This week once again Brad Norington of The Australian has revived my faith in investigative journalism in this country.
Norington, on February 28 exposed us to the murky world of Tony Abbott’s heroes Kathy Jackson and Michael Lawler and their recent relationship with 83-year-old dementia sufferer David Rofe QC, and in particular their involvement in his $30 Million estate. Many have described their behaviour as “ambulance chasing”, and there are words I could use to describe their behaviour and ethics that are not fit to print.
Suffice to say, Tony Abbott has a different view on someone who is “brave and decent” to me.
I looked up “brave” in the dictionary. I found no mention of using what in my opinion are excuses to delay Federal Court proceedings for around two years. It also failed to mention refusing to answer questions on the stand at a Royal Commission and claiming to be ambushed.
I also looked up “decent” while I was at it, and can’t say I was surprised to find that taking $250K of cancer research money and depositing it in a personal bank account wasn’t there. Nor was teaming up with your partner to reportedly try to control the estate of an old man with dementia.
Little Miss Decency according to Abbott
However, just when you think that things could not become any murkier, they do.
Norington’s article published yesterday gives an eyewitness account of the pressure exerted on the 83-year-old dementia sufferer David Rofe by the Coalition pin-up girl Kathy Jackson, and her Tony Abbott appointed partner Michael Lawler. If the allegations, which have come via a signed affidavit that was given to NSW Police, are true then it really does paint this pair in an extremely poor light.
The $1.35 Million dollar property that Lawler purchased with Rofe’s money allegedly against Rofe’s wishes can be viewed via this link and as you can see by the pool with no safety fence, high balconies and steep sloping yard are not what I would have envisioned at suitable for an 83-year-old dementia sufferer.
Probably not suited to an 83 year-old dementia sufferer… He aint gonna get any younger
However what is interesting about this turn of events is not only what happened but who was involved.
The events described in detail in Norington’s article took place at a lunch at the residence of Kathy Jackson and Michael Lawler.
The witness who has signed an affidavit with an account of what occurred over lunch was none other than Bob Kernohan.
Also at the lunch were Kathy Jackson, Michael Lawler, Davis Rofe QC and also blogger Michael Smith, who at the time was living with Jackson and Lawler.
If we cast our minds back a little to the Trade Union Royal Commission it sheds an interesting light on the entire procedure.
The Royal Commission was set up by Tony Abbott and George Brandis and it was clear from the outset that it was designed and set up to achieve two primary goals, the crucifixion of Julia Gillard and the vindication of Kathy Jackson.
The Royal Commission spectacularly failed on both counts.
What I find alarming is that all living under one roof during the Royal Commission we have;
- Kathy Jackson – The union turncoat facing allegations of $1.4 Million in fraud and someone praised by Coalition members including Tony Abbott
- Michael Lawler – The Vice President of Fair Work Commission, the government body where workplace issues and union matters are resolved and who’s investigation into the HSU skipped over his partner Jacksons time and was the basis for the HSU hearings at the Commission. An appointee of the man who set up the Royal Commission Tony Abbott, and someone who has acted as a lawyer for Kathy Jackson
- Bob Kernohan – The leading witness against Former PM Julia Gillard. One time friend of right-wing blogger and anti-union propagandist Michael Smith.
- Michael Smith – The blogger and former shock-jock who led the charge against Julia Gillard and who has been a cheerleader for Kathy Jackson despite evidence against her. Smith is also a friend of the Royal Commission’s creator George Brandis, who even gave a speech at Smith’s wedding after travelling there at the taxpayers expense only paying it back reluctantly after the media highlighted it.
Just go to the wedding, you can always bill the taxpayer like I did for my book promo tour…
Image- The Australian
It would seem the only people missing in this cosy household is Brandis and Abbott himself.
Some people have umbrella racks at their front door, I wonder if there was a rack at the Jackson/Lawler residence for pitchforks, as it appears a large chunk of the witch-hunt brigade were all under the one roof.
The Royal Commission was set up to destroy reputations and ironically it may just succeed in doing that. However it is the reputations of Abbott and Brandis that are most at risk and given Abbott’s standing within his own party, not to mention the polls, and given Brandis’s recent censure over the hugely embarrassing Triggs debacle, I’m not sure either has too much credibility left for their reputations to cling too.
One thing is for sure these matters involving Jackson and Lawler are going to continue on for a long time yet, and every time their names come up in the civil and likely criminal cases it is Abbott’s and Brandis’s names that will be associated with them along with other Coalition members.
Meanwhile the taxpayer continues to pay Lawler’s $435K salary that Abbott gifted him and until that issue is resolved Abbott will always be linked with the pair.
Abbott’s ignorance of this matter is neither “brave nor decent”.
It is however what we have come to expect.
Save Wixxy from his own budget crisis by donating here
Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here
Follow @madwixxy
Wixxy is it possible that you can get someone from the HR Nichols Society to comment on this,maybe Peter Reith?
The Royal Commission was set up for ‘the vilification of Kathy Jackson’? If so, it was a spectacular failure and certainly not obvious from the outset.
They are all in denial and suddenly mute…
Wondering if you meant ‘exoneration’ of Kathy Jackson, rather than ‘vilification’, Mr Wicks..?
actually, vindication is what I meant… cheers
james (@dotrat) on March 6, 2015 You read that wrong.
james (@dotrat)
“The Royal Commission was set up for ‘the vilification of Kathy Jackson’?” where’s that ?
I don’t know what you are reading, but I read
“The Royal Commission was set up by Tony Abbott and George Brandis and it was clear from the outset that it was designed and set up to achieve two primary goals, the crucifixion of Julia Gillard and the vindication of Kathy Jackson.”
One thing for sure Cornie and that is this Jacksonville saga can play out as well in the comments as it does in the article
I read Norington`s article but I do like Wixxy`s twisty`s
me too
Not sure what your point is, Wixxy. Lawler Jackson and Smith being together is hardly news, or at least no more news than Gillard and Ludwig being at an ALP conference. What is news is the dealings with Rofe, and yet again Bob Kernohan has had the decency to identify something he saw and put down a stat dec. As for the RC being a “witch hunt” I think since the process has identified wrong doing, and given the opportunity to shine a few lights in unexpected directions then I would say you should be pretty happy with the outcome. Especially since they recommended criminal investigation of Jackson. Anyway, Norrington’s series of articles has nothing to do with the RC, but there are hints for the lateral thinking of possible misdeeds by someone else.
DUCHY,
The Royal Commission WAS set up as a witch hunt.
To get Julia Gillard.
They failed miserably and she had them with egg on their face,making mince meat of them while they had her in the stand . not that it stops Michael Smith, Pickering and the assorted bunch of degenerate right wing nutters.
Almost as a side show, the goings on of Kathy Jackson just kept growing, to the stage that even blind freddie could see the writing on the wall for Ms Jackson and her sorry band of supporters .
Some say Governments only set up Royal Commissions when they know what the outcome will be.
They sure shit in their own nest on this one though.
Good stuff Wixxy.
Hopefully we can laugh all the while some of them, one in particular is dragged of to the lockup.
Could be a case of the Alan Bonds or Christopher Skaises though
FUnny, on my page the word is clearly ‘ viNDication’. Peter was correct.
Definitely a witch hunt to destroy PM Gillard. In so doing they didn’t care who else they destroyed, and Craig Thomson and family have suffered greatly, through LNP’s desperate grab for government. How many LNP ministers rorted the system, but were permitted to just pay back rorted funds, usually of far greater monetary value than Craig was crucified for.
I am genuinely puzzled why some contributors to this blog site constantly insist the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance was established to achieve the “crucifixion of Julia Gillard “ or that is was set up as a “witch hunt to get Julia Gillard”.
The terms of reference for the Royal Commission as listed on the Attorney-General for Australia website contain the following:
The Royal Commissioner will inquire into and report on:
1. The governance arrangements of any separate entities established by registered employee associations or their officers, purportedly for industrial purposes or for the welfare of their members, with particular regard to:
a. the financial management of such entities;
b. the adequacy of existing laws as they relate to such entities with respect to:
i. the integrity of financial management; and
ii. the accountability of officers of registered employee associations to their members in respect of the use of funds and other assets in relation to such entities;
c. whether such entities are used, or have been used for any form of unlawful purpose;
d. the use of funds solicited in the name of any such entities, for the purpose of furthering the interests of:
i. a registered employee association;
ii. officers of a registered employee association;
iii. members of a registered employee association; or
iv. any other person, association or organisation.
2. Without limiting the matters in paragraph 1, alleged activities relating to the establishment or operation of any such entities as they relate to the various registered branches of the following employee associations:
a. the Australian Workers Union;
b. the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union;
c. the Electrical Trades Union;
d. the Health Services Union;
e. the Transport Workers Union; and
f. any other person, association or organisation in which in respect of which credible allegations of involvement in such activities are made.
3. The circumstances in which funds are sought from any third parties and paid to such entities.
4. Where such entities and activities related thereto exist, the extent to which persons represented by registered employee association:
a. are protected from any adverse effects or negative consequences arising from their existence; or
b. are informed of their existence; or
c. are able to have influence or control of their operation; or
d. have the opportunity to hold officers of such associations accountable for any alleged wrongdoing.
5. Any conduct which may amount to a breach of any applicable law, regulation or professional standard by any officer of a registered employee association in order to:
a. procure an advantage for themselves or another person, association or organisation; or
b. cause a detriment to a person, association or organisation.
6. Any conduct in relation to such entities which may amount to a breach of any applicable law, regulation or professional standard by officers of registered industrial employee associations who hold, by virtue of their position, a position of responsibility in relation to any such entities.
7. Any bribes, secret commissions or other unlawful payments or benefits arising from contracts, arrangements or understandings between registered employee associations or their officers and any other party.
8. The participation of any persons, associations or organisations other than registered employee associations or their officers in conduct of the type described in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7.
9. The adequacy and effectiveness of existing systems of regulation and law enforcement in dealing with any conduct of the type described in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7 or 8, and in particular, the means of redress available to registered employee associations and their members who have suffered a detriment as a result of such conduct.
10. Any issue or matter reasonably incidental to the above.
On any objective reading and interpretation of the foregoing terms of reference, how can any person sensibly conclude the current Royal Commission was established to achieve the “crucifixion of Julia Gillard “ or that is was a “witch hunt to get Julia Gillard”?
To the best of my knowledge, Julia Gillard was never a trade union member. To the best of my knowledge, she was never involved in the administration or leadership of a trade union. If this is accurate, then how could this Royal Commission into trade unions be regarded primarily as targeting Julia Gillard?
But more to the point, the Letters Patent for the current Royal Commission give absolutely no indication or hint that the real target of investigation is Julia Gillard or, for that matter, any other individual person. The current Royal Commission is charged with examining trade union governance and corruption with specific emphasis on particular trade unions. If, along the way, the Royal Commission uncovers evidence of wrongdoing by individual persons then it will, of course, recommend such persons be referred to appropriate authorities. But the bottom line is that the Royal Commission is not, and never has been, specifically targeted at the alleged crimes or misdemeanours of individual persons, including Julia Gillard.
I think the really big piece of news to come from Bob Kernohan’s assertions is that Jackson and Lawler were urging Rofe to view the vacant property next door with a view to buying it, but according to Kernohan, Rofe said he didn’t want it. Added to the assertion of Llewellyn (in his letter to the Royal Commission reported in a previous piece by Norrington) that Rofe has said he was angry when he discovered $160,000 had been transferred out of his account for the purchase of said property, we have a very serious problem for Lawler. If the assertions of these two apparently independent witnesses is found to be provable, it appears Lawler may have acted outside his authority. Not a good look for a vice president of FWC. I imagine the authorities would be investigating these claims. Abuse of EPOA powers is a very serious issue.
Duchy – for me, one of the many puzzling aspects about the unsavoury David Rofe estate matter is the existence of more than one Enduring Power of Attorney (EPOA) donated to Michael Lawler, Vice-President of the Fair Work Commission, by David Rofe QC.
The first EPOA donated to Michael Lawler was signed in June 2013 and was subsequently registered in November 2013. The second (apparently unregistered) EPOA donated to Michael Lawler was signed one year later in June 2014. The preparation and signing of this second EPOA was personally observed by Bob Kernohan (and also by blogger Michael Smith who was co-habiting with Kathy Jackson and Michael Lawler at the time).
Bob Kernohan outlined the events he witnessed in June 2014 in a Statutory Declaration dated December 2014. This Statutory Declaration was subsequently provided to NSW police as part of the then ongoing police investigation of a “suspicious” small fire at Kathy Jackson’s home in Wombarra, NSW in late January 2015.
A short time after preparation of the June 2014 EPOA, and using his power of attorney, Lawler purchased a $1.35 million property on behalf of David Rofe QC. The property at 30 Dam Road, Wombarra was in close proximity to Kathy Jackson’s property at 19 Dam Road, Wombarra. However, an interesting question is which power of attorney did Michael Lawler rely on when he purchased Rofe’s Wombarra property – the June 2013 EPOA or the 2014 EPOA? It is likely that Lawler used the June 2013 EPOA since only a registered EPOA can be used to purchase real estate in NSW. However, and in light of the murky nature of this entire affair, one cannot fully discount the possibility that the unregistered June 2014 EPOA was improperly (and possibly illegally) used by Lawler to purchase Rofe’s Wombarra property. Only an independent investigation could establish which of the two EPOAs was used to purchase the property at 30 Dam Road, Wombarra.
It is something of a mystery as to why Michael Lawler even prepared and signed the (unregistered) EPOA in June 2014. As journalist Brad Norington of The Australian newspaper recently wrote:
“It is not clear why Mr Lawler would have wanted to secure a power of attorney at this time because he already had one.”
But as Norington was to report in a different article, it seems Lawler relinquished one of his two EPOAs (presumably the June 2013 EPOA) a few months later in August 2014. Norington wrote:
“Control of the Rofe estate reverted to the Public Trustee in August, with Mr Lawler forgoing his power of attorney, after Mr Llewellyn pressed his opposition to the continued involvement of Mr Lawler and Ms Jackson.”
It is likely that the power of attorney Lawler relinquished in August 2014 was the June 2013 EPOA, as this was the only one that was registered and available on the public record. But the basic question remains: why was it necessary at the time for Michael Lawler to hold two EPOA documents? At least two possible explanations present themselves.
The first possible explanation reflects the fact that Michael Lawler and Kathy Jackson were engaged in a fierce battle for control over the $30 million Rofe estate in the lead up to August 2014. This explanation rests on the assumption that the existence of the June 2014 EPOA was generally unknown by parties outside of Michael Lawler and Kathy Jackson,
As reported by journalist Brad Norington, there was an ongoing battle raging between Michael Lawler and Kathy Jackson on one side, and Nick LLewellyn on the other side. Nick Llewellyn was a (former?) young friend of David Rofe’s who enjoyed considerable and ongoing financial benefits from the Rofe estate via the June 2013 EPOA donated to Michael Lawler. Llewellyn allegedly held concerns that Lawler and Jackson were trying to exclude him from these benefits.
It seems reasonable to suppose that the EPOA that Lawler relinquished in August 2014 was one that Llewellyn knew about, namely the June 2013 EPOA. The “battle” between the opposing camps had been in progress for several months. Lawler probably anticipated that he would eventually have to give up the 2013 EPOA and so, in readiness for this eventuality, he prepared a “replacement” EPOA in June 2014. Knowledge of the June 2014 EPOA might have been deliberately kept from Llewellyn. Lawler might even have deliberately chosen not to register the replacement June 2014 EPOA just in case Llewellyn’s side found out about it. Such a possibility would, of course, speak to Michael Lawler’s intent in the matter of David Rofe’s estate.
But a second possible explanation for the creation of two EPOA documents also exists. The purpose of the June 2014 EPOA was to deliberately cut out Llewellyn from the Rofe estate and Lawler actually told Llewellyn about this intended outcome. This might have provided the trigger for the battle between the Lawler/Jackson camp and the Llewellyn camp. Under this scenario, Lawler did not register the June 2014 EPOA because he was under no obligation to do so, And although the June 2014 EPOA would not be able to be used to purchase real estate, it would nevertheless have been useful enough for Lawler and Jackson to enjoy continued access David Rofe’s bank accounts.
The seriousness of the questions that I and others have raised in relation to this sleazy David Rofe matter cannot be underestimated – especially given that a very senior quasi-judicial official is centrally involved. We need only remind ourselves that in the past Australian judicial officers have found themselves in serious trouble over matters as small as a traffic infringement notice. The David Rofe estate situation is not a small matter, and it is to be hoped the relevant authorities are conducting, or will conduct, serious investigation into the activities and behaviour of Fair Work Commission Vice-President Michael Lawler.
Fascinating read JB
I`m breathless
Author,encore huzzah
JB, both of your scenarios seem reasonable and plausible explanations of possible events.
Nevertheless, I put it again. Regardless of Michael Lawler’s possession of a registered EPOA enabling him to buy property on behalf of David Rofe QC, if he did not have permission, indeed if Mr Rofe had said he did not want it, then Michael Lawler exceeded the powers bequeathed to him by the document.
Two independent witnesses have put their names to documents which said Mr Rofe did not want it.
Despite what Mr Lawler’s solicitor has said, an EPOA does not allow the attorney to make decisions about where the donor should live. Mr Lawler’s solicitor seems to understand this, and has said Mr Rofe’s guardian supported the decision to buy this property Mr Lawler thought eminently suitable by way of it’s proximity to the home of Rofe’s friend of 2 years, Kathy Jackson (former executor of his 30 million dollar estate, and benefactor of 10%).
What steps did the guardian and ex secretary of Rofe take to establish this property purchase was necessary for Mr Rofe’s well being, and desired by the donor, bearing in mind that he already had a home set up for his 24 hour care in Sydney?
How would acquiring this remote property on a coastal block with a house manifestly unsuited to a disabled and demented man improve on his current living situation?
Surely if things became worse for him from a health point of view he would be better being closer to health facilities rather than further away?
Whose benefit was served by buying the house next door to Kathy Jackson in the name of a man who might very well soon perish as a consequence of his dementing illness?
These are valid questions.
Duchy – the questions you posed are most certainly valid ones. Indeed, they are so important that they cry out for full answers and explanations! And I just hope and pray that the questions you raise are not merely swept under the carpet and buried as so many others have in recent times.
Full credit to Bob Kernohan for having the courage and integrity to once again rise to the occasion and fearlessly shine a light on such a despicable event. The fact that these sleazy goings on are occurring at the highest social levels, and that they involve such quasi judicial luminaries as Michael Lawler, Vice-president of Australia’s Fair Work Commission, is very troubling to say the least.
And in contrast to the courage displayed by Bob Kernohan, we witness the craven and cowardly silence of blogger and former radio shock jock, Michael Philip Smith. Smith, who had a ringside seat while the despicable Rofe estate events witnessed by Bob Kernohan were being played out, chose to say and do nothing about what he had seen and heard. Like the three royal monkeys rolled into one, Smith apparently sees, hears and speaks no evil. Instead of standing up and speaking out for the rights of an 83-year old man with dementia, Smith remained mute protecting his “close friend” Kathy Jackson and her reported fiancé, Michael Lawler.
This is the same Michael Smith who relentlessly pursues Julia Gillard at every turn, who persistently demands continuing investigation into Craig Thomson and the other enemies of Kathy Jackson and who shamelessly heaps continuous offensive criticism on one of Australia’s most pre-eminent jurists, Justice John Dyson Heydon AC QC, Commissioner for the current Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. The same Michael Smith who talks long and loud on what he sees as the failure of others to speak out on important social justice issues. The same Michael Smith who misses no opportunity to remind others of his brief periods of time as an Australian soldier and a Victoria police officer.
Yet when push comes to shove, when the opportunity arises for him to truly demonstrate just how much of an ethical, crime fighting investigator he truly is, where is Michael Smith? AWOL and missing in action. I guess it’s far easier for Michael Smith to continue to mindlessly stand by his “close friend” Kathy Jackson, and to make repeated appeals to his band of largely retired followers for financial contributions to keep his website afloat.
JB, I see further murky details have come out. Apparently Lawler authorised the purchase of a luxury unit for Llewellyn at Q1 just before he gave up his POA. How this could possibly be of benefit to David Rofe is unexplained, since Llewellyn has a lease for 20 years for the total sum of $240, and probably won’t make it to 103. It does not appear that it can be passed off as a property investment.
The whole thing is completely outrageous.
As for Smith, I am now wondering who paid for his trip to Bali with Jackson in July 2013, neither of that pair actually had a job. Time to send in the forensic accountants.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/david-rofes-funds-used-to-buy-luxury-apartment-for-ex-friend/story-fn59noo3-1227254274597
Oh, and by the way I meant the holiday in July 2014. But while we’re talking about holidays Llewllyn had a first class trip to Bali in 2012 while Rofe was in hospital dangerously ill. And this is the same sponger who Lawler went in to bat for against Rofe’s friends and family! Unreal.
Fascinating stuff Duchy,forensic accountants indeed especially as relatives of David Rofe will get wind of this
In the space of less than a week, we are now presented with yet another report by journalist Brad Norington of “The Australian”. Published today was Norington’s fourth report into the sleazy events relating to the $30 million estate of 83-year old dementia sufferer and retired barrister, David Rofe QC. Once again, we are treated to new disclosures about the behaviour and conduct of the central players in this scandal – Fair Work Commission vice-president Michael Lawler, his fiancée and ex-HSU boss, Kathy Jackson and a most unusual peer of the realm, “Lord Nicholas Alexander Llewellyn, Lord of Glencoe”, more commonly known as Nicholas Llewellyn (formerly Nicholas Herceg).
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/david-rofes-funds-used-to-buy-luxury-apartment-for-ex-friend/story-fn59noo3-1227254274597
It seems that, in quick succession, Michael Lawler, who held David Rofe’s registered Enduring Power of Attorney (EPOA) between June 2013 and August 2014, purchased two $1 million plus properties on behalf of David Rofe.
The first property which, according to at least two independent witnesses, David Rofe did not like or want was purchased by Michael Lawler in June 2014 for $1.35 million at 30 Dam Road, Wombarra NSW. This property is opposite to, and in very close proximity to, Kathy Jackson’s present home where Michael Lawler also resides.
The second property, a Gold Coast apartment, was purchased by Michael Lawler for $1.2 million. It is presumed that the Gold Coast property was purchased after the Wombarra property was acquired in June 2014, but sometime before Michael Lawler relinquished David Rofe’s donated EPOA in August 2014.
Purchase of the Queensland property was accompanied by some most extraordinary lease arrangements that bestowed remarkable benefits on Nicholas Llewellyn. His Lordship can now live in the Gold Coast apartment for the next 20 years at a $1 per month rental – something referred to as “peppercorn rent” in legal circles. That is to say, for a total outlay of $240, Nicholas Llewellyn can reside in a luxury apartment on the Gold Coast for the next two decades.
In addition, generous provisions (apparently involving codicils added to one of David Rofe’s various wills) have been made to cover the apartment’s running costs during this 20-year period. Other generous benefits will also flow to Nicholas Llewellyn should he decide to sell the Gold Coast property during the 20-year lease tenure. In return for this largesse, it appears Nicholas Llewellyn has agreed not to make contact with David Rofe ever again, and not make any future claims on the Rofe estate.
What David Rofe QC decides to do with his money and wealth is, of course, a matter for David Rofe. And as the holder of David Rofe’s donated EPOA, Michael Lawler was certainly authorised (provided certain statutory conditions were met) to purchase real estate on David Rofe’s behalf. But there are some very interesting aspects to this most recently disclosed purchase by Michael Lawler.
First, coming as it did amid an acrimonious battle for control over the $30 million Rofe estate, the outcome does seem surprising. With Michael Lawler and Kathy Jackson on one side of the battle, and Nicholas Llewellyn and his allies on the other side, the outcome seems to be astonishingly favourable to Nicholas Llewellyn. And unless he lives to be 103 years of age, David Rofe is unlikely to witness the conclusion of the contractual arrangements negotiated between Michael Lawler and Nicholas Llewellyn.
Second, and as Brad Norington reports, an earlier attempt in October 2012 by Nicholas Llewellyn to finalise his allegedly close and long association with David Rofe was unsuccessful. Prior to June 2013, David Rofe’s donated EPOA was held by a NSW solicitor, Mr McLaughlin. In October 2012, Nicholas Llewellyn wrote to Mr McLaughlin proposing to forever cut all ties with David Rofe, and make no further claims against David Rofe or his estate. As Brad Norington writes in his most recent article:
“Mr Llewellyn then proposed the trustee pay him $100,000 within a week, and pay a further $1.725m, less an already paid deposit, for an apartment purchase in Sydney that ultimately fell through. He also requested that he be paid “strictly on time” by November 15, 2012, a one-quarter share of Mr Rofe’s estate “as per his will” — or about $7m.”
Evidently Mr McLaughlin rejected Nicholas Llewellyn’s October 2012 proposal.
Eight months later, in June 2013, Mr McLaughlin relinquished the EPOA donated to him by David Rofe. A new EPOA was prepared and donated to Michael Lawler, vice-president of the Fair Work Commission. And a year or so later, Michael Lawler exercised his power of attorney to approve a settlement with Nicholas Llewellyn that bore striking similarities to the earlier proposed settlement that had been rejected by Mr McLaughlin. Although it lacks the degree of generosity contained in the earlier Llewellyn proposals, the settlement approved by Michael Lawler has striking similarities to it. In return for cutting all contact with David Rofe, Nicholas Llewellyn gets to live free of charge in a luxury (Gold Coast) apartment rent-free for the next 20 years, as well as enjoying considerable other financial benefits that accrue to him. One can well imagine Nicholas Llewellyn would be very pleased with the settlement provisions negotiated by Michael Lawler, the ultra-generous lease arrangements approved by Michael Lawler and the conditions favourable to him that were inserted into David Rofe’s will.
For me, the latest Norington revelations raise at least seven important and troubling questions:
(1) How does (or did) David Rofe feel about the events that occurred, and the transactions entered into, on his behalf and in his name?
(2) Did David Rofe, or the administrator of his estate, approve of the settlement, the lease and other arrangements negotiated and/or approved by Michael Lawler?
(3) Were the negotiated settlements and other arrangements truly in the best interests of David Rofe?
(4) Given that David Rofe’s dementia was diagnosed in 2010, and that the 83-year old has been ailing steadily since then, what legal standing do the various wills, codicils, EPOA documents and lease arrangements relating to previous years have today in 2015?
(5) What legal standing do the Wombarra and Gold Coast property purchases made by Michael Lawler in mid-2014 have today, in 2015?
(6) Was David Rofe unduly influenced by various persons, at various times, in matters pertaining to his estate and the disposition of his wealth?
(7) While holding the donated EPOA, did Michael Lawler truly look after the best interests of his principal, David Rofe QC?
Potentially, these are very vexing questions and they demand urgent and comprehensive answers. Vulnerable and elderly persons such as David Rofe need to be protected from the possibility of being financially exploited by heartless and parasitical persons interested only in furthering their own financial interests.
Thanks for the this excellent take on this JB,so far the only thing missing is the body!
The points you raise {Duchy as well} paint one extra sordid to an already twisted tale.
The HSU members who are victims of their execs are but another part
I have a question though and I don`t know if you`ll be able to answer but of the men mentioned in your comment just how many of them were/are members of the HR Nichols Society?
BH1883 – thank you for your generous comments. And I agree with you that Duchy offers some very perceptive insights. As to your specific question, I have no idea how many of the men mentioned in my comment belong to the H R Nichols Society, and I would not have a clue as to how to find out. Indeed, my only knowledge of the H R Nichols Society is that it exists. 🙂
But of greater concern here is that this (to put it mildly) unsavoury Rofe estate matter be properly investigated and not simply swept under the carpet. People such as Michael Lawler, Kathy Jackson, Nicholas Llewellyn and even Michael P Smith deserve to be scrutinised and held to account for their actions or lack of action. As I indicated in an earlier comment, the financial abuse of elderly Australians suffering dementia is a largely unknown, but rapidly growing, problem in our country. Parasitic leeches must be stopped and prevented from taking advantage of these our most vulnerable citizens.
I don’t know how widely read Wixxyleaks is, but I hope and pray that some of Wixxy’s readers are sufficiently senior, influential and motivated to at least try and push for answers to the questions that I, Duchy and others have posted on this discussion thread. Genuine whistle blowers like Bob Kernohan deserve to be taken seriously and actively supported.
Indeed, people such as Bob Kernohan stand in stark contrast to what I regard as “faux” whistle blowers – people who blow the whistle on their fellow crooks purely in an effort to save their own crooked skins or make themselves look good. In fact, when a “faux” whistle blower sounds off, it should not be labelled as “blowing the whistle”. It should be called for what it is – a falling out among thieves.
I’ve always suspected that Jackson knew the law was closing in on her and so ran to (what she assumed was) the “shelter” of the Neo-Cons in the forlorn belief they would protect her if she delivered Craig Thomson to them as a way of gaining government.
However as James Ashby has also discovered, once you are of no further use to them they will just drop you.
My remaining hope is that she takes a few of them with her when the time comes.
Just finished reading “The passions and pressures of my life with Kathy Jackson” in The Australian 21 March, 2015 (A ‘pro’ Michael Smith article).
Seriously, this saga has to be brought to an end.
Guilty parties must face the correct consequences – otherwise justice is not being done.
Hey Ellie,
What a strange article it ended up
When you see Norrington`s previous article and compare this one you can see his much younger Murdoch stooge editor Sharri Markson`s hand in it as the story veers into a Lab/Union side swipe etc.
No doubt Wixxy here will tidy up her biased News Ltd editing and get Norrington`s story down pat.
Cheers mate and keep well
Thanks Biggie 🙂 Hope you are well too!
.
The article was vomit-inducing – on may levels. Ms Markson’s hand can certainly be seen, yes.
Personally, I think it shows all three main characters in a very bad light (if you look beyond the ‘polished’ bits).