I wonder how stupid some people must be feeling this morning.
Yesterday it was announced that Kathy Jackson will be referred to Victorian Police over the alleged theft of approximately $900K. Jackson is still facing civil proceedings in Federal Court over $1.4 Million of member’s funds she is alleged to have misappropriated.
Jackson has currently checked herself into a psychiatric hospital as a voluntary patient with an alleged mental health issue.
Witnesses have claimed to have seen her pottering around the shopping centres in Wollongong and having pedicures done, however by night she is in hospital for what the court has been told are serious issues.
It is fantastic to see that Jackson is able to get around and perform normal functions and I can only assume that this is a sign that her therapy is going well. This is incredibly encouraging as I am assuming that this will mean no more delays in the court case and given that it looks like a speedy recovery is being made that she will finally be ready to proceed when the case resumes in February.
For those who have been singing the praises of Kathy Jackson for the past two years the news of her being referred to police for criminal investigation must come as a bit of a blow.
Yesterday Acting National Secretary Chris Brown had this to say on the evidence of Jacksons alleged crimes.
“It makes the Craig Thomson stuff pale into insignificance”
That must be music to the ears of Thomson whose appeal is due back in Magistrates Court later this month.
For the past few years however it is worth remembering that there have been those who have screamed for Thomson to be hung from the highest branch of the highest tree, and those who have held Jackson is such high esteem.
People like Tony Abbott, Christopher Pyne, George Brandis and Eric Abetz. Shock Jocks like Ray Hadley, Chris Smith, and Paul Murphy. Columnists like Piers Ackerman and Andrew Bolt, and bloggers like Michael Smith must all be feeling pretty daft this morning.
I’m sure some like the politicians will ignore it, some of the shock jocks may try to say that Jackson was looked into previously and police dropped the matter and it is only a trade union referring it to police.
The last investigation into Jackson stalled as evidence was lacking. Now there is an over-abundance of evidence for police to wade through. While it is a Trade Union referring the matter to police it comes soon after the Counsel Assisting the Trade Union Royal Commission recommended the matter of the infamous Peter Mac settlement be referred to the Department of Public Prosecution.
Some will be scratching their head and wondering how they were sucked in by Jackson.
Having had the opportunity to meet Kathy to ask her questions and having seen numerous interviews and watching her testimony at the Royal Commission I wondered the same. From all I have seen, heard, and experienced she is utterly unconvincing.
Perhaps these people were just so blinded by their agenda to destroy a hung parliament that they could see little else but the political mileage to be gained. If this is indeed the case then it is only fitting that they are now stuck in reverse and are likely to end up behind where they originally started.
The evidence was there and publicly available however those with an agenda made the conscious decision not to look at it.
For Kathy, it must be disappointing that the legal advice of her partner Michael Lawler has been of such little value and only succeeded in delaying the inevitable. I’m sure Jackson was convinced he was one of the world’s most intelligent men, probably in the top 1% even. The realisation that this is not even close to the truth must be crushing. Lawler will have his own issues holding onto his role as the Vice President of Fair Work Commission given his involvement in the HSU saga has caused the industrial affairs watchdogs credibility so much damage.
The good ol’ days for Jackson and Lawler
This whole saga has shown us the importance of independent media and also the power of the mainstream media.
As most would realise Kathy Jackson has been hailed a heroic whistleblower throughout the press for years. It is only through independent media that the other side of the story has been explored and evidence displayed.
For this we have sites like Independent Australia to be thankful for, and in particular their editor David Donovan who has also put in a hell of a lot of work into this case, I can assure you that the effort does come at a price. Along with all of the work, along the way there have been threats, smear campaigns, and defamation lawyers to fend off, and I have a debt of gratitude towards Independent Australia for having the guts to soldier on where other main stream news sources feared to tread.
The power of the mainstream has also had a lot to do with where the matter has come to today.
Whilst the mainstream were responsible for whipping up the frenzy that saw Jackson elevated to such dizzy heights, it has also been the mainstream that have brought her crashing down.
I was amazed at how those in the media room at the Royal Commission were so keen to see Jackson fall from her perch. It was like they suddenly realised that before them was a woman who had strung them along for years and used them almost as an accomplice to achieve her goals.
This has much to do with the integrity and journalistic standards of a few journalists. In particular Nick McKenzie and Ben Schneiders of Fairfax and Brad Norington of News Ltd have been vital in opening the public’s eyes.
I find it amusing that Kathy Jackson finds herself in the same position with the media that Craig Thomson found himself in two years ago.
I hope she finds it comfortable.
Save Wixxy from his own budget crisis by donating here
Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here
For All Your Video Production Needs
Follow @madwixxy
Nearly all of this is down to you, Peter – your persistence, professionalism, and no doubt months of your time. You well and truly showed up the MSM. We wait with bated breath for the final chapter.
Not to forget that for 3 years, Denis Evans (The Bagman) has been broadcasting details of missing money and denouncing Jackson on 3CR
Many, many thanks, Peter, for all your magnificent grit & your determination to see the self-serving Kathy Jackson answer for her unconscionable actions. The members of the HSU will, hopefully be grateful.
If it wasn’t for you she would have escape scrutiny.
Beautiful poetry Wixxy and overdue
Huzzah to you and David Donovan
It is ironic that a Walkley was handed out to a mainstream journalist for her error-ridden reporting on Thomson when she totally missed the main story.
2 issues come to mind:
1. Conspiracy and/or Complicity: A bank robber rarely works alone ie it is mostly a crime of complicity. The driver of the get away car is just as guilty of the bank robbery even though he did not hold a gun in the bank. In Jackson’s case there will probably be conspirators and assistants such as the signatory of cheques, the BCOM members or the officers of the Peter Mac Institute. It could turn out to be quite an exciting trial with many defendants.
2. Theft & fraud vs Gift: no doubt the defence will argue that the money was not theft or fraud but given to Jackson as part of her remuneration package. This argument has credibility and may be difficult to rebut. It also goes to the similar argument available to Thomson. I understand that the credit card does not belong to the union. It is issued in the individual’s name and so when used it is the owner’s debt not the union’s. The owner then submits the statement to the Union and asks for payment. At that point the union can either accept or reject each expenditure. If I am correct, and I am certainly not sure about this point, then Jackson and indeed Thomson simply say it was the union’s decision to pay. The union could have rejected the claim. They didn’t. With such scenario it will be difficult to successfully prosecute for theft / fraud. It makes Thomson’s appeal look meritorious.
The key to such criminal prosecutions will be in the detail and procedures adopted at the time. So gift, fraud, conspiracy all look to have problems but not impossible on either side. There are serious issues of morality but that is often not an element of a criminal offence. All all the elements of the crimes and only the elements of the crimes must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
If the police and DPP decide to prosecute there will certainly be numerous charges and numerous defendants.
Even though I have not seen all of the evidence I expect the conspiracy / complicity weapons available to prosecutors will be key to successful prosecution of Jackson and her assistants. The defence case may also be quite strong.
If Jackson feels psychological stress from a royal commission she will certainly feel a hell of a lot more in a criminal trial.
You are absolutely correct in every detail, Peter. You have managed to do the work that the corporate owners of the mainstream media and the ABC have shied away from. It is good that we now have journalists Brad Norington,Ben Schneiders, Nick McKenzie and Nick Toscano working on the Jackson case as opposed to their Fairfax and News Corp predecessors.
I note that Chris Brown is also reported as saying that what the HSU National Council is referring to the police “is very, very specific information and evidence”; and “we were able to gather evidence that is pretty compelling”. It is a pity that Chris Brown and the HSU National Committee did not carry out the kind of proper investigative work that you have been doing for over 4 years, as the contradictions in Jackson’s actions and the anomalies in the case against Craig Thomson have been evident all along, as you have constantly pointed out. It is also disappointing that Chris Brown did not acknowledge the source of the “very, very specific information and evidence”.
Ben Schneider’s report in the “Sydney Morning Herald” said that “a previous criminal investigation of Ms Jackson by the Victorian Police failed to progress but Mr Brown said that was politically motivated with little evidence…”. We all know how “politically motivated” against Thomson and in favour of Jackson the Victorian Police investigation was. The man who led the “investigation” against Thomson was Detective Sergeant John Tyquin of the Victorian Police Fraud and extortion Squad. He has some very important questions to answer about his so-called “findings”. One of these questions is why he thought contacting the shock-jock Michael Smith for advice was proper police practice. It is also significant that Terry Nassios, the Fair Work investigator who spent a great deal of time looking at Thomson’s alleged crimes came up with exactly the same charges that the now discredited Jackson had made in the first place. Nassios, of course, went on long leave and then into retirement. Some would describe this as getting him out of the way after the accountancy firm KPMG condemned his report after being asked by Fair Work to investigate his “findings”.
We are still waiting for the ABC and the mainstream media to tell the public what you are many of your responding commentators have been saying for some time – that Jackson’s criminal actions are confirming that Thomson’s speech to Parliament in April 2012 contained truths that many mainstream journalists and all the shock-jocks ridiculed at the time. As Jackson’s criminality has been demonstrated to be so extreme, how is it that Thomson is still held to be a criminal when all of the accusations against him came from Jackson?
Thanks, yet again, Peter, for you intelligent, diligent and penetrating investigative work. In my view you have deserved the Walkley Award every year of the past four years. The Thomson and Jackson cases both have a long way to go. Surely the court in Melbourne on Monday 24th November cannot ignore Jackson’s leading role in the framing of Thomson. Surely Michael Lawler and Marco Bolano can’t get away with their involvement. Surely Brandis, Abbott and Pyne cannot escape attention for their complicity and involvement. In coming months all of these people are really on trial. So is the practice of Australian law itself.
Does this mean she can’t leave the country if/when she leaves the psychiatric hospital?
Bravo Peter, maybe you should start writing a book about this and then sell the rights to a film company. You deserve to be honoured by the media for doing a job that so many of them failed to do. Finally Jackson and many of her cohorts may get what is due to them, i.e a long jail sentence.
If she is charged and that’s a IF, she will get bail and conditions of bail may include the standard conditions being the surrender of passport and ban on international travel.
I agree brownie. A book requires serious investigative journalism skill and a bloody good story. It’s got both. An early start before the trials begin would be a good idea. A generous publisher would help.
John Overall – I hear what you say about a possible Craig Thomson defence, namely that the credit card debts were of a personal nature and that the Union did not have to reimburse them. A defence that rests on the ground that the Union could have rejected the claims for reimbursement. A defence that asserts the Union reimbursements were some sort of “gift”.
As an aside, one wonders why a highly paid union official would need to be showered with regular “gifts” in this fashion. How would union members feel about their subscription dues being used for purposes of charitable donation? I imagine ordinary union members would take the view that if union leaders wish to make charitable donations, then let them use their own personal funds rather than hard earned members’ money.
But, in any event, would such a line of argument be valid where the person incurring the credit debt is the same person who authorises reimbursement? My understanding is that Craig Thomson authorised (and accepted on behalf of the Union) the very debts he himself incurred on a personal basis, If this is true, then where are the internal controls and safeguards protecting Union funds? Where should the limits be set? Or does a Union boss have an untrammelled right to spend on whatever he/she desires and then receive reimbursement?
I would be interested to learn where you think such limits should be set. Put another way, and speaking hypothetically, what would Craig Thomson need to have done in order for you to conclude that he had stepped over the line?
JB, you have identified excellent points. Certainly the reality of how the reimbursement of union official’s expenditures occurs should be relevant. I think the court would be interested in the supervisory powers of the BCOM and whether or not it had the opportunity to consider the expenditures. If its a simple matter of the union secretary approving his/her own reimbursement claims then i think the defence argument that i have suggested may be a lot weaker.
I can see it now…….
…….Liberals and right wing media cronies claiming Jackson is in no way associated with them, and spin it that she is a corrupt creature of a corrupt union intrinsically related to Labor.
The Turdoch media and village idiots like Bolt, Jones, Akerman etc will flog any Labor connection for all it’s worth…………and the gullible general public will lap it up.
It’s a massive shame that yours (Wixxy) and other peoples excellent work and perseverance will likely be drowned out by the redneck right.
Let’s hope not.
Fantastic Peter.
Soon it will be up to the mainstream media to explain why these matters – which were clearly brought to their attention several months ago – were ignored if not deliberately avoided.
Even worse, Zathras, Peter Wicks’ exposure of these goings on dates back years.