Australian Politics Forum

Quote:

Evidence tendered for Craig Thomson’s alleged dalliances with prostitutes.

Over the past couple weeks, we have learned a lot about the HSU, Kathy Jackson, Michael Lawler, and seen the type of behaviour and carry on, that we now know we can expect from the Coalition front bench more often.

Unfortunately, what we may have to look forward to as yet, however, is learning about Craig Thomson's prowess, care of some hooker that A Current Affair has dredged up out of a gutter. A hooker that remembers him from 7 years, and umpteen hundred customers ago. If she is so certain of his face, we will wait and see how her memory stacks up with Craig's rumored tattoo.

[Editor's note: In a statement issued last night, ACA have decided not to proceed with this interview.]

One of the things that I haven't delved into too much, is the evidence provided by Fairfax regarding the pictured credit card, the transaction slip, the driver's license, and the sample signature.

Lets start with the drivers license. Many people have sent me messages etc querying the license, saying that the picture doesn't look like Craig. I agree, the picture does have a gnot quite right look to it. However, I hate to disappoint, but it appears the license is legitimate. Craig Thomson has told me directly that he did provide his license during his court case with Fairfax. He had nothing at all to hide, and wanted to be completely transparent, so he volunteered his license in good faith.

Signatures, can alter somewhat each time, and I am not a signature expert. I can assure you my signature differs most times I scrawl it on something. Therefore I think we should not try to claim that there were forged signatures used, as it is too hard to prove either way.

Sorry to all those conspiracy theoristfs out therec.

What I do find interesting however, are the handwritten numbers at the top of the credit card slip. On the right hand side is of course the date. However, it is the numbers in the centre that interest me.
Those who have ever used the old clunky credit card receipt thingies, may remember that for larger dollar transactions (usually over $50), the vendor would call the bank and receive a 6 digit authorisation code, that is what the 6 squares on the slip are for. For a transaction the size of the one Thomson is alleged to have made, a authorisation code would have been required, otherwise there may have been no charge.I don't believe that brothels are the charitable types when it comes to free servicec however I am not speaking from experience.

An Old Clunky Credit Card receipt Thingy (technical term)

It is strange then that instead of a 6 digit number, there is a 3 digit number there instead, 211. We thought this may be something to look into. So we did, via the merchant services departments of some of Australia's major banks.
The 211, is actually a rejection code. Looking at the codes via this web-link, it is quite clear that this transaction for some reason has a rejection code written on it. This is also odd, because if a transaction was rejected, normally the slip would just have been thrown in the bin, not filed and saved. To me this throws a cloud of doubt over the evidence provided by Fairfax, as it all hinges on the authenticity of that slip. The slip with no authorisation code, a rejection code written on it, and a misspelt surname.

Also, it is important to note that there has been an update since our previous article, that we would like to make you aware of in the interests of full disclosure.

In our previous article we made mention of a 2010 Auditors report of the HSU No. 3 branch that stated that Kathy Jackson received a payment of $522,570. I have today contacted the Director of the auditors report, and the Partner who signed off on the report, John Agostinelli in response to an email.

John confirmed the amount was in fact correct, however the wording was not, and should have read that the figure was in fact the total to all employeefs INCLUDING Katherine Jackson.

This makes a considerable difference, her bonus was in fact just over $74,000 according to John. He also stated that there was no updated Auditors report released, and apologised for any misunderstanding as a result of their clerical error.

Still, $522,570, is rather a lot to be paying out as staff bonuses. It is about a third of the membership fees taken that year. Whose decision was it to pay out this obscenely excessive amount as bonuses?

I can't help but wonder how the workers, including some of the lowest wage earners in the country feel about paying for such excessive bonuses.

It is also worth remembering that Kathy accepted this bonus at the same time, as she stated on the ABC's 7 30, that she wanted a $100,000 pay cut. This does not make a lot of sense, also considering she also had her hand out for a $63,000 honorarium payment. It certainly fails the Wixxy Smell Test.

It is also interesting to note that none of our other findings have been challenged, or denied in any way.

But another thing I wanted to do in this post, was pass on a big thanks to someone special, Kathy Jackson herself.

Some of you may find that surprising, but allow me to explain.

Yesterday Kathy was kind enough to pay both myself, and Independent Australia a huge compliment. Kathy accused us of mounting a successful smear campaign against her.

Now before I point out the flaws in her accusation, I would just like to thank Kathy for considering us in the big league of smear campaigns. I mean for somebody who has been the front person for the last few years in the campaign to smear Craig Thomson, as Kathy has, to consider me as being in her league is quite an honor.

Me, run a smear campaign?

Whilst nobody, including Jackson, has denied, disputed, or rejected any of our findings, the best she can do is label it as smear.

If this is a Smear Campaign as Jackson claims, then some things don't make sense. Smear, in my humble opinion, would be using opinion, as some kind of flimsy evidence, and making false accusations, based on not much more than a hunch.

I could have gone down that route, but chose not to. Instead, I have repeatedly stated that I am not declaring Jackson's, or anybody else's, guilt or innocence. I might add here, that this is a statement that Jackson, and certainly Coalition members cannot make.

I am just here to ask questions, questions I feel I am entitled to ask. Judging from the amount of correspondence received by both myself and Independent Australia, there are a great number of people who seek answers to these same questions.

Contrary to being raised by smear, these questions have been raised by evidence. Evidence of transactions, payments, and decisions made by Jackson and Lawler.

Am I to believe that if Jackson truly thinks I am out to smear her, that she believes I have been part of a grand conspiracy that goes back over a decade?

If using her decisions is part of my smear campaign, would that mean I had to have played some sort of sinister part in her making those decisions?

Given that this seems to be her defense currently, I thought it best I give some alibi's and categorically deny any participation in events, or in any decision-making process that led to these alleged events or actions.

In the late 1990s I was, in fact, backpacking around the UK and Europe, as the Dept Of Immigration will verify if needed.

Being in Europe, I was in no way responsible for, or had any influence in Kathy's decision to set up companies such as Koukouvaos Consulting, or Neranto No.10, and then invoice HSU branches for consultation services she performed whilst also collecting a wage from the HSU.

Furthermore, I had no connection whatsoever in Kathyfs decision to marry Jeff Jackson, or for Jeff's alleged decision to visit a brothel and charge it to the Unions credit card.

I can claim no influence on Kathy's hazy memory when it comes to recalling her ex-husbands apparent use of a brothel and a union credit card. Neither can I claim any part of her shady memory on conversations, such as the heated argument with Craig Thomson, where although Craig and Marco Bellano differ on the details, both have a vivid memory of. Kathy on the other hand, denies the conversation took place.

Although I have attempted in the past to act as a match maker, once successfully I might add, I had no part in matching Kathy with anybody, as I did not know who she was at the time. This means, I had no part in Kathy Jackson becoming the partner of Michael Lawler, Vice President of Fair Work Australia.

I'm not 100% about where I was at this time, but I do recall reading a book about a love triangle, I think it was call Howardfs End, although I'm not positive. It was about a sordid and disturbing love affair, I'm not sure of all the details but I believe the main characters were named John, Janet, and Pru. Dull characters, but it was an interesting story.

I also played no part in Fair Work Australia's decision not to investigate the HSU Branch that Michael's partner, and the Coalitions favorite whistle-blower, was secretary of.

I did not request that Kathy Jackson personally collate, organise, and deliver the documentation to the FWA investigator. I also, played no part in Kathy losing some of those documents along the way, many of them crucial.

On this note though, I can confirm that I will not be writing her a reference, or be recommending her for a job as a courier.

cont

Quote:

I reject any allegation that I in any way encouraged Kathy to claim honorarium payments, Key Management Compensation, huge travel and postage costs, or make payments to child care centre's she uses, disguised as staff benefits, and staff uniforms where uniforms are not worn.

I can also state, that as much as I would like to have some influence in the Liberal Party, I do not.

Given this fact, I denounce any suggestion that I had anything to do with the providing of free legal services to Jackson by any Lawyer providing free services to James Ashby (when hefs not out on the town with Christopher Pyne). Nor for that matter am I a member of the Liberal think tank HR Nicholls Society, with Peter Reith, where Tony Abbott, Peter Costello, Eric Abetz and many others often contribute, therefore I could have in no way influenced Stuart Woods to also provide free legal services.

In fact, I will go so far as to say, I have not met any of the players in this saga, let alone influenced anything.

At the time those decisions were made, I was attending a rally that calling for equality in marriage, and hoping to have same-sex marriage made legal in Australia. I went to the rally alone, but I did see Tony Abbott's sister there cheering and chanting with the rest of us, so maybe she can vouch for me.

If publishing facts and asking questions is a smear campaign, then I am guilty as charged.

All I am is a source of information really. Kathy Jackson has made the choice to try to attack the source, rather than dispute the facts. In my humble opinion, the more one attacks the source, the more one endorses the factsc.

Who I am makes no difference at all, the facts speak for themselves. The facts don't have any bias, the facts don't lean in any direction, the facts don't need a legal team, but the facts need to be known. That is where I have come in.

I should also add, I don't know Michael Williamson, have never met him, or spoken to him, let alone conspired with himc.

A smear campaign really, is that your best shot??

Attacking me, or Independent Australia will not make these facts go away. In fact, it just leads to another question

What are you trying to hide Ms Jackson?

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/thomson-7-credit-card-slips-clarifications-and-truth-bombs/

There is a 1,110 pages report outlining 181 breaches - lets start with those allegations shall we!!

Why?

Because it has take 4 years to put together by a legislated body

Maqqa wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:34am:

There is a 1,110 pages report outlining 181 breaches - lets start with those allegations shall we!!

Why?

Because it has take 4 years to put together by a legislated body

A legislated body that up until 2 weeks ago were in conspiracy with the labor party remember?

Quote:

TONY Abbott wants police armed with search warrants to raid Fair Work Australia if it won't use its 1100-page report on the Health Services Union to launch criminal prosecutions.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/thomson-report-could-easily-lead-to-prosecution-says-george-brandis/story-e6frfkvr-1226319565110#ixzz1wUwz40Xv

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has again questioned why it has taken so long for Fair Work Australia (FWA) to investigate issues around the Health Services Union (HSU).

So can we trust them or not?

And besides isn't the credibility of the accuser something that should be taken into account?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:53am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:34am:

There is a 1,110 pages report outlining 181 breaches - lets start with those allegations shall we!!

Why?

Because it has take 4 years to put together by a legislated body

A legislated body that up until 2 weeks ago were in conspiracy with the labor party remember?

Quote:

So can we trust them or not?

And besides isn't the credibility of the accuser something that should be taken into account?

Yes, in 4 years. Currently it is the FWA report that should be looked at because they were in collusion with labor to go slow. That is as far as they can be held for bad credibility. They were always going to have to cough up the goods if this thomson was not forgotten. Unfortunetiy for them and thomson, he was not forgotten and they had to cough up the report.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:53am:

So can we trust them or not?

And besides isn't the credibility of the accuser something that should be taken into account?

The detailed report smithy - which I have read - takes in nothing to do with the accuser and is completely independent investigation.

What has phone records to call girls on 4 occasions, withdrawals of cash of $500 on the same day, made up meetings for work got to do with the accuser.

The guy spent company money on call girls several times and signed off the bills on his corp credit card.

The accuser is nowhere in sight of the investigation.

I am as unbiased as they come - this bloke is bang to rights.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 11:02am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:53am:

So can we trust them or not?

And besides isn't the credibility of the accuser something that should be taken into account?

So if you are indeed unbiased, you'll have taken notice of that section of the article dealing with the credit card slip and its authenticity, right?

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 11:00am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:53am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:34am:

There is a 1,110 pages report outlining 181 breaches - lets start with those allegations shall we!!

Why?

Because it has take 4 years to put together by a legislated body

A legislated body that up until 2 weeks ago were in conspiracy with the labor party remember?

Quote:

So can we trust them or not?

And besides isn't the credibility of the accuser something that should be taken into account?

You don't think that one of the main people accused of wrong doing who is also the main accuser going horizontal with the 2IC of the inverstiging body while providing selective documentation and losing much of it could be relivant in terms of credability.

With this in the process they may as well have printed it on toilet paper for all it is worth.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 11:02am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:53am:

So can we trust them or not?

And besides isn't the credibility of the accuser something that should be taken into account?

You said from the word go that Thomson was guilty even before the FWA report was release.

I bet London to a brick on that you have never read anything from Independent Australia web site.

Dnarever wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 11:56am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 11:00am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:53am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:34am:

There is a 1,110 pages report outlining 181 breaches - lets start with those allegations shall we!!

Why?

Because it has take 4 years to put together by a legislated body

A legislated body that up until 2 weeks ago were in conspiracy with the labor party remember?

Quote:

So can we trust them or not?

And besides isn't the credibility of the accuser something that should be taken into account?

We will see in 4 years. In the mean time, there is an 1100 page report of 181 wrong doings of thomson.

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 11:35am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 11:02am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:53am:

So can we trust them or not?

And besides isn't the credibility of the accuser something that should be taken into account?

So if you are indeed unbiased, you'll have taken notice of that section of the article dealing with the credit card slip and its authenticity, right?

RIGHT?

This sorry saga has been dragged out for so long I am starting to wonder if anything will happen prior to what will surely be Thomson's last term in office given that his re-election as either an ALP candidate or Independent seems highly unlikely. I have to say, however, I have a great deal of sympathy for his current wife and what she must be going through in hearing about her husbands' supposed tryst's with prostitutes, etc. The strain on her must be terrible.

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 11:35am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 11:02am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:53am:

So can we trust them or not?

And besides isn't the credibility of the accuser something that should be taken into account?

So if you are indeed unbiased, you'll have taken notice of that section of the article dealing with the credit card slip and its authenticity, right?

I will be perfectly honest here....that drivers licence picture doesnt look a bit like THOMO to me..

how do we know this is evidence used against THOMO do we really have to take valley boys word for it??? he keep flashing this """evidence"" around... where does he get it from since when has any [real] evidence been out in the market place.

we do know THOMO had more than one union creditcard.[ he told us so]

why did THOMO sign off on paying these creditcard payments if they were not his????

I mean this is for 2475.00 a bit of a stand out figure..

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:20pm:

Yes we do forget that there are innocent casualties here and they do deserve some consideration. I have from the start questioned Jackson as little more than covering her own arse. She and her own husband stink just as badly and i will expect that not just Thompson but a greater majority of the HSU leadership from that period will be discussing these issues with Judges in the future. There is much more to play out here, but i still question the behaviour of the opposition in their unrelenting drive for power, will their reckless abuse of Parliament end in evidence being disallowed in the Thompson case. I wonder what the actual charges will be in the end, i dare say much less than the giddy heights of accusation that the opposition have magically conjured.

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:41pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 11:56am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 11:00am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:53am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:34am:

There is a 1,110 pages report outlining 181 breaches - lets start with those allegations shall we!!

Why?

Because it has take 4 years to put together by a legislated body

A legislated body that up until 2 weeks ago were in conspiracy with the labor party remember?

Quote:

So can we trust them or not?

And besides isn't the credibility of the accuser something that should be taken into account?

We will see in 4 years. In the mean time, there is an 1100 page report of 181 wrong doings of thomson.

Is that the same FWA report that the police have declared as not usable for a brief of evidence? Don't put all your eggs in one holy basket.

nairbe wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 6:28am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:20pm:

I don't think Jackson conjured this up to cover up her own wrongdoing. Having said that, I don't think she's as squeaky clean as she first seemed to be, if reports on her are to believed.

cods wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 5:04am:

Gist wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 11:35am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 11:02am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:53am:

So can we trust them or not?

And besides isn't the credibility of the accuser something that should be taken into account?

So if you are indeed unbiased, you'll have taken notice of that section of the article dealing with the credit card slip and its authenticity, right?

cods I got all of them from this site

http://www.independentaustralia.net/category/politics/

I am not saying if Thomson or Jackson is innocent or guilty of any crimes. That is up to the police to charge one or both with a crime that they have commit then for the court of law to find them guilty.

I am only putting these posts up to show that there could be more people with their hands in the cookie jar, I am not saying you should believe them or not but it is good idea to get the full facts of the case.

I am not saying you should believe them or not but it is good idea to get the full facts of the case.

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 7:10am:

nairbe wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 6:28am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:20pm:

I don't think Jackson conjured this up to cover up her own wrongdoing. Having said that, I don't think she's as squeaky clean as she first seemed to be, if reports on her are to believed.

she isnt responsible for her ex husband lets make that point shall we..she has said he did wrong things.. and so has he.. like giving himself a pay increase without authority..he paid it back.. as THOMO will attest to... ha.ha..

yes she did say her pay is high... is that her fault???

does she tell the pay office what she is entitled too?? I am not sure..

she did take over from THOMO..

she isnt stupid she would know if you open pandoras box expect to be caught in the net if you are doing something wrong..

so far I have not heard of her abusing a credit card??

if part of her package says they will pay child fees.. then so be iy it isnt against the LAW.

if she has made that up.. then god help her, but it doesnt let THOMO off does it?

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl General Discussion >> Federal Politics >> Credit card slips, clarifications and truth bombs http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338510671 Message started by The Valley Boy on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:31am