In her written submission to the Trade Union Royal Commission, Kathy Jackson has humbly requested a statue be erected in her honour and for her accusers to be tarred and feathered — pretty much. Peter Wicks from Wixxyleaks reports.
"How dare they present evidence and make accusations — don't they know I've been granted LNP immunity?"
SOME HAVE DESCRIBED IT as one of the country’s greatest works of fiction, but it is not a novel.
Some have described it as the desperate pleas of a condemned criminal, but it is not coming from a prisoner on death row in Florida.
What is being referred to in the above statements is the ‘Written submissions on behalf of Kathy Jackson 14 November 2014’, signed off by Philip Beazley, Kathy Jackson’s solicitor.
The full document can be viewed in full via the link here.
Despite the claims of some, however, we cannot refer to Kathy Jackson as a criminal — not yet at any rate. Jackson needs to go through the legal process before being referred to that way. A concept that Jackson herself chose to ignore with respect to Craig Thomson, whose appeal commences on Monday.
Despite the immense amount of evidence of fraud, the problem has always been getting Jackson towards justice, or even getting a criminal investigation of her activities. Jackson has done everything humanly possible to avoid scrutiny of any sort.
In the Federal Court action against her by the HSU, we have seen 18 breaches of court orders so far —ranging from the annoying to the ridiculous. This matter is now adjourned until February as Jackson is a voluntary patient in a psychiatric hospital.
Before the Trade Union Royal Commission (TURC) we saw Jackson claiming she was “ambushed” before fleeing; proceedings were then delayed while a lawyer was found for her. After that, there were further delays when the unseemly Jackson tried to remove the HSU’s lawyer Mark Irving from cross examining, claiming he was an old “charity shag”.
Jackson, through her doctor, has claimed before Federal Court that she unable to provide instruction to her lawyer until at least 15 January next year. In the written submissions to the Royal Commission it even makes mention that they were made without instruction from the client due to her medical condition.
So, where does Kathy Jackson’s submission come from?
Those in the legal profession to whom I have spoken claim it is extraordinary and extremely unlikely that a solicitor would write anything on behalf of a client without instruction from the client. Why would a solicitor stick his neck out so far?
After all, if there is something in the submission not to Jackson’s liking, could Mr Beazley be sued by Jackson for professional malpractice? After all, this is a high stakes game — the consequences flowing from a Royal Commission misstep will be far worse than a parking fine.
Many of those to whom I have spoken, after reading the 42-page document, say that they believe it was written by Jackson’s partner Michael Lawler and then signed by Mr Beazley. This suggestion is supported by the the last page signature section of the document.
As you can see in the picture below, there was a gap left between where it states Beazley Singleton Lawyers and the date. In that gap ‘Solicitor for Katherine Jackson’ is hand written:
I find it odd that he wouldn’t have that typed in. It is almost as if someone else typed up the submission and he penned it in later. It also indicates he didn’t have the soft copy of the document to edit and insert the words — that he, perhaps, only had a physical hard copy.
I also find it unusual that he chose to change pens after writing one word.
As for what is inside the submission, it is the same old “heroic whistleblower who paid a hefty price for coming forward” line that, really, nobody believes anymore — even her staunchest supporters in the Liberal Party and right-wing media, who are now desperately trying to distance themselves from her.
There is absolutely nothing heroic at all about someone who goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid scrutiny of their actions. In fact I believe the correct term would be gutless.
Pointing the finger at someone else to conceal your own actions and to seek to take advantage of their downfall is not what I would refer to as blowing the whistle, but rather the work of a gutless opportunist.
If there is a hefty price being paid by Jackson, it is not for exposing others, as her mythmakers would like to convince us, but rather it is for her own behaviour.
Jackson signed the cheques. Jackson set up the Peter Mac Settlement. Jackson spent the $250,000 Peter Mac settlement from an account she set up. Jackson spent like ten drunken sailors on the credit cards. The union paid for Jackson’s children’s child care. Jackson took the numerous trips. It is Jackson’s name as a Director of Neranto #10. It is Jackson’s signature on Rob Elliot’s contract. It was Jackson that hired Michael Lawler’s sons on the branch payroll, and so on and so on….
You can read the full saga of Jacksonville here.
Pointing the finger at others did not make these things occur — Jackson made them occur. Now that attempts are being made to make her accountable for her own actions, she seems desperate to avoid being held to the same level of scrutiny she demands of everyone else.
Claims made in the submission that Jackson was open about not being squeaky clean beforehand, as she admitted to having control of a slush fund are highly misleading.
There has been no union slush fund — the only fund Jackson controlled was the NHDA fund, which was a personal bank account for which Kathy Jackson was the signatory. It was in no way a slush fund ‒ operating for the benefit of members ‒ and nor did it operate like one.
If there is indeed a slush fund, it has yet to surface.
The submission also seeks to discredit the work of the media, and in particular Vex News, Wixxyleaks and Independent Australia.
The submission talks of an “ALP dirt file” and rumours. Well, I have heard all sorts of scuttlebutt about the elleged behaviour of Jackson and Lawler, but I have not published any of it. As for an ‘ALP dirt file’, I have yet to see anything of that nature, so if anybody out there has it, please feel free to pass it on.
The submission in paragraph 74 states:
‘The Commission should infer that Mr Landeryou and Mr Wicks obtained most of the material that they advanced as “evidence” of wrongdoing by Ms Jackson from Mr Williamson, Mr Mylan and/or Mr Brown and that they used that material to make false allegations against Ms Jackson.’
What utter gall to tell a Royal Commission what they should and shouldn’t infer.
Utter gall ... oh and Gilligan called.
I also find it amusing that the word evidence is between quotation marks as if it is being derided. The evidence I have presented has been by way of documentation. Jackson, on the other hand, cites floods selectively destroying documents and claims stolen mythical exercise books as evidence. I call that grasping.
I cannot speak for Mr Landeryou, however I can state that I have never met Michael Williamson nor received any documentation from him at all. I also asked Independent Australia editor David Donovan and he has also never met him not received any information from. I have however had a conversation with Williamson via phone, though the conversation was short and in no way influenced any of my articles. In fact, I’m sure Strikeforce Carnarvon would have a recording of that conversation and nothing ever came of it. I have had far longer conversations with Marco Bolano. David Donovan also said he had received a short call from Mr Williamson at one time, however it also had no influence.
I have had some dealings with Mr Mylan and Mr Brown, however I have never received any documentation from Mr Brown at all, much to my frustration. From Mr Mylan, I received a copy of a letter he sent to Fair Work Australia regarding claims against Jackson. That’s all.
In paragraph 76, it goes on to say;
‘During 2013 Mr Brown and his supporters pursued Ms Jackson through the Courts and continued to leak material to Mr Wicks who smeared Kathy Jackson on his websites.’
Firstly, website would be more appropriate, I only have one. I am merely a contributor to Independent Australia.
However claims of smear and false allegations are incorrect. I would content that they are only made before TURC because I cannot claim they are privileged statements and submissions and so I cannot claim defamation about them. It is, effectively, a free kick to those seeking to downplay the evidence against Jackson.
It is worth noting though that, although none of my evidence has ever been disputed in a serious manner, nor has my commentary been forced to be removed. This is despite the involvement of defamation lawyers acting on Michael Lawler’s behalf.
Jackson’s submission takes a twist when it comes to her treatment by the Royal Commission, which most have described as soft or as with “kid gloves”, and her claim of an “ambush” when the questioning took a turn for the worse, from her perspective.
The submission states on page 17, paragraph 82 [IA emphasis]:
'Counsel Assisting initially foreshadowed a thematic approach to hearings involving Ms Jackson. That initial plan however was not adhered to.'
To me, that suggests a deal was done prior to the hearings that the Commission was going to go soft on Jackson. And, indeed, many have highlighted by the different style of questioning Craig McGregor faced compared to the Jackson factional cronies that came before him.
Once again, this brings the integrity of the Royal Commission into question. Why would a deal be done to go soft on Jackson and, if so, under whose authority?
George Brandis, perhaps?
Anybody who wants some comic relief from all the legal talk and mountains of evidence would do well to check out the conclusion on the last two pages of the submission; here’s a taste:
‘She has been pilloried in the media, deserted by her union, left without a salary, dragged through the courts and had her health destroyed.’
It has taken the media a few years to see the real Kathy, it’s called catching up.
Jackson is currently on unpaid sick leave by her own volition, as she has reportedly been for around two years.
Jackson deserted her own union the moment she took money from it in an allegedly unlawful manner.
Being “dragged through the courts” is a consequence of her own behaviour and if she is as innocent as she claims, I would suggest this is something she should welcome rather than seek to avoid.
As for Jackson’s health, there are positive signs. Apparently, although she is still not mentally fit to provide legal instruction on matters to do with the $1.4 million she is in Federal court over, it has been alleged she is apparently mentally fit enough to give legal instruction in relation to lodging a workers compensation claim. That’s got to be a step forward.
Paragraph 261 section (b) of the submission says the Commission should make findings that:
‘Give her a measure of vindication by acknowledging what she has done and condemning those who have sought to destroy her.’
Perhaps a statue erected in her honour?
They’ve got to be kidding … right?
But I fear they aren’t.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License