Craig Thomson “unlikely to dispute” using Union Credit Card to Pay for Prostitutes!
Embattled MP Craig Thomson will be unlikely to dispute the fact he used union credit cards to pay for porn and prostitutes, a court has heard.
The former Labor MP has previously vigorously denied more than 170 charges brought against him over claims he misused a union credit card for personal use including to pay for escorts.
But his lawyer today told the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court there was likely “to be little debate” about the facts of the case and “little dispute” over the charges.
But he said there would be questions raised over the authority Mr Thomson did or didn’t have to use the cards.
Mr Thomson is facing 173 charges of theft and fraud spanning a five-year period while he was secretary if the Health Services Union between 2002 and 2007.
The court heard some of the charges covered the period after Mr Thomson was elected to parliament in 2007.
He allegedly misused union credit cards to pay for R-rated movies, make cash withdrawals and pay for escort services.
The court heard Mr Thomson used the cards to hire X-rated movies on more than 40 occasions and for female escorts.
He also allegedly misused the cards to purchase flights for his wife on 17 occasions as well as cigarettes and firewood.
Prosecutors alleged Mr Thomson’s misuse totalled about $28,000 or about $150 a week for five years.
The most serious charge Mr Thomson faces carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ jail.
But lawyers are applying to have the case heard summarily, before a magistrate, where the maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment.
Prosecutor Kieran Gilligan today agreed prosecutors would not seek a prison term in excess of that.
But he said the matter should be heard in a higher court because of the complexity and seriousness of the case.
The court heard more than 141 witnesses had made statements for a brief of evidence that included more than 8000 pages in 26 volumes.
More than 800 exhibits including Mr Thomson’s work diary, bank record, photos, books and DVDs also formed part of the brief.
Mr Thomson, who resigned from the ALP earlier this year, is expected to stand as an independent candidate for his seat of Dobell in this year’s federal election.
theguttertrash.com 
I suppose the fuckwits at the other place will still maintain his innocence… 🙄
“fuckwits” is being rather kind…………………………………LOL
“A lot of people have made their minds up about my husband,” ………. “They see him as a philanderer, a man who’s loose with his money and his morals. I don’t know that man.”
Well……………..she knows him now !
Love is Blind
http://aww.ninemsn.com/news/inthemag/8504344/im-craig-thomsons-wife-this-is-my-story
So I suppose he’s lied to Parliament as well
If he lied to parliament that would leave him out of the running.
(So, the primary defence seems to turn on a question of (fact and) law, the matter being heard in an inferior court, and the defence won’t be contesting the extensive catalogue of other facty matters unless and until it gets an initial ruling on its primary stance of essentially having no case to answer on the basis on which the case is brought in any event? That sounds a little bit like C’s submission to FWA, before FWA retroactively applied (un)reasonable(ness) contents to bootstrap similarly (un)authorised findings as a sound basis for future prosecutions. It should be interesting, maybe, to see how it all pans out; if the the strategem is not fighting 173 little battles to concentrate on winning/losing 1 battle and the war, that is.)
So Thommo now says it’s not a question of whether he used his company credit card on prossies, porn, ciggies and mags, things he had strenuously denied ever doing (remember his teary performance in parliament?) – he actually did do all that stuff. Now it’s a question of whether he was authorised to use the company card in that way. Or, if he wasn’t, whether he was ever specifically informed that he wasn’t. Since he himself signed off an all those expenses, it’s possible he never was.
One thing does seem beyond dispute, though: Craig Thomson is a proven liar.
Craig is a pathological liar.
Does this now mean he can be sued by the ALP for his “defence” funding?
Everything Craig Thomson’s said on this day was utter, utter bullshit …
Craig Thomson’s full address to Parliament
Or maybe not
https://twitter.com/DobellThommo/status/358089034196713474
I may have dreamed it but I could have sworn Wixxy had a piece up not long ago talking about Thomson’s innocence etc….
Seems to have been deleted.
I do understand the argument though. Basically he’s saying that if he was authorised to do all that stuff (and he says he was) then whether he did it or not doesn’t matter.
It’s a reasonable argument to make that resolving that question would be far cheaper than dealing with the multitude of charges. He’s not saying he’s admitting to the charges, just that their accuracy or otherwise are irrelevant to the initial question.
He remains a lying sack of shit though in my honest opinion.
More crap from Thomson. His QC told the court it was “very likely” there would be no dispute about who used the cards.
In denial till the bitter end.
From Thomson’s statement: “Despite some media reports, I am not making any admissions.”
Well he’s not actually required to make any “admissions”, but his lawyer today told the court there was likely “to be little debate” about the facts of the case and “little dispute” over the charges.
Just more slipperiness from a snake-in-the-grass.
The case for the defence-
1. He has a baby
2. Kathy Jackson
3. Remember that odd Liberal senator from SA?
4. His wife believes him
5. The former PM has complete confidence
6. Kathy Jackson is a bitch
7. He made a comprehensive statement
8. Kathy Jackson is on with someone in FWA
9. Someone in FWA shares an office!
10. It’s a media beat up
11. Kathy Jackson can’t be trusted
12. It was a long time ago
13. Look over there, it’s Kathy Jackson
14. Kathy Jackson
15. Kathy Jackson
16. He has a baby
What’s the consequences of lying to Parliament…??
Firing squad … oh wait that’s Egypt …
http://wixxyleaks.com/2013/07/20/here-we-go-again-craig-thomsons-trial-by-media/
Everyone go here…& feel free to make a donation, via MASTERCARD, VISA or AMERICAN EXPRESS, to another individual whose preference is to ban unwanted contrarianism that erodes his narrative.
25 supporters turn up to Craig Thomson fundraising event.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3811446.htm
Was Wicks there? How much did he kick in?
The irrefutable case for the defence-
• Look over there
• Shared an office
• Exchanged favours
• Kathy Jackson is a bitch
• He has a baby
• His wife seems nice
• Look at that odd (now former) Liberal senator
• Kathy Jackson is a bitch
25 supporters turn up to Craig Thomson fundraising event.
How MANY!? 😯
A fundraiser to help pay the legal bills of federal independent MP Craig Thomson attracted few supporters last night.
Having already raised $50,000 in the lead up to the event, Thomson had high hopes for the fundraiser, which was held in the celebrity lounge of the City Tattersalls Club in Sydney.
The venue had room for 200 guests, but fewer than 30 people attended.
Among them was supporter Peter Wicks, who said Thomson was “innocent until proven guilty”.
Thomson’s media advisor told the ABC that many people had donated prior to the event but were unable to attend.
Money raised will go towards the independent MP’s mounting legal bills as he defends 173 fraud charges arising from allegations during his time as secretary of the Health Services Union.
He is accused of using his HSU credit card for prostitutes and hotels.
The former Labor MP has previously said he plans to contest the federal election as an independent for the NSW seat of Dobell.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/election/a/-/article/18153711/low-fundraiser-turnout-for-craig-thomsons-legal-bills/
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/jacksonville-53-thomson-in-the-melbourne-magistrates-court/
The irrefutable case for the defence
Rests on collusion and corruption between investigating officers, departments and police. The Lawler/Kathy Jackson/libs conflict of interest and collusion stinks. Another ashby/slipper stitch-up.
I think wixxy is more on the money.
My investigation into the HSU has been labelled a conspiracy theory by some, so here are some undisputed facts, not theory:
Kathy Jackson was the whistleblower/turncoat upon which almost all the allegations against Craig Thomson were based.
It was the FWA (now known as the FWC) investigation that crucified Thomson in the media and public’s minds.
Kathy Jacksons fiancé was Michael Lawler.
Michael Lawler was Vice President of FWA.
Michael Lawler was appointed to that position by Tony Abbott.
The FWA investigation was torn apart and slammed by an independent report by KPMG, in which Michael Lawler was the only FWA employee who refused to cooperate with investigators.
Kathy Jackson has been a director of companies in receipt of vast sums of union money.
Kathy Jackson has been guest of honour and speaker at Liberal functions.
Kathy Jackson is now under police investigation.
Then there is the journo/PI, ex-cop connection
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/business/media-2/future-media-weathers-feeble-old-media-attacks/
…In fact, I wonder how much of McClymont’s private investigation work for Fairfax was done by a company called Brosnan Investigations, or one of the other investigation firms with the same street address. The director of these private investigation firms, as well as a publishing company, is a man by the name of Graeme Brosnan.
Graeme Brosnan, I understand, is Kate McClymont’s partner and a property search has them owning multiple properties together. Brosnan is an author of many books, including some real life crime stories that McClymont has reported on, a private investigator and, I am told, a former police officer:
But AO, Thomson now appears unlikely to contest the actual facts! The facts that he has steadfastly denied in the past.
He is likely to concede that he spent the union money on prostitutes etc. He apparently will argue that he was approved to do this or that he has paid it back.
This makes a complete mockery of the BULLSHIT Wicks (and others) have been spruiking and all his puerile distractions. If Lawler and Jackson have done something wrong – fine, investigate and prosecute.
But none of that mitigates the outrageous spending and lying by Thomson.
This makes a complete mockery of the BULLSHIT Wicks (and others) have been spruiking and all his puerile distractions.
I don’t see it tomM. I think that any employee who is given use of a credit card will put personal items on it, you can even argue there may be some form of unwritten wage enhancement. That’s what we’ll find out, whether he was authorised to use it to a certain amount. BS like counting an ice-creams etc is ridiculous to the extreme.
If you look at what Thomson has actually said, he concedes absolutely nothing, the media have reported their own versions. Thomson may well have wrongly used the card, we’ll see, but the stench through all of this, is of yet another liberal party conspiracy to use and abuse the legal system for political purposes – to take down their political opponents.
“I think that any employee who is given use of a credit card will put personal items on it”
Not in any company I’ve worked for….
You use your company CC for work-related expenses, and your personal card for personal expenses…
Most people would get a warning if they used their company card for personal expenses, be asked to pay the money back…
It seems that Williamson and Thomson enjoyed a cosy arrangement where they just used their work credit cards for whatever they liked…
It might not strictly be illegal (and I guess that’s what Thomson’s now trying to argue), but it’s certainly unethical and given the period of time that it was going on for, Thomson would have been sacked ages ago if he was guilty of this sort of behaviour in pretty any other company in Australia…
In parliament, Thomson denied that it was him that spent the union money on prostitutes etc. He claimed it was a set up, he said someone else was responsible for it.
If Thomson accepts the facts of the case and bases his defence on permission or mitigation, it will prove-
• Thomson has lied to parliament
• Wicks and others have just run a vicious, baseless campaign of distraction
• The FWA report contained reasonable, factual findings
I’m expecting that Thomson’s defence will be a complete vindication of the types of comments I have provided, and will completely discredit those that have argued to the contrary and banned dissent from their baseless, politically expedient stupidity.
It might not strictly be illegal (and I guess that’s what Thomson’s now trying to argue),
I think so too. But, was it a historical and accepted practice for management in the organisation to give themselves such largesse without the members knowledge? Kathy jackson appears to have used hers for many personal expenses too, which makes me wonder why you would bring about an investigation which would eventually find yourself caught up in the net – did she think it would never get to her, that they would only look at thomson? Did she think lawler and the libs would protect her from the blowback? [same for ashby with his claims]
Will they both receive some kind of financial reward from the libs and their wealthy backers for their personal exposure?
Wicks and others have just run a vicious, baseless campaign of distraction
No, there has always been much more than meets the eye. I can't believe the media keep quiet about all the connections, the conflicts of interests on both sides, they certainly don't do their jobs anymore, they just act as secretaries, no sign of investigative journalism or asking hard questions.
… attracted few supporters last night
A “few” … I thought that was a LOT!
Apparently the room he hired could seat 200.
It must’ve looked a lonely place when only 25 showed up..
chuckles.
25 paid family members?
AO – No, there has always been much more than meets the eye. I can’t believe the media keep quiet about all the connections, the conflicts of interests on both sides, they certainly don’t do their jobs anymore, they just act as secretaries, no sign of investigative journalism or asking hard questions.
Who knows? But that’s all a distraction, none of it provides any support for the notion that Thomson didn’t do exactly what the evidence suggests.