal firm unless Gillard was hiding what she was doing for her bedmate.

Gillard looks unlike the innocent bimbo being used by a cunning Wilson.

Slater & Gordon Partners - experienced lawyers found her explanations clearly unsatisfactory.

2) Wilson can’t be very bright because he had not thought through his story on 7.30 report. The Report was cut off when more in depth questions about what happened to the house and money came from mild mannered reporter. Wilson was still trying to maintain that the ‘slush fund’ was bona fide…when in fact the AWU (when it found out about it) had to sell the house and repay money to the ‘donor employers’.

Wilson was trying to make out that HE did nothing wrong either, so his testimony about Gillard could not be remotely seen as reliable. He could not remember if Gillard got $5000 or not.

3) Blewitt is in the same boat as Wilson - both unreliable witnesses without more documentation. Blewitt is seeking immunity from prosecution so might have some verifiable documents to implicate Wilson and Gillard.