CRAIG THOMSON: GUILTY AS CHARGED?
Who can forget the confected crocodile tears of disgraced Labor MP Craig Thomson (pictured above) when he appeared in Parliament to tearfully reject allegations that he rorted his employer, the Health Services Union, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
With the Gillard counting on Thomson’s vote to retain Government, the scandal-ridden MP enjoyed the complete confidence of the Prime Minister despite allegations that he misused union members funds on lavish lunches, prostitutes and ATM cash withdrawals totaling in excess of $200,000.
But the disgusting sordid affair does not end there. No it does not.
When Fair Work Australia handed down the FINDINGS of its four year investigation into the HSU, the Gillard Cheer Squad and Thomson apologists insisted that Thomson was innocent, with some protesting that the FINDINGS of the FWA investigation weren’t actually “findings” at all, but just “allegations.”
Well now there can be no denying that Thomson does have a case to answer with those allegations now progressing to charges that Thomson will have to answer in civil court proceedings.
The claim covers cash advances totalling more than $102,337.45.
FWA is seeking to fine Mr Thomson for these rorts and to recoup the misappropriated funds.
The statement of claim lists a number of escort services Mr Thomson allegedly used, including “Young Blondes,” Melbourne’s “Boardroom” Escort Agency, and a brothel called “Tiffany’s.”
The claim also includes 37 alleged breaches of rules for officers of registered organisations such as unions, and 25 alleged breaches of the rules of the Health Services Union, which Mr Thomson headed.
Now that charges have been laid, the onus will now be on Mr Thomson to prove that he is innocent, rather than the litigants having to prove that he is guilty.
All those who professed that Mr Thomson “doesn’t have a case to answer” should be hanging their collective heads in shame over their partisan support of this shoddy character.
theguttertrash.com 
Do I detect a “vote of no confidence” motion coming on?
You’ll have to wait until Thursday TB. That’s when the Opposition always moves their censure motions etc…
I’m not sure why. Maybe the MP’s bar opens early on Thursday…?
Does Gillard have “complete confidence” in Thomson?
Is she glad she appointed Slipper as Speaker?
Does she owe Wilkie an apology for breaking her written word?
Did she represent (to regulators) her boyfriend’s a slush fund as something other than that?
Did she witness a power of attorney without actually seeing it signed?
Is it a tax?
Does anyone actually believe Gillard can be trusted?
All those who professed that Mr Thomson “doesn’t have a case to answer” should be hanging their collective heads in shame over their partisan support of this shoddy character.
In fairness … thinking a person has a case to answer doesn’t make it so, it has to have evidence to support a charge … that evidence is the subject of “discovery” by defence (to build a defence …
… some of us who were “chastised” by person’s I’d rather not name here … but I will anyway – ToM and sp and the late Wally and Tosy Farnham and if I remember correctly, James (I’m not going! I will be a lawyer one day) Farnham … only defended the “due process of law” available” to anyone here … NOT Thomson’s guilt or innocence …
People are charged and sometimes (more often than not surprisingly) found not guilty …
Now that charges have been laid, the onus will now be on Mr Thomson to prove that he is innocent, rather than the litigants having to prove that he is guilty.
I found this paragraph to be a bit odd too, ol' mate … in Oz WE are innocent until proven guilty … the only western country I know that is the reverse is France and that works really well if you want to get rid of Robber Barons via Madame Guillotine … 😛
No bullet points? Getting lazy in yer old age Tom…? 😉
CORRECTION
Now that charges have been laid, the onus will now be on Mr Thomson to prove that he is innocent, rather than the litigants having to prove that he is guilty.
I found this paragraph to be a bit odd too, ol’ mate … in Oz WE are innocent until proven guilty … the only western country I know that is the reverse is France and that works really well if you want to get rid of Robber Barons via Madame Guillotine …
ToM
This thread is not about The Prime Minister …
sreb, whizz my correction off too … thanks …
I think in a civil court TB, if you are charged with rorting funds, ie “fraud” and the litigant has evidence ( ie: credit card receipts etc) then I think the onus is on the defendant to prove their innocence.
Happy to be corrected if this isn’t the case…
But if I was Craig, I’d be shitting myself.
He claims he is guilty of no wrongdoing, to me that just smacks of someone who felt that the union credit card could be used for any purchases or cash withdrawals he liked, no doubt as exemplified by his boss Williamson.
He has not been charged with anything..it is a civil case..not criminal…I would be very careful with your tweets, what you believe to be certain and comments.if I were some people and I hope you filter properly.
PS – not they don’t have credit card reciepts and the one posted in the fairfax news papers is alledged to be false – the number 211 means it was not approved..so it was discarded..no money…but keep trying though.
“If I were some people…”
You mean, you’re not some people…?
“they don’t have credit card reciepts and the one posted in the fairfax news papers is alledged to be false..”
“alledged”
…Chuckle…
But if I was Craig, I’d be shitting myself.
Actually reb, if I was Graig, I’d be shitting, Craig might even be laughing right now 😉
File Title: General Manager of Fair Work Australia v Graig Thomson
fckn amateurs
Yes, those mindless types who argued that Thomson had “no case to answer”, also changed their mind and now support off shore processing.
But here’s a summary of Thomson’s “defence”!
I didn’t do it. NEVER! NO NO NO NO NO!!
It was
that bitch… piece of workKathy Jackson.SheMs Jackson did it!SheMs Jackson lives with a bloke who works in the same building as a bloke who done the investigation!!And I say that he’s had a cup of coffee and exchanged favours with him.
So, your honour, that’s my case. Please go and arrest Ms Jackson, because
SHEMS JACKSON DONE IT!!Here you go Tom..http://www.independentaustralia.net/jacksonville/
Make sure you read every episode if you are interested.
those mindless types who argued that Thomson had “no case to answer
You do understand that, way back when you mouthing those accusations, he didn’t
It is also yet to be determined if he does. I mean, Graig Thom(p)son might, but Craig?
Happy to be corrected if this isn’t the case… duly corrected 🙂
But if I was Craig, I’d be shitting myself. Agree … absolutely! (If I was guilty!)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But here’s a summary of Thomson’s “defence”!
The problem I have with these posts, ToM … (and it’s for your benefit) … is that you just might end up with “egg on your face” … let the law run its course …
Innocent until proven guilty applies to both civil and criminal law
However the onus of proff – by the prosecution is different …
Civil – on the balance of probabilities
Criminal – beyone reasonable doubt
The onus of proving a case is on the prosecution NOT the defence …
proff = proof (my Norman heritage!)
I just hope everything comes out into the open, everyones involvement and the members finally clean out every bit and start with people who are for the members….In the URL posted earlier are names of people the union could or at least look at to represent them and clean out the rest.
Now that charges have been laid,
From the Wixxy Office Block.
For a start, we need to understand that these are claims, not “charges” as the propaganda pieces in The Australian are already calling them. There are no such things as civil charges.
http://wixxyleaks.com/2012/10/15/remember-me/
I learn something new every day (just not from the msm unfortunately)
Either way, I’m pretty sure the papers will be ignoring such simplistic conventions, as his obvious guilt for these ‘charges’ is ‘carefully’ dissected. Also pretty sure that their new found love of ‘context’ will be abandoned rather rapidly.
Still fighting the “good fight” ( ie; Thomson is innocent) agenda TomR , how cute….. 😉
I don’t think I have declared him innocent reb, I just haven’t declared him guilty.
But I am still laughing at the ineptitude of someone that spells ‘Craig’ wrong in what one would hope is a vetted document. 😆
M understanding is that a “state” body, WCA … brings charges … inividuals don’t … therefore, Craig Thomson, has been charged … emotionally or not!
A Statement of Claim has been filed in the Federal Court of Australia. To ordinary citizens, this is mistakenly known as “bringing charges.”
T-R .. ” I learn something new every day
(just not from the msm unfortunately) ”
.
Yeah, same here Tom R.
.
TB is correct reb, the `accused` doesn`t have to prove shit.
It is up to the other side to `make` their case.
‘But if I was Craig, I’d be shitting myself. Agree … absolutely! (If I was guilty!)’
Are pathological liars aware of their guilt?
Are pathological liars aware of their guilt?
You’d know better than the rest of us 😉
You’d know better than the rest of us
Confirmed.!
Conspiracy Theory #123567: Ahh now that we’ve disposed of Slipper, it’s time to regurgitate the Thomson business!
I think it will be the Federal Court that determines the matter. And time will tell if Thomson is guilty or not. Despite the NO Coalition’s rants about how much he’l have to pay and if he goes bankrupt then he can’t sit in parliament, and if, if, if.
What surprises me is that people are still listening to all this cant!
“TB is correct reb, the `accused` doesn`t have to prove shit.”
Oh noes, does this mean youse are all right and I’m the one who’s wrong…..??
The Fair Work Act has provisions where the onus is reversed in the case of an “adverse action”. I’m not sure if this is an adverse action, but if it is, then the onus reverts back to the Respondent, in this case, Craig Thomson.
It is one of the more controversial aspects of the Fair Work Act and is designed to place the onus on employers sacking workers and Unions engaging in industrial action to justify their actions. More than that I don’t know and I can’t draw a link between Thomson’s stuff and this “adverse action” stuff but the point is that the burden of proof insofar as the Fair Work legislation is concerned is not as simple as the traditional Plaintiff/Defendant stuff.
At every step the ALP fan club have been shown to be wrong about Thomson. They really hate being reminded of this though.
First is was “speculation”. Then “a media beat up”, or “there’s nothing in it”. Then we were told to “withhold judgement until FWA had completed their investigation”.
When FWA found almost 200 times against Thomson, the fan club attacked FWA, a creation of this government!!
The findings were “wring”. The investigation was “tainted”.
SDP Lawler “shared an office with the investigator”. They did “favours for each other”.
At every step, the ALP fan club has been flat out to silence/ban anyone who proposed that Thomson “has a case to answer”.
The people who run those sites continue to demonstrate their blinkered ignorance.
Thomson “has a case to answer”, he’s a sleaze and regardless of the outcome of this case, he has no place in the parliament.
“the burden of proof insofar as the Fair Work legislation is concerned is not as simple as the traditional Plaintiff/Defendant stuff.”
That is my understanding also Snacty….
In a civil case, if the plaintiff has evidence of wrongdoing such as credit card statements, then the onus is on the defendant to prove that they are innocent.
It’s different from the “beyond reasonable doubt” measure that would typically be required in a criminal case.
Not quite, Reb, but certainly not as simple as TB said above.
With Fair Work Act, throw out all traditional proof standards.
Civil – the Plaintiff needs to prove on the balance of probabilities. In practice that will mean that where you have credit card statements like in Thomson, he’d probably want to have a good explanation for them. But that’s about creating doubt. I suspect that that is what applies in this case.
Criminal – the Plaintiff needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt all aspects of the matter. So if Thomson turned around and said those credit card statements are wrong because I was in Perth, it falls again to the Crown to prove otherwise, providing there is an evidentiary basis for what Thomson says. This DOES NOT apply in this case.
FWA – if proceedings are brought by FWA in relation to “adverse acts” the onus of proving the justification for those adverse acts falls to the Defendant (Respondent). It is known as a “reverse onus of proof” and it’s on the balance of probabilities. Now as far as I can tell, an adverse act is the dismissal of an employee or an act of industrial action. FWA brings the claim to the Federal Court (or Federal Magistrates Court) and it is up to the Respondent to prove on the balance of probabilities that the adverse act was justified under the Fair Work Act. I don’t have time to properly research it but I DON’T believe this applies in this case. That is, I don’t believe Thomson has to prove he didn’t spend on hookers or that such spending wasn’t justified. It is of course useful to his case if he can.
I’m just saying that the traditional ideas (plural) of burden of proof don’t necessarily apply in relation to matters involving Fair Work Australia. It isn’t as simple as criminal vs civil.
Thanks Snacty…..! 🙂
I guess without knowing the FWA charges, we’re all gussing …
This is a review … the section is mentioned @ 8. …
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=fwa%20reverse%20onus%20of%20proof&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deewr.gov.au%2FWorkplaceRelations%2FPolicies%2FFairWorkActReview%2FDocuments%2FConfederationofACTIndustry.pdf&ei=Yqd8UPkW7Y-IB-v7gZAE&usg=AFQjCNHwHqS-5RY4O0W21QGtJpc3v5H9vA&cad=rjt
Here’s the Statement of Claim. It’s 194 pages. Good luck!!
Click to access fwavthomsonstatementofclaim.pdf
After you, James!!!!! 😉
Still the Titles in the Index give an idea of the track they are taking – misappropriation of USU funds and working conditions applicable to his position(s) …
With the Victorian and NSW police gearing for charges (of fraud – I believe) … I wouldn’t want to defend his actions … I feel for his family though …
CORRECTION
misappropriation of USU funds
misappropriation of HSU funds
This article outlines some of the implications…
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/thomson-labor-and-the-race-against-time-20121016-27nsf.html
The AWB … interesting … the article is dated June but I don’t recall anything about this little; “bribe” …
http://www.smh.com.au/national/top-job-offered-to-end-probe-20120606-1zwrh.html
Here’s the Statement of Claim
It would appear none here were astute enough to pick up the full Statement of Claim at 10:44 last night.
https://thedailytrash.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/craig-thomson-guilty-as-charged/#comment-10172
Yer a bit late SoC … James posted it almost an hour and ahalf ago … did you mean “none of us” (to include yourself …? just sayin’ )
I’ll start by apologising for my absence over the weekend and last night. Thought I might spend some time with my family rather than continue to brawl over the meaning and spelling of “misogyny”. Then I’ll apologise for not clicking contributors’ names when they are in red.
Beyond that, given there is no reason to imagine that Thomson might actually resign his seat, this latest development really means nothing to Parliamentary numbers. The matter will be strung out such that bankruptcy won’t occur before the next election due late next year.
I actually suspect that the election will be held early next year before Swan has to deliver the 2012 surplus. Because there will be no legitimate 2012 surplus, that much is already clear.
What it does do though is add to the narrative about patterns of behaviour in the Trade Union movement. The AWU story is the main game as far as election tipping points are concerned and Julia Gillard is in deep deep trouble here. Maybe that also can be strung out until next year but I doubt it. The Fairfax papers are sensing that if they are to retain a modicum of credibility they need to start reporting the issue and that spells big trouble for Labor.
The scalps will include Gillard, Shorten, Roxon to start with and the end point will be the disassociation of the ALP from the Trade Union movement. And that will be a good thing.
I’m not happy with the absence of jaws around the office. Was he pushed or did he walk?
I put Jaws into moderation mode for a few hours after he was getting on my goat. I think it was Monday or the Monday before that.
Fck one goat……
” after he was getting on my goat. ”
.
I really hope your goat is alright.
So you broke up the fab four?
You seemed quite happy chirping away in your CO2 room the other day when I looked in on you. You have gathered a nice collection of nonsense, by the way.
‘…a nice collection of nonsense, by the way.’
It may look like folly to you, but obviously it means more to me.
Who are the Fab Four?
Yer a bit
late SoCsenile TB Queensland.October 15, 2012 10:44 pm is almost 13 hours before October 16, 2012 11:32 am
just sayin’
‘Who are the Fab Four?’
Reb, TB, toilet and Jaws.
October 15, 2012 10:44 pm is almost 13 hours before October 16, 2012 11:32 am
But is it before October 15, 2012 7:54 pm ❓
just sayin’ 😉
Touché Tom R.
You were indeed almost 3 hours earlier.
TB Queensland can take me to his Dementia Specialist.
TB Queensland can take me to his Dementia Specialist.
I’ll already be there 😉
Yeah TB, I never thought that the Howard regime was clear of the AWB corruption, this doesn`t surprise me. Nice find.
MORE than half the allegations against former Labor MP Craig Thomson could be thrown out on the grounds that their statute of limitations has been exceeded, Fair Work Australia concedes.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/allegations-against-thomson-could-be-thrown-out-20121016-27o84.html#ixzz29Qr09pVS
😆
But what about Graig? 😯
Uh oh…there is a catch.
‘MORE than half the allegations against former Labor MP Craig Thomson could be thrown out on the grounds that their statute of limitations has been exceeded, Fair Work Australia concedes.’
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/allegations-against-thomson-could-be-thrown-out-20121016-27o84.html#ixzz29QrP8RyR
Beat me by a minute.
So the delay of this case, which was mainly supervised by Tim Lee (former ALP ministerial advisor, former union official and now ALP appointee as a FWA Commissioner), has paid dividends if much of it is thrown out for technical time related reasons.
Now who will the ALP barrackers blame for that?
THE WHOLE THING STINKS!
… thrown out on the grounds that their statute of limitations has been exceeded
I recall discussing this point weeks ago …
==================================
Who are the Fab Four
Only one Fab Four I know of …
THE WHOLE THING STINKS!
Thomson?
egg?
The Fab Four?
All of the above …
Then I’ll apologise for not clicking contributors’ names when they are in red.
Y’know that’s something ToSY would do, isn’t it … 🙄
Then I’ll apologise for not clicking contributors’ names when they are in red.
Don’t Fear the …… 😯
I don’t get it…..
Don’t worry, James … be happy …
Seems Like your in the same boat as me sancty, everyones name is in black on this theme, Link or No-Link in their name, must be a theme verses browser bug.
Simply “access” to a WordPress website for creating, editing, correcting thread headers … (yours or someone who gives you access to theirs) … I wrote a few articles for Blogocracy and had access to that site and a red tag … you’ll notice too that the Blogmeister has a red asterisk … he’s speshul …
Or did I misunderstand, 730, all your name tags come up black?
Yes TB, on this theme everyones name is black, and reb`s * is black too. (Permalink and date is grey)
TB Queensland.
What makes your name appear Red rather than Black?
Have you noticed the Website field in the form where you write you posts? If you put something in there, your name will be Red, rather than Black. If you put a valid address in there, anyone clicking on it will be taken to that address.
730reportland takes you to http://qandaland.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/organ-grinders-monkey/
Tom R’s moniker on his most recent post takes you to http://www.periodicvideos.com/#
Anyone can play!
730reportland – the problem is yours. I can see Red and Black monikers.
On a completely different matter….
‘Speaking to reporters in New Delhi, Ms Gillard said that Mr Abbott ‘‘doesn’t have the guts’’ to bring up issues he says are important.’
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/pm-accuses-abbott-of-asylum-cowardice-20121016-27o1g.html#ixzz29RcSRmQK
Its the ‘tow-back’ thingy and joolya is out of line. The Indonesians see the monk as the new Australian leader and they treat him with respect.
Quietly they are saying we’ll tow the boats back for a pretty penny or two.
“The Indonesians see the monk as the new Australian leader and they treat him with respect.”
I can’t find the words to express my amazement.
Have you noticed the Website field in the form where you write you posts?
SoC – did you read my post? I don’t have a website … nothing shows in my posts … I don’t have a website …
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I can’t find the words to express my amazement.
I can …
Fuckwit™!
So if we are missing a “member” … sreb, Ser T and me must be the Three Amigos!
Yeah sreb’s in the middle …. but only ’cause he looks older … 😆
I’d be the little one on the left…
I’ve already nominated Dudley Moore to play me in the movie of my life that will never be made…
Dudley’s DEAD! You’ll have to play
withyourself!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudley_Moore
I guess it’ll have to be Oliver Reed in that case then..
Oliver’s pickled and mould’rin’ too … FMD .. how old are you ! 😯
TB Queensland – did you read my post?
You don’t need to have a website! You can put anything you like, or a link to any website in that field.
Check out the link on my moniker from this post.
I think I like SoC…. 😉
Thanks … SoC … what does … Diagnose Connection Problems, mean? 😯
Remember when it was “trolling” to say “Thomson has a case to answer”?
It seems that the Authority (FWA) specifically established by the ALP to deal with these matters is full of “trolls”!!
Although since Thomson is having to “answer a case”… I suppose there will be a range of retractions posted soon.
I suppose there will be a range of retractions posted soon.
Where? Not on this blog …
I think I’ve seen SoC before.
😯
😯
‘The financial penalties are the most immediate potential political ramification for the minority government, because if Mr Thomson was bankrupted he would be disqualified from sitting in Parliament. Being found at fault in a civil case does not preclude an MP from serving.
‘But Mr Thomson said he was confident ”this civil action has no legs at all” and bankruptcy was not something he had contemplated.’
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/case-based-on-politics-thomson-lawyer-says-20121016-27p4v.html#ixzz29UwdnF8D
Timing of all this is bad for the government. .
* Thomson’s trial and all the details will get plenty of media space when the preferred narrative of the government will be the newest version of ‘working families’.
* The Slipper saga and the 17 or 19 lawyers who spent $700k without winning will be fresh in the minds of the electorate.
* Swan’s economic incompetence will be again on display.
* Gillard’s fundamental inclination towards concealment, rather than transparency, will be scrutinised, because there will be plenty more from her ‘young & naive’ period as a mid 30s professional woman.
Does anyone actually believe Gillard can be trusted?
You can tell just by looking at the guy that he’s a slimy fuckball, Guilty or not, he deserves everything he gets.
And juror of the year is ….
Spot on thenightwas.
In his defence, Craig is not a well man.
I see we have two contenders for juror of the year … and it looks very close … 🙂
Meanwhile, in other circles, the debate has taken an entirely new twist with some suggesting that the Police and FWA have a case to answer, but Thomson doesn’t..
FWA Vice President Lawler has a case to answer!
He “shared and office” with Investigator Nassios! AND they did favours for each other!!
Wait a minute you idiots
The point is that there is a criminal genius out there sneaking into people’s hotel rooms calling escort agencies on the hotel landline , having a Cigarette and watching “Julia fucks Oz” while the customer is in the friggin shower eating ice cream .
“Meanwhile, in other circles, the debate has taken an entirely new twist…….”
I just perused a couple of “other circles” and I have to say some of the language and phrase-ology used made my hair stand on end.
And some of you Lefties think I go over the Top.
I am but a L Plater compared to a few like the charming Jaycee who tries to shock “Splatterbottom Shakespeare Style” but can barely string a sentence together let alone a lucid argument.
I gotta pick up my act a bit.
JC hasn’t a deep intellect and leans towards god bothering. I told him the true story of Noah;s Ark and since then he’s been blaspheming.
Yes I note that every dissenting comment in those parts is met with the tiresome “troll” label.
A word barely used around here.
In fact I cant recall the last time.
Troll …
ha ha