http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/3605/2uecraigthompson.jpg
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.
http://img220.imageshack.us/img220/1209/creditcardmachine.jpg
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.
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/1124/potkellte.jpg
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.
Forum
Pages: 1 
