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.

Submission to Royal Commission on Kathy Jacksons behalf

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.

FullSizeRender 2

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.

Utter Crap.

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.

Gilligan called.....

Gilligan called…..

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.



We can try and scare them with defamation lawyers…

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.


Save Wixxy from his own budget crisis by donating here

Shirts Ad pic





Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here

Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here







For All Your Video Production Needs

For All Your Video Production Needs





19 thoughts on “Please – Grovelling to the Royal Commission on Kathy Jacksons behalf

  1. Evocative writing Wixxy as the net gets drawn to the shore showing the catch thrashing about looking for an escape.

  2. I have hopes of a suitable outcome to this affair. As someone who works in the Health Services sector, I am appalled that Kathy Jackson appears to allegedly have enjoyed a lifestyle well beyond my means, on the backs of the least paid workers as it maybe presents itself. (I hope that is enough caveats).

  3. David Donovan at IA did not understand why I wrote on this meme of mine what I did but people for months now have been saying what you just have pufftmd.
    Caveats and Cathy Jackson must go hand in hand because Lawyers are or were working hard to hide her stolen from HSU workers loot.

  4. I have followed your work (via links out up regularly on the Pollbludger and The PUB websites) and it amazes me how much the MSM has not told people about this affair. You give me as a news consumer what I want, detailed, supported, clear analysis based on facts (allegedly maybe possibly appears so in my opinion as it seems indicates on the basis of probability might or might not ) of bad behaviour that robs workers.

  5. The alleged lifestyle with the alleged loot is an alleged insult to workers and an alleged betrayal of the union movement. I am allegedly totally disgusted that any alleged human being could allegedly indulge in such alleged behaviour and have the alleged front to allegedly carry on like that. I allegedly mean, is this alleged person without any alleged morals or is allegedly she just an alleged sociopath with allegedly no understanding of alleged right and wrong, with only an alleged understanding of her alleged own well-being?

  6. Early in the submission a reference was made to Jackson, being likened by her enemies, to “Judas”. For the rest of the submission I kept that in mind, because he could hardly have done a better job of defending a traitor. But then, it didn’t end well for Judas, did it??!!

  7. Kathy’s south coast bed and breakfast retreat
    –will become–
    (when the legalities become a red hot–“-Gottcha-“–) turn yourself in moment
    A Christopher Skase Majorca safe (long as the doctor certificates hold up )haven

  8. Now I have read the submission, one quote comes to mind………”lets baffle them with bullshit” !

  9. It can hardly be in the public interest to afford a self proclaimed whistleblower the sorts of immunities from scrutiny and criticism contended for in Jackson’s submission if the whistleblower is guilty of the same behavior as those who are being exposed as crooks. Every low life miscreant could turn their sins into virtues by simply informing on someone else. Since her guilt or otherwise has yet to be established by a court the commission shouldn’t at this stage accept that she is indeed a whistleblower and her submissions in that respect should be ignored. It’s also a matter of some interest that Jackson will no doubt seek to rely on the argument that her spending was authorized by her committee of management. The law would surely be an ass if it accepted this argument in respect of any spending that was clearly no more than personal and self indulgent and of no benefit to members. In such cases the authorizing committee could only be regarded as a bunch of duped imbeciles or, alternatively, as accomplices in the crime. Ironically, it seems Thomson will also rely on a related argument of authority. If spending members money on prostitutes was not prohibited, it was legal – equally specious and not to be tolerated by any self respecting court. Still, we could yet see both Jackson and Thomson walking away happily into the sunset, albeit in different directions, having successfully argued authority as an excuse for their cavalier spending of other people’s money. Worrying.

  10. I need to put in allegedly until it is proven in court, otherwise i will get sued…
    Sorry if it sounds a bit repetitive, it’s a necessary evil

  11. Mr Beazley’s submission on behalf of Jackson was very weak and unlikely to sway Justice Heydon, who has on many occasions taken the view that the RC is not interested in sanctioning the media as other arenas exist for this, such as the civil courts. Mr Beazley, to be fair to him, doesn’t have much to work with; he certainly hasn’t produced evidence to exculpate her, and Dr John Lourens’ third party submission on the TURC site provides cogent reasons to accept her evidence (which Beazley argues should be accepted) regarding the “dressed up” invoice for $250K. Lourens then goes to the next logical step of suggesting she received a secret commission. If Justice Heydon accepts this, things just got a whole lot worse for Jackson.

    With regards Kathy Jackson’s voluntary patient status,and the likely effect on charging and sentencing her, your readers might find this paper (footnoted) useful, particularly the conclusions. It is my belief she is just postponing the inevitable, but perhaps she is benefitting from some therapy. In the end, if there is a case to answer, then answer it she must.

  12. Both Worrying and Duchy make valid and sensible comments regarding Kathy Jackson.

    Worrying makes the vital point that excusing a crook simply on the basis that he/she informed on fellow crooks is illogical and highly undesirable in terms of the precedent it establishes. By all means reward genuine whistle blowers, but their reward should not take the form of a “get out of jail free” card so beloved in Monopoly gaming circles. Rather, the reward of a genuine whistle blower should take the form of a lesser sentence than would otherwise be the case (as is likely to happen for Ralph Blewitt). And a genuine whistle blower is one who is prepared to own up to his/her wrongdoing (if any) and not expect carte blanche simply because he/she dobbed someone else in. In Kathy Jackson’s case, and as far as I can tell, Jackson has not admitted to any wrongdoing whatsoever except to concede that she was “no angel” during her union career. This is hardly an admission of wrongdoing.

    Duchy makes the insightful observation that Kathy Jackson seems to be postponing the inevitable. Jackson’s alleged mental decline and her alleged innocence of all accusations made so far are, to any reasonable person, incompatible with someone who is wrongly accused and who has nothing to hide. And as Peter has so tellingly written in his post, Jackson’s mental state does not appear to be impeding her ability to actively give instructions in relation to her worker’s compensation claim.

  13. JB, I have often been amazed at the way Kathy Jackson continued to insist that the Peter Mac money was “dressed up” to give comfort and cover to the board, with the obvious logical conclusion that it was a secret commission. I wonder therefore if the continued assertion by her counsel and other advisors is a prelude to calling upon the benefits of this clause of the Victorian Crimes act 1958:

    Perhaps by insisting on this explanation for the payment, and saying she is doing so truthfully she is hoping to avoid the alternative possible charge suggested by J Stoljar, which she has denied, and which leaves her as the sole perpetrator.

  14. Duchy – if what you suggest is accurate, then there would seem to be a pattern developing here.

    Kathy Jackson says: “I dobbed in my fellow crooks Thomson and Williamson, so I deserve to escape all scrutiny, punishment and sanction. Furthermore, I deserve to retain and enjoy all spoils and property I accumulated along the way.”

    I wonder if she is now trying to pull the same stunt for a second time in relation to the Peter Mac money: “I wish to dob in my fellow conspirators in relation to the payment of a very large secret commission, so I deserve to escape all scrutiny, punishment and sanction. Furthermore, I deserve to retain and enjoy all spoils and property I accumulated along the way.”

    As the old saying goes: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

  15. The difference between Jackson and Thomson is that the innocent one will always stick around to fight on to the death to prove their innocence, putting their family through hell, facing financial ruin & affecting their mental state but if you know in your heart that you are innocent, it’s human nature to fight with all your might.

    The guilty will always run away and try to hide, become angry & aggressive in their behaviour, then pretending to be ‘mentally unwell’, seek support and protection from others willing to keep them from facing justice (clearly for political reasons). Jackson is guilty by her actions alone….just so bloody guilty and she must be punished under the law like anybody else.

    She is not a whistle-blower, she was cleverly playing a game of deflecting & pointing the finger at others while buying time in an attempt to cover up her own crimes of outright dishonesty & theft!

    Union members should be ashamed of her and disgusted that she is trying to get away with a punishable crime!

    I have absolutely no sympathy for Jackson whatsoever………

  16. forgot to ask…who is looking after Jackson’s kids and making important daily decisions on their health & well-being, sport, activities, schooling & holidays?

    who is making decisions regarding full operation of her bank accounts, paying the mortgage, bills etc?

    who is making decisions regarding shopping – buying her clothes & makeup, nail colour, hair colour and style? Is she capable of making decisions which colour dress to choose & the size? does she shop alone, making decisions to get out and about?

    Does she meet up with friends for ‘chit chat conversations’?

    Does she use a mobile phone or computer to communicate with anybody or undertake research using GOOGLE while being ‘mentally unwell’?

    Most importantly – Does she get behind the wheel of a car and make ongoing road safety decisions – I certainly hope not? etc…etc…

Leave a Reply