Help Crowd Fund The Jacksonville Book Here

Help Crowd Fund The Jacksonville Book Here

While Kathy Jackson and Michael Lawler have been keeping their heads down of late after their disastrous and utterly daft decision to appear on 4 Corners, it doesn’t mean the wheels have stopped turning regarding the investigations into their affairs.

Rumours persist that the police raid on the properties associated with Lawler and Jackson uncovered a rather large amount of cocaine, however there is no confirmed evidence of any such finding. Such findings could be a complete and utter disaster for the Fair Work Commission. Any case presided over by Lawler could find itself open to appeal, a move that could waste even more taxpayer funds than the ridiculous $435K per annum salary the taxpayer forks out Lawler already. A role he hasn’t bothered showing up to for months on end now.

However it is the other names that are allegedly coming up in the investigation that are possibly the most alarming, although to those familiar with the case unsurprising.

Two of those names are reportedly Bill Shorten and David Feeney.

Shorten of course is the current Opposition Leader, David Feeney is the current Shadow Assistant Minister for Defence, Shadow Minister for Veterans Affairs, Shadow Minister for The Centenary of ANZAC and perhaps the most ironic of all the Shadow Minister for Justice.

Wixxyleaks have been assured by sources that there are several avenues of police inquiry regarding David Feeney and his wife Liberty Sanger.

David Feeney and Liberty Sanger - Tough times ahead?

David Feeney and Liberty Sanger – Tough times ahead?

Feeney as many may remember from the Royal Commission was allegedly a key financier for the election campaigns of both Kathy Jackson and Marco Bolano. It is alleged that Bolano is currently under police investigation for insurance fraud regarding his workers compensation claim that he was completely incapacitated yet he was fine to try to intimidate witnesses at the Royal Commission.

Under the microscope, allegedly, is the arrangements of a property deal between Jeff and Kathy Jackson, and David Feeney and Liberty Sanger.

Also disturbingly, Wixxyleaks has been told there are also possible irregularities involving the superannuation funds of which Jackson and Feeney were board members.

I am led to believe that things are looking grim for both David Feeney and his wife Liberty Sanger. This will clearly have an impact on Feeney’s career but given his wife Sanger is on the Board of Maurice Blackburn Lawyers things may not work out real dandy for her either.

Sounding like something straight from a movie script, the police investigation is also allegedly looking into a group known as the “Union Wives Club”.

The Union Wives Club were allegedly a group of women who liked to travel like Getaway presenters and dine like they were restaurant reviewers. The group travelled frequently and went on many jaunts together it has been alleged, both in Australia and abroad.

Members of this group allegedly included Kathy Jackson, Liberty Sanger, and Debbie Beale.

Debbie Beale is the former wife of Bill Shorten, and at the time of the Union Wives Club the pair were still married.

If Debbie Beale had so much as a bottle of water paid for her by Kathy Jackson from misappropriated HSU member’s funds then Shorten could easily find himself being seen as benefiting from the proceeds of crime.

Bill Shorten may be in a bit of a pickle Image - News Ltd

Bill Shorten may be in a bit of a pickle
Image – News Ltd

Given the stories I have heard, much of which is well-known within the union movement, regarding Jackson’s allegedly outrageous spending of union members funds in bars and restaurants, I would be very surprised if Beale was not a beneficiary of this spending, and hence Shorten indirectly, or perhaps even directly on occasion. Evidence of this spending of Jackson’s is public knowledge and has been referred to in the Royal Commission as well as having received widespread media attention and is also part of the current Federal Police investigation.

Bearing this in mind, I am of the view that Shorten should have a long and hard think about the Party’s interests given what is likely to be coming out in not so glorious detail soon, probably just in time for the campaign kick-off.

At the very least David Feeney is going to have more question marks than the American National Anthem surrounding him. This is a man Shorten promoted, and given both men’s completely opposing views on Jackson one questions why Shorten would promote the funder of someone determined to bring him down.

On a completely different note, but loosely related, many have sprung to Turnbull’s defence regarding his failure to sack Mal Brough using the “Gillard stood by Thomson” defence.

Well, I’ll leave the Ashbygate investigation to those who know more than I, however the Thomson comparison is utterly ridiculous.

The current calls are for Turnbull to sack Brough from his position in the Ministry and as Special Minister Of State. The latter being where he ironically is the man in charge of government integrity, a sure sign that integrity is something the government lacks. Nobody is suggesting he should be sacked from the Party, no one is claiming he should be booted out of parliament, something Turnbull can’t do as Brough was democratically elected. People do however have an expectation regarding the integrity of the Ministry.

Please just shut up and go away... Turnbull hangs his head as Brough opens his mouth Image - Fairfax

Please just shut up and go away… Turnbull hangs his head as Brough opens his mouth
Image – Fairfax

Thomson on the other hand had the sense and dignity to stand down from the committee’s he chaired and was appointed to, the moment he was aware he was under investigation. Julia Gillard did not stand behind Thomson at all, in fact Thomson stood down from the Labor Party and became an independent MP. What Gillard did stand behind however was the notion of “innocent until proven guilty” as well as Thomson’s decision to hold the integrity of parliament as something more important than any one MP and his resulting standing down from appointed positions.

If Brough had half the integrity of Thomson he’d do the same.

Then again, if Turnbull had any integrity he’d force the issue.

With both leaders starting to smell like the stuff they shovel, maybe it’s time to ask a question.

“Will a real leader please stand up?”

Shirts Ad pic


Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here

Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here

16 thoughts on “Ex’s And Oh’s – Jackson Investigation Looking Like A Game-Changer

  1. No doubt you know more than we do, Wixxy, and possibly more than you can print. But at the moment it seems to be rumour, innuendo and speculation. For now, best stick to ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ That said, it looks like a rough ride ahead for certain major players.

  2. Certainly innocent until proven guilty, but it’s not going to be a good look in a campaign…

  3. Looks to me like someone may be charged with possession of a prohibited drug. Bit hard to prove drug use without more evidence. But even possession will come up against the FILIPETTI DEFENCE and be hard to prove.

    To possess something under law means that a person has control over something. By law a person doesn’t need to have the thing in their pocket or wallet, but the person needs to have some sort of physical control over the thing. The person also needs to have knowledge that they possess the thing(s).

    Say for example you have a gun in your house and you’re aware of it, then you possess the gun.

    But what happens if the police say you have a gun in your house and you also live with a numer of people, or people frequent your house? The gun could belong to anyone.

    R v Filipetti can often make it difficult for prosecutors to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. If prohibited drugs are found in a common area of a ‘shared premises’ (eg lounge room, kitchen, bathroom, backyard, balcony etc), the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:
    1. one occupant has ‘exclusive possession’ of the drugs; ie the drugs are his or her’s only; or
    2. several occupants ‘jointly possess’ the drugs; ie they all share in the exclusive physical control over the drugs.
    See: R v Fillipetti (1978) 13 A Crim R 335.

    If ‘exclusive drug possession’ is alleged, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that none of the other occupants may have possessed the drug, and that no-one else may have left the drugs there eg a visitor.
    This can be difficult to prove if the defendant has not made ‘admissions’ (ie confessed to possessing the drugs), or if there is no other evidence linking him/her to the drugs eg fingerprints on resealable bags, incriminating mobile phone messages, witness statements saying they were his/hers etc.
    In these types of cases, the prosecution can often be persuaded to ‘drop’ the drug charges at an early stage.
    If ‘joint drug possession’ is alleged, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that each defendant intended to share in the exclusive physical control of the drugs.
    To prove ‘knowledge’ of possession the courts look at the surrounding circumstances and will draw inferences.

    Finger prints may indeed be crucial in a case where its difficult to prove exclusive possession. Very surprising rumours.

  4. Oh one more thing – I forgot. Sometimes a defendant charged with drug possession can decide to give evidence as to the ID of the supplier and associated payments. Very interesting stuff.

  5. There are at least two eye-witnesses to what Wixxy might be suggesting in his article about drugs. One eye-witness is still in Australia. The other is now living overseas. The police would need to identify and locate those eye-witnesses first. But even if identified and located, the two witnesses would then need to agree to attest to what they saw first hand. Not an easy task for investigators to accomplish.

  6. Peter none of this is new. The likes Kangaroo Court and others have been pushing it from day one. I mean the rumours concerning Shorten and Feeney.

    First I have heard of any connected to Debbie Beale.

    I think Abbott might have based TURC on these rumours. Just a thought. One would have though TURC with all the resources they have, would have found something.

  7. The Shorten angle with Kangaroo Court etc has always been based on Jacksons affidavit that she put out against Federal Court orders about 3 years ago, I covevered that way back then and went to court to see proceedings, even had my pic taken outside with Kathy.

    However those reports related to Jackson claiming Shorten assaulted her at a BBQ and has been using factional influences to hold Jackson back. Completely completely different to this.

    I have mentioned Feeney from day dot also as he was Jackson and Bolano’s financier, that is not new at all, however this alleged avenue of police inquiry is totally new ground, although I have questioned the property transaction previously. However me raising it and police investigating are 2 different things also.

    TURC were looking in all the wrong directions and were protecting Jackson, these allegations if true all have Jackson involved and were only going to come out if she was going to go down, and go down screaming.

    Beale for example to be benefitting from the proceeds of crime, it has to based on Jackson having been found to be using stolen money. That’s not the angle TURC was going for.

    Abbott was just fishing as Shortens name came up all the time, if Jackson had anything real on Bill that didn’t implicate her, we would have heard it by now.

  8. Maybe just wishful thinking on my part. Want it to be wrong,. Then Shorten is no fool. I can’t see him going ahead if even tiniest bit of truth. He is a young enough man to try again later down the track.

  9. well that was disappointing rubbish , waste of ink really ..would of been, could of been ?

  10. Interesting post Peter, given your successful previous investigations and subsequent followups by the Courts and the Feds, I can understand why you have held back somewhat and are simply providing ‘food for thought’ as it were.
    I look forward to further releases, in due course and in your own time. None of the main players are going anywhere.
    I hope Anthony Albanese sees your latest, sooner rather than later as we head into election year, the Labor caucus are going to have to make a decision whether they put pressure on Shorten to stand down, or go into an election, with him as a leader so unpopular, in the sure knowledge they have very little chance of winning with him at the helm.
    I am not sure he is as honorable and dedicated to the good of the party, not his own ambition, he will relinquish the leadership.
    Great article. Rather than ‘disappointing rubbish’, it does no harm to exercise the grey cells pondering what could be. You haven’t been too far off target so far.

  11. The only reason i could think of for Lawler and Jacksons somewhat lunatic episode on Four Corners was to warn absolutely every one who has spoken to Lawler and probably Jackson on the phone that they have taped every conversation and if they don’t support them they will be taken down with them. “This is how i record all of your conversations any time any where” the list of political figures and media figures who spoke to them would it seems be bigger than the list of those who didn’t. Lawler and Jackson blatantly conducted a corrupt political campaign against Craig Thomson from the office of fair Work Australia with Abbott’s knowledge and it still goes on under Turnbull with Thomsons recent assault by them using taxpayers money to in the court continue to crush a man they have bankrupted and destroyed with NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. A corrupt judicial and political system could do this to any one of us.

  12. I had always wondered why Labor did’nt pursue the Jackson saga,and now i know why.
    A bit too close to home?

  13. Aha Wixxy we are finally getting to the Shorten connection. Let’s hope he has the sense to step aside and let the full truth finally come out on all of this.

Leave a Reply