Some have described it as one of the country’s greatest works of fiction, but it is not a novel.
Some have described it as the desperate pleas from a condemned criminal, but it is not coming from a prisoner on death row in Florida.
What is being referred to in the above statements is the “Written submissions on behalf of Kathy Jackson 14 November 2014”, signed off by Philip Beazley, Kathy Jacksons solicitor.
The document can be viewed in full via the link below.
Despite the claims of some however we cannot refer to Kathy Jackson as a criminal, not yet at any rate. Jackson needs to go through the legal process before being referred to that way. A concept that Jackson herself has chosen to ignore regarding Craig Thomson, whose appeal before magistrates Court commences on Monday.
The problem with Jackson has always been getting through that process, or even getting to it in some instances such as a criminal investigation through Victorian Police. Jackson has done everything humanly possible to avoid scrutiny of any sort.
In Federal Court we have seen 18 breaches of court orders so far, these breaches have ranged from the sublime to the ridiculous. This matter is now adjourned until February as Jackson is a voluntary patient in a psychiatric hospital.
Before the Royal Commission we saw Jackson claim she was ambushed before fleeing the Commission, and then proceedings were delayed whilst a lawyer was found for her via the Commission. After that there were further delays when all of a sudden Jackson threw out the “charity shag” claim against the HSU’s lawyer Mark Irving and insisted that he should not be allowed to cross-examine her.
Those in the legal profession that I have spoken to claim it is extraordinary and extremely unlikely that a solicitor would write anything on behalf of a client without instruction from the client.
Jackson, through her doctor, has claimed before Federal Court that she unable to provide instruction to her lawyer until at least January 15 next year. In the written submissions to the Royal Commission it even makes mention that they were made without instruction from the client due to her medical condition.
So why would a solicitor stick his neck out so far? After all if there is something in the submissions not to Jacksons liking than Mr Beazley can be sued for acting on her behalf without legal instruction. After all this is high stakes, a Royal Commission not a parking fine.
Many I have spoken to after reading the document say that they believe it was written by Michael Lawler and then signed by Mr Beazley. The last page certainly raises questions due to the signature section.
As you can see in the picture below there was a gap left between where it states Beazley Singleton Lawyers and the date. In that gap “Solicitor for Katherine Jackson” is hand written. I find it odd that he wouldn’t have that typed in, it is almost as if someone else typed up the submission and he penned it in later. It also indicates he didn’t have the soft copy of the document to edit and insert the words, that he perhaps only had a physical hard copy., I also find it unusual that he chose to change pens after writing one word.
As for what is inside the submission it is the same old “heroic whistleblower” defence that nobody believes anymore and even her staunchest supporters in the Liberal Party and right-wing media are desperate to distance themselves from. This whole “Kathy Jackson has paid a hefty price for coming forward…” rubbish should be taken for what it is.
There is absolutely nothing heroic at all about someone who goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid scrutiny of their actions. In fact I believe the correct term would be gutless.
Pointing the finger at someone else to conceal your own actions and to seek to take advantage of their downfall is not what I would refer to as blowing the whistle, I call it the work of an opportunist.
Perhaps then the term Gutless Opportunist is more relevant that Heroic Whistleblower.
If there is a hefty price being paid by Jackson it is not for exposing others as her mythmakers would like to convince us all of, it is for her own behaviour.
Jackson signed the cheques. Jackson set up the Peter Mac Settlement. Jackson spent the $250K Peter Mac settlement from an account she set up. Jackson spent like 10 drunken sailors on the credit cards. The union paid for Jackson’s children’s child care. Jackson took the numerous trips. It is Jackson’s name as a Director of Neranto #10. It is Jackson’s signature on Rob Elliot’s contract. It was Jackson that hired Michael Lawler’s sons on the branch payroll, and so on and so on….
Pointing the finger at anyone else did not make these things occur, Jackson herself made them occur. Now that attempts are being made to make her accountable for her own actions, she seems to be desperately seeking to avoid being held to the same level of scrutiny she demands of everyone else.
Claims made in the submission that Jackson was open about not being squeaky clean beforehand as she admitted to having control of a slush fund are highly misleading.
There has been no slush fund, only the fund is the NHDA fund which was a personal bank account with Kathy Jackson as the signatory. It was in no way a slush fund nor did it opertae like one.
If there is indeed a slush fund, it has yet to surface.
The submission also seeks to discredit the work of the media, and in particular Wixxyleaks, Independent Australia and Vex News.
The submission talks of an “ALP dirt file” and rumours. I for one have heard all sorts of rumours regarding the behaviour of Jackson and Lawler, although I have not printed them, but as for an “ALP dirt file” I have yet to see that, so if anybody out there has it, please feel free to pass it on.
The submission in paragraph 74 states;
“The Commission should infer that Mr Landeryou and Mr Wicks obtained most of the material that they advanced as “evidence” of wrongdoing by Ms Jackson from Mr Williamson, Mr Mylan and/or Mr Brown and that they used that material to make false allegations against Ms Jackson.”
What utter gall to tell a Royal Commission what they should and shouldn’t infer.
I also find it amusing that the word evidence is between quotation marks as if it is being mocked. The evidence I have presented has been by way of documentation. Jackson on the other hand refers to claims of floods selectively destroying documents, and claims of a stolen exercise books as evidence. I call that grasping.
I cannot speak for Mr Landeryou, however I can state that I have never met Michael Williamson nor received any documentation from him at all. I have asked Independent Australia editor David Donovan and he has also never met him. I have however had a conversation with Williamson via phone though the conversation was short and in no way influenced any of my articles. In fact I’m sure Strikeforce Carnarvon would have a recording of that conversation and nothing ever came of it.I have had far longer conversations with Marco Bolano.
David Donovan also said he had received a short call from Mr Williamson, however it also had no influence.
I have had some dealings with Mr Mylan and Mr Brown however I have never received any documentation from Mr Brown at all much to my frustration, and from Mr Mylan I received a copy of a letter he sent to Fair Work Australia regarding claims against Jackson. That’s it.
In paragraph 76 it goes on to say;
“During 2013 Mr Brown and his supporters pursued Ms Jackson through the Courts and continued to leak material to Mr Wicks who smeared Kathy Jackson on his websites”
Firstly website would be more appropriate, I only have one.
However claims of smear and false allegations are incorrect and are only made before a Royal Commission because I cannot claim defamation against them as they are privileged statements and submissions. It is a chance for a free kick for those seeking to downplay the evidence against Jackson.
It is worth noting though that none of my evidence has ever been disputed in a serious manner nor has my commentary been forced to be removed. This is despite the involvement of defamation lawyers acting on Michael Lawler’s behalf.
In regards to Jacksons treatment by the Royal Commission which most have described as soft and referred to “kid gloves”, and Jackson’s claim of an “ambush” when the questioning took a turn, the submission states on page 17 paragraph 82;
“Counsel Assisting initially foreshadowed a thematic approach to hearings involving Ms Jackson. That initial plan however was not adhered to.”
To me that reads like a claim that a deal was done prior to the hearings that the Commission was going to go soft on Jackson. Something that was highlighted by the different style of questioning Craig McGregor faced compared to the Jackson factional cronies that came before him.
Once again this brings the integrity of the Royal Commission into question. Why would a deal be done to go soft on Jackson and if so under whose authority?
George Brandis perhaps?
Anybody who wants some comic relief from all the legal talk and mountains of evidence would do well to check out the conclusion on the last two pages of the submission, here’s a taste.
“She has been pilloried in the media, deserted by her union, left without a salary, dragged through the courts and had her health destroyed.”
It has taken the media a few years to see the real Kathy, it’s called catching up. Jackson is currently on unpaid sick leave by her own choice, as she has been for reportedly around two years. Jackson deserted her own union the moment she took money from it in an allegedly unlawful manner. Being “dragged through the courts” is a consequence of her own behaviour and if she is as innocent as she claims I would suggest this is something she should welcome rather than seek to avoid. As for Jackson’s health, there are positive signs. Apparently although she is still not mentally fit to provide legal instruction on matters to do with the $1.4 Million she is in Federal court over, it has been alleged she is apparently mentally fit enough to give legal instruction in relation to lodging a workers compensation claim. That’s got to be a step forward.
Paragraph 261 section (b) of the submission says the Commission should make findings which
“Give her a measure of vindication by acknowledging what she has done and condemning those who have sought to destroy her.”
Perhaps a statue erected in her honour?
They’ve got to be kidding… right?
I fear they aren’t.