An important decision in Victoria

The Victorian Fraud Squad has been investigating matters relating to the AWU scandal, or rather events that occurred more than 17 years ago. This investigation was at the behest of Michael Smith, a former police officer who made a complaint about the signing of a power of attorney document. The complaint relates to whether or not the document was witnessed when it was signed. The lawyer responsible for drawing up the document and certifying it was none other than Julia Eileen Gillard.  The issue comes down to whether or not it was signed in Melbourne or Perth, and before or after the event. (I am giving a synopsis here).

The wider issue is a much bigger fraud issue relating to money being ripped off from the Australian Workers’ Union by the lover of Julia Eileen Gillard. This is at the heart of the whole scandal.

In May this year, the Victorian Fraud Squad requested that a warrant be issued for a search and seizure of documents from the law firm Slater and Gordon. More than 300 documents were taken from the law firm. The next part of the procedure related to legal privilege. Slater and Gordon claimed legal privilege over some of the documents and those were returned to them. Since then it has been Bruce Wilson who was fighting the issue of legal privilege based upon lawyer-client relationship.

The Victorian Crimes Act is quite clear in this matter, that where there is a commission of a crime legal privilege does not exist… or at least along those lines.

The lawyers for Wilson ended up by trying to blame the other player in the saga, Ralph Edwin Blewitt, claiming that he was not a credible witness. However, the Chief Magistrate thinks otherwise…..

The decision of the Chief Magistrate means that Wilson cannot claim he has a right to legal privilege over the seized documents. A sideline is that Lauristen indicated that Ralph Blewitt was a credible witness in that he knew when giving evidence under oath to police that there were penalties if he was not telling the truth.

What does this mean? First of all, it means that the Chief Magistrate agrees that there has been a crime of fraud. When charges are laid then we will know more about the actual crimes and possibly more about who is to be charged by police.

The investigation is much wider than the matter of the signing of the power of attorney. It also touches upon the knowledge of the lawyer when she helped to set up the AWU-WRA. It also goes to the heart of the woman’s credibility. She has none.

At this point in time this is just a summary of the events as they are unfolding. I have no doubt in my mind that Julia Eileen Gillard was aware of the real purpose of the bogus association, and that she gained benefit from the funds that were ripped off.

Another aspect of this case feeds into the current behaviours of Thiess. The company has also caused scandal in the UAE. The involvement of Thiess is also pivotal to the whole of the affair as it has unfolded.

Comments are closed.