Help Crowd Fund The Jacksonville Book Here
Who would have thought it?
The Labor Party and the Australian Union Movement can never have a common goal.
A union campaign based around worker’s rights ceases to be a union campaign when one of those in the union movement becomes a political candidate. At that point it metamorphosis’s into a political campaign. The campaign at that moment immediately fails to benefit workers and becomes all about the political candidate without changing even one word in the campaign. Not only that, a campaign being run by that union at an event in South Australia can only benefit the candidate who signed off on it from another state in an electorate that those attending the event are highly unlikely to ever visit given it is several thousand miles away.
This is the findings of the Federal Court in Melbourne this week in a finding that must have MP’s from the Labor Party racing out for adult size diapers nationwide.
The Labor Party in their infinite wisdom chose to leave a former MP at the mercy of the wolves and with not a cent to his name to allow him to contest a case that may have far-reaching ramifications for a large chunk of its caucus. They may well reap a whirlwind as a result of leaving him high and dry.
The case I refer to is of course the civil matter of Craig Thomson that left a man on the verge of bankruptcy another $460K poorer. Thomson is now rumoured to be looking for a stone to squeeze blood out of.
Craig Thomson looks for a bleeding stone
Apparently the largest union campaign in recent memory, the “Your Rights At Work” campaign became less about WorkChoices and more about Craig Thomson for Dobell when the HSU signed onto the campaign as so many other unions did.
Given Greg Combet oversaw the Your Rights At Work campaign for all of the unions as head of the ACTU before entering parliament, one wonders if he has googled “non-extradition countries” upon hearing of the courts findings. I hear Switzerland is nice this time of year.
It’s not just the Labor Party either. The Greens, having discovered that they cannot stop the unions donating to the Labor Party legally, are now cosying up to several unions to put their snouts in the trough. One candidate running next Federal Election against Anthony Albanese is a union leader, we also know his union has a dubious relationship with a Green NSW State MP.
In an era where the Parties are trying to attract new members who are willing to stand as MP’s who would want to?
Thomson has been dragged through the courts for years to the point of near bankruptcy. This was of course as the nation’s press have smeared him.
Publicly humiliated and financially ruined for crimes he was found not guilty of in Criminal Court.
That not being enough punishment he has now been given a $460K bill for allegations he could not afford to contest.
Thomson’s real crime of course was being a weak link in a hung parliament.
Thomson found himself on the nose when Tony Abbott smelled an opportunity to seize the keys to the Lodge.
A job where the whiff of political opportunity can leave you broke, publicly humiliated, mentally traumatised, and inflict so much psychological pain on your family, where do I sign up?
By contrast at the same time in the Senate, we had Liberal Senator Mary Jo Fischer, who was given a heroes send off from parliament.
Fischer however did not spend union members funds on probably the most important union campaign in a century. All she did was attempt to steal property from a small business, multiple times, and then assault a security guard.
On the other side of the coin we have Thomson’s accusers Kathy Jackson and Michael Lawler.
I know I usually wipe your ass, but the crap has been coming out your mouth for 4 Corners – Jackson & Lawler
Jackson of course has a $1.4 Million finding against her and a joint Victorian and Federal Police investigation into her activities. That investigation is also looking at her partner, her former hubby and many of her friends and allies.
Today news surfaced that Jackson’s appeal against Federal Court decision that she repay over $1.4 Million had been dismissed. It needs to be remembered that the bulk of the findings against Thomson were for union campaigns such as the “Your Rights At Work” campaign, not overseas holidays, overpaid wages, expensive dinners, nights at the pub with her mates and household items like Jackson’s expenditure.
Meanwhile the prospects of Michael Lawler rocking up to his $430K taxpayer-funded job seem increasingly remote as he has checked himself into a psychiatric facility for treatment. This must make Michaela Cash’s “independent” investigation into allegations against him rorting taxpayers interesting, with his failure to even show up at the Fair Work offices for months on end.
A look at the expenditure involved in the Jackson case only serves to highlight the travesty of the court findings in relation to Thomson.
If there is a bright side for Thomson it is this, with his ordeal now over he can now freely offer commentary on his accusers legal woes.
I look forward to that.
Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here
When I read of Thomson`s further woes I wondered at the injustice of it all,and the abandonment of him by Labor.
Your article puts up a far better defence of Craig then the whole ALP combined.
As far as Greens go toward Union affiliation well they smell blood on the shop steward`s floor because Right Faction run Labor clearly wants corporate dollars like the US Democrats receive.
Of course greens would be partial to campaign dollars from corps I`m sure [no matter how much front bum bravado is put up there]
The recent attacks by the TURC and AFP on the AFMEU has shown the blatant politicising of union membership [high level media covered searches and arrests-complete silence of acquittals]
The ALP Left has been the only defender of this and not until acquittal have we heard from Shorty { the great AWU union man who has his name on the soles of his shoes so we knew who hung out of Marius Kloppers arse]
Keep rattling the tin Wixxy,the peeps are stirring and don`t like the bullshit being flung,unemployment has that effect of bringing the high and mighty back to reality.
I too am looking forward to hearing more from Craig and if bankruptcy looms for him then he may as well get it over and done with.
Once discharged he may recoup some threads from his personal tragedy which became so public because the hubris of Tony Abbott
When I heard of KJ’s appeal being squashed yesterday my first thought was for Craig. I know you have been through absolute hell Craig and no doubt would love to forget all of this but I really hope that you will find it in you to tell your side with nothing held back now that the real crooks are being outed
& what of the sex workers in Australia that became the flogging horse during the media frenzy of lies over Craig Thomsons case. When do we achieve justice
I don’t know Elena, but I wouldn’t be holding my breath
And so, despite your constant assertions of Thompson’s innocence, he has definitively been found guilty. Without doubt, there are others guilty of more serious fraud, but guilt is guilt. We’re the ALP complicit ? Possibly “accessories after the fact” ? You judge.
I make assertions that he was found Not Guilty on the vast bulk of charges, Guilty on a small number related to cash withdrawals totalling around $3K over 5 years.
I make these assertions based on public record after the conclusion of his trial in criminal court, a conclusion that received nowhere near the amount of press coverage that the brothel and hooker charges received, charges he was found Not Guilty of.
Were the ALP. complicit in a union secretary withdrawing what equates to less than $50 a month from an ATM machine and not saving the appropriate receipts?
Yep, I’m sure they had their top guy on it, you may be on to something….
Spot on Wixxy. The bit I don’t get is why that magistrate lectured Thomson on the evils of spending money on prostitutes in his judgement when there was no conviction?
Curious that still no real sex worker involved has come forward other than the phony one produced by mysterious sources who withdrew when the concept of perjury was explained to her.
So is this what happens when the charged person runs out of money to defend themselves?
Expect Shorten to be charged with sodomy like Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia as he is before each election as our political and legal systems seem to be getting to have more in common with the Malaya
How can fair Work Australia have been able to conduct this case when they are so comprimised by the blatant corrupt actions of Lawler on behalf of Jackson to blatantly attack Thomson from the very office of Fair Work Australia. Looking at how Jackson has been found guity of theft of $1.4 mill and lawler has publicky admitted to colluding with her from his office let alone the other dubios practices he admitted to on Four Corners how come the courts don’t re open this case and explore it for the sake of thye reputaion of our legal system.
There are a number of assertions made by Peter Wicks that I could contest; but they are not the most important considerations from Craig Thomson’s hell of the last seven years.
There are many disturbing aspects to Craig Thomson’s case that go to the heart of the administration of justice and the basis of equity in society. A moral mess can only aid those with power. What aids the most ruthless power-brokers is the un-civil society with the bare facade of due process – which runs on how much money you have, and who can recruit which lawyers.
When judges act like pawns to higher powers, the legal system is a set-up designed for those with power to damage those without it, as lesson to everyone else. The sensational headlines that the MSM gleefully indulge in are victimisations that warn the public, ‘this could be you’. This selective, malign targeting can be seen easily here in the difference between the featuring on Thomson’s case and the restrained approach to Jackson, the very opportune lackey to the powerful. Jackson’s alleged misuse of HSU funds is far wider and far more self-indulgent. But she was Abbott’s ‘hero of the Union movement’, his first and last it appears.
The MSM have treated this matter in a way that can only bolster the powerful few.
The clandestine arrangements between police and Media ensure that any target of police activity can be presented in the most unfavourable light.
The submissive and anti-critical relation of journos with the cops allows such grandstanding as dawn raids on the un-favoured; with the Media informed beforehand.
Such a relationship is founded in iniquity; and yet the Media appear to take pride in such scoops for a foolish and obsequiously punitive public.
The active involvement of police in politically motivated targeting is very disquieting. They are employed by the public to uphold the law and maintain peace – not to push their weight around, and prioritise targets according to their own political preferences. Until a complete overhaul of the recruiting and training methods of police, their preferences are unlikely to be progressive. If it was so important to raid Craig Thomson’s place in case evidence might have been lost, why not the afternoon before?
Even more important is what this case exposes as the basic iniquity of the legal system.
The vast disparity between Craig’s criminal and civil liability shows vulnerability of the law to enormous political skewing. This system is supposed to turn on facts and fair and rigorous assessment – not on how much money and power you have. Where do we get public comments by judges that declare their awareness and acknowledgment of this vulnerability? The occasions are rare.
At criminal law Craig was convicted on 13 charges amounting to under $5,000. The very same circumstances at civil law finds him liable to $231,000 – plus interest and a large fine.
The difference of $226,000 goes unremarked on in the Media, except to be taken as his escape at criminal law, made up for in the civil proceedings. But the civil law is not intended as a revenge for the higher burden of proof and stricter assessment of evidence at criminal law. The emphasis throughout on punitiveness and not clarity shows a culture subject to the dictates of a Media owned by the powerful who are determined never to examine the gross imbalances of power at work in the law. The $226,000 difference also reflects the difference between where the defendant manages to muster a defence and where he does not.
It is most concerning that this case that has been treated with such prominence has not brought to discussion the scenario that would not be rare if the very powerful with unlimited money intend to victimise anyone to reinforce their power. Craig Thomson would not be alone in being without money left to fight civil proceedings after paying for criminal defence and costs. Any use of civil procedure to target a defendant after he has been ‘softened up’ by criminal process against him, is an evil and vicious misuse of the law. The public are paying for all this – and they are supposed to be content that such a case is rendered as a sideshow for the delight of reaction and the entertainment of ignorance. As if it could not happen to you.
These concerns exist irrespective of the details of the case. This has been a monstering by power, produced as Entertainment for the gormless masses. Such ingrained malevolence has a long heritage. Anyone who has studied the Hilton bombing fiasco of the late 1970s to the early 1990s is forever reminded of the gross corruption of process and evidence there in what has happened since. All to the tune of a baying, ferocious MSM, journos as servile ferals to hidden power.
Such matters will never be properly addressed until we get politicians with the guts and integrity to investigate them. These matters go to the heart of the legal system, and the personnel entrenched there for careers that never get public attention. For example such thorough enquiry would need to investigate the culturally inbred insularity of police forces, the perjury that is rife in the undermining of fair legal assessment.
We need a far more actively critical judiciary. For example the conduct of the judge in this last Federal Court process is clearly unsatisfactory at equity. This is not just the dismissal of his application on his mental health; but moreover the completely inadequate regard for the non-contest by the defendant against the charges made against him. No fair-minded person could have confidence in this system.
Anyone can check Peter Wicks’ opnion against the judgement of the Federal Court
General Manager of the Fair Work Commission v Thomson (No 3) [2015] FCA 1001 (11 September 2015)
People might then have some comparative background to this matter.