Anyone who has ever spent any time in prison will tell you that it isn’t a pleasant place to spend your time.
Ask anyone who has ever fought the great legal fight to stay out of prison or save themselves from civil claims and they will tell you there are two things long legal battles ain’t. They ain’t fun, and they certainly ain’t cheap.
Our jails and bankruptcy courts are full of people with the same old sad story that starts with “well in hindsight…”
There are always going to be those who discover the hard way that they really aren’t smarter than the police or the courts despite what they think is being clever.
There are others who align themselves with people in powerful positions for protection and discover the hard way that these people like their position of power and reach a point where they will not only cease protecting, but they will run a mile in the opposite direction.
Is that meant to be a red MG?
Last week the Trade Union Royal Commission announced that any evidence involving the Health Services Union must be submitted by the 13th August,
This leaves people with seven working days to provide documentation or statements.
There will be some who may be reading this who may be in a position where they have evidence that may incriminate themselves in a minor way but would have far graver implications for those higher up the union food chain.
This may involve sitting on financial documents, emails, the minutes of BCOM meetings, or it could be just knowledge that could be put into statement.
For those who may be sitting on evidence relating to Kathy Jackson and her faction the time has come to fess up and share your knowledge with the Commission.
There is no doubt that there are members of Jackson’s BCOM that are exposed as well as her Finance Officer.
Some examples would be;
- Kate Wilkinson who has already been shown to give false testimony to the Commission relating to payment of entitlements to Peter Mac workers
- Jane Holt who may be exposed to investigation for fraud, or at least the tax department over payments to the JR Discretionary fund. There is also the question of all of the blank cheques left behind with Holts signature on them.
- Kathryn Whitfield whose signature appears on Neranto #10 cheque requisitions and remittances and who allegedly co-owned a sports car with Jeff Jackson, a direct beneficiary of those Neranto payments. She now works as a manager in the cancer services department of Vic Health, I wonder if there is a Peter Mac connection.
In fact all of the BCOM are exposed as they were the ones who signed off on Jackson’s spending which has been conservatively estimated at over $1.7 Million. This figure does not even include the Rob Elliot contract which would increase this total to well over $2 Million.
There are others whom I won’t name who may rely on Jeff Jackson for child support, and there are others out there who may be able to supply information regarding allegations of destroying documents or the storage of documents.
I know who these people are so it’s a fair bet the Police are aware also.
Jane Holt happy to sign blank cheques?
It was reported on Sky News last week that the NSW Fraud Squad are investigating allegations into Jackson and that would indicate that the investigations are once again underway in Victoria. I’m confident that Sky were reporting correctly as I saw a member of the fraud squad myself entering the Royal Commissions offices and even spoke with him as he left the offices before the proceedings started.
Kathy Jackson has already shown how she is only too willing to throw others under the bus by repeatedly shifting blame onto her BCOM regarding authorisation and also by dumping ex hubby Jeff in it by laying Neranto #10 payments completely at his feet.
If there was any doubt in anyone’s mind regarding this they only need to read this linked post from Jackson’s seemingly only public supporter with even her fiancée Michael Lawler not showing up to support her at Commission. This post clearly shows that one of those giving her advice seems to be starting to point the finger of blame at the BCOM.
If I was sitting on any information I would be contacting the Royal Commission ASAP via the contact details linked here.
Speaking of Michael Smith there has seemingly been a few backwards steps from him in the face of mounting criticism and mockery of his position on the matter.
Smith who has preached Jackson’s innocence, integrity, bravery and honesty for years at every available opportunity now says he suddenly has several doubts, but is standing by her because she is a friend.
To me this is an admission that he is willing to deceive his readership if it helps out a friend and if I was a reader of his I would not appreciate being treated for a fool, and would take everything that he says and writes with several gigantic grains of salt now.
Smith has currently resorted the desperate attempts to distract attention away from Jackson by making the story revolve around him in the right-wing media, and even foolishly having a shot at Craig Thomson.
I say foolishly because the joke involved an ATM with a thing called UnionPay which is a type of card. The joke was obvious but foolish because Thomson is fighting charges against him for less than $28K of credit card expenditure, Jackson has over $1 Million dollars of credit card expenditure to explain, more than 35 times the amount of Thomson, and that’s just the credit cards. There is a saying about stones and glass houses…
I couldn’t resist commenting
“Desperate attempts at distraction are always funny…
However the fact remains there isn’t an ATM in the world that has a high enough daily withdrawal limit for Kathy Jackson”
Needless to say the comment didn’t pass muster and was not allowed on Smith’s site which tells us another thing or two about the integrity of Smith’s site seeing that it does not allow opinion conflicting with his own to be published as I or many others do.
Remember this is a guy that wants greater freedom of speech???
Whatever your thoughts on Smith and what is left of his credibility, it is painfully clear that Kathy Jackson is in a world of trouble already, and she hasn’t even faced cross-examination yet.
For anyone thinking of saving themselves the rather than going down with her I can only suggest doing something now.
After all, time is running out.
Like Wixxyleaks on Facebook here
Follow @madwixxy
Thanks yet again, Peter. A lot of people have waited a long time for this. We can only hope that ALL of the evidence will be in on time and that justice prevails.
Peter while discussing the Jackson evidence over the weekend, question arose will you be called to give evidence?
I’ve already given evidence and a statement to the Commission.
I’m not taking the stand but if someone wants to cross-examine me on my evidence then I may have to
Wise words Wixxyleaks and here are some more.
It’s the cover-up that gets you.Sometimes it’s the difference between a slap on the wrist and a custodial sentence or being on the bus or under it.
I wonder how much, the evidence these people gave. led to Thomson’ conviction?
Thanks Peter meant the stand, didn’t make myself clear last post. I read your excellent written evidence, from what I am hearing many have and appreciate.
Peter,
I almost choked on my pho bo this morning as read your post. It sounded like a call to confession and a request for forgiveness. It does not work like that.
I advise clients to keep their mouths shut. However, I hasten to add, I have no clients in this matter.
You are right, jails are awful. But there are lots of people in jail simply because they talked. There is no obligation to talk to the RC unless you are summoned. If you get examined in the RC there is very little protection as the RC is not bound by the Evidence Act. Thus hearsay, opinion and irrelevant statements may be admitted.
But the RC is the dress rehearsal for the forthcoming criminal trials, and the last place people want to be is involved in a criminal trial. At that stage you have the right to silence and the Crown must prove their charges beyond reasonable doubt. The Evidence Act will provide some protection from inadmissible evidence. There are rights of appeal including appeals against decisions relating to admissibility of evidence. But there is no obligation to provide any evidence at all in a criminal trial.
As I always say to my clients – anything you say may be used in evidence against you – so keep your mouth shut. That includes talking on the ph, emails, sms, Skype etc are all admissible – if they have it. There is no obligation to hang yourself but many do and may do so if they follow your advice.
Anyhow I understand where you are coming from and as a concerned citizen you are quite right to ask the guilty to confess. But as a defence counsel I simply advice them to say: prove it.
I am suggesting that those who come forward with evidence may be able to cut themselves a deal with police for anything minor they may have done.
There will come a point where deals will no longer be done, and I’d strongly suggest that time may be fast approaching
I’m not talking about those who have major involvement, more those who aided and abetted by intentionally looking the other way, or by choosing to go with the flow
No worries, taking the stand would just mean expensive legal representation…
Very silky John Overall but we are talking about small bit players here. How would you advise them?
Edgar,
If I was representing I would advise not to make a statement without indemnity. Certainly no statement to the RC unless summoned.
Police, when preparing their criminal cases, will, quite properly, only grant indemnity if they are unable to prove their case with existing evidence. So I advise no talkies without indemnity. These people may be small players but they may have committed serious offences over an extended period of time. In this area don’t do anything without legal representation or you could find yourself in serious trouble. The issues in a criminal trial are often vast. Is the evidence admissible? What are the defences? Are commonwealth crimes or state crimes or both being charged?
All defendants should review the prosecution evidence i.e. the prosecution brief, before saying anything at all.
I suspect that the police have a vast amount of evidence now including electronic surveillance evidence and are unlikely to offer too much in the way of indemnity. So if you are a possible defendant, be careful, very careful.
Well done Wixxy. Here’s hoping Jackson gets her comeuppance. John, you have confirmed my opinion of defence lawyers and the whole criminal justice system.
Great analysis and information. TY. She seems to be the only one who didn’t know that this would eventually happen to her. Respect to the people who have spoken up for union members.
Well I have done my civic duty right on the August 13 deadline.
Although somehow I managed to get sidetracked into a discussion of Graham Richardson’s member.