Legal questions

…from the quill of Antisthenes the Younger

The dogs of freedom bark, but the caravan of corruption goes on.

The following e-mail, purportedly from the famous Australian cartoonist, is making rounds of internet, not yet the Conroy castrated, undoubtedly to his, and to his accomplices great wrath.


Apart from having the sort of head you’d never get tired of kicking, AWU boss Paul Howes’ record of protecting workers’ interests is abysmal.
Police can’t act without a complaint and there are no complaints coming from Howes or the HSU East’s Williamson.

It is no secret as to why.
When someone like the HSU East’s Kathy Jackson files a complaint, Bill Shorten shuts her down by placing the union in administration. Anyway, Craig Thomson is nothing but a small fish among schools of sharks in an ongoing feeding frenzy.

Howes’ union crony and co-Rudd assassin, Bill Shorten, does nothing either. (Except to plead it’s an isolated case.) In fact, he goes to extreme lengths to obfuscate the blatant theft.

Left wing law firms have become union savvy and unions have become Left wing law firm savvy. Paul Howes, makes no effort to recover those stolen members’ funds. I wonder why.

The Gillard Government is a creation of corrupt unions, is stacked with ex-unionists (more than 50 of them) and protected by corrupt union bosses. The people who could bring down this corrupt Government (Craig Thomson, Doug McClelland and Ian Cambridge) have either been dumped or promoted to the union controlled FWA.

Oakeshott and Windsor will not walk the plank for the sake of this nation.

As an official of the ARU I quickly learnt the modus operandi of major unions. It wasn’t pretty then… it’s grotesquely ugly now.
The silence is deafening from the Left wing law firm, Slater & Gordon, as accusations continue to fly from credible sources.
It seems strange that a law firm would not immediately sue or at least take out an injunction against its accusers.

Well, here you go boys, I’ll make it easy for you.
• You (Slater & Gordon) have been complicit in fraudulent activities involving AWU officials.
• You aided and abetted union officials in the theft of funds rightfully belonging to AWU members.
• You knew the accounts those stolen funds moved into and out of were fraudulent accounts set up by a certain Julia Eileen Gillard, your Partner.

How’s that? Enough for you yet? Okay, here’s some more:
• You aided and abetted a Bruce Morton Wilson in the dispersal of those stolen funds.
• You represented your client (the AWU) in clear conflict of interest.
• You provided a loan to Bruce Wilson when you knew the loan assisted in the fraud.
• You have done nothing to recover or assist to recover funds misappropriated by your clients, Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt.
• You refuse to release documentation detailing the above.

Is that enough boys, or should I go on? Come on, it’s not that hard, surely. Sue me! You’re a law firm aren’t you? You can even give yourself mates’ rates.

There are more than 250,000 people who will see this article via blogs, 10,000 viral emails, Facebook, “The Pickering Post” and its Facebook. God knows how many they will share it with!

I notice you have bumped up your TV advertisements to convince people of your newfound “ethics”. Are you feeling the pinch?
Waste of money I’d say. Oh, unless it’s not yours.
What is it you say, “No Win, No Fee”? Well, you won’t win this one, so you’re home free. You can’t really lose can you?
Oh, yes you bloody can… and you know it!

You are a disgrace and menace to the industrial law you espouse, the people you represent and to the legal profession in general.

Come clean or come get me, you thieving, degenerate shysters!


 – – – -

Let us assume, for the purposes of the debate, that the above allegations, forcibly expressed, are true. Could the legal firm, mentioned therein, successfully sue for defamation? By success I do not mean some interim injunction, preventing all and sundry to publish anything about the case and its subject matter until all the parties are at least a hundred years dead, nor an out of court settlement, the terms of which have to remain secret for ever. I mean a proper win after a trial, in a real courtroom, not in some “rights” commission star chamber, a real, tangible win with more than nominal damages. Let’s ignore for a moment a possibility of the Labor government amending the legislation to assist the plaintiff; and the difficulty of finding a non-Labor-appointee judge to try the case; and concentrate on the substance.

As everybody knows, or ought to know, in Australia the truth alone is not a defence in a defamation proceedings. It is not so bad as it appears at first glance, since the truth in public discourse is scarcer than hen’s teeth anyway. It has no place in a courtroom, though sanctimonious lip service is paid to it from time to time.

Publication of defamatory matter is lawful, if it is true and if it is for the public benefit; at least it was in my time. Public benefit means for the benefit of the public generally, not merely for the benefit of one or two persons [McIsaacs v. Robertson (1864) 3 S.C.R. (NSW) 51] The motive of the defendant in publishing defamatory matter is immaterial in deciding whether the publication was for public benefit [Crowley v Glissan (1905) 2 C.L.R. 744]

Also interesting is the question of damages. The legal firm in question would have to find someone who had believed that it was a reputable firm and whose opinion of it was changed by that cartoonist’s e-mail. That could be a problem. No self-respecting apparatchik would be represented by any legal firm but the one whose name is synonymous with the fearless, no holds barred fight for the rights of trade union officials. No has-been-cartoonist and horse trainer can change their minds.

Showing my lack of legal knowledge, I admit I do not know what would be the appropriate jurisdiction. New South Wales Supreme Court? That of Victoria? United Nation Tribunal for War Crimes? Of course, if you want to shut somebody up, Australia has a plethora of so called “human rights” and “anti-discrimination” commissions and tribunals, always obediently fulfilling the purpose for which they were established, i.e. to suppress the citizens’ remaining freedoms.

Also, I do not know whether the discovery procedure is still available in cases involving the ruling class. Even if so, the Government may change the rules upon request. After all, we have the government by the unions, for the unions and the documents and e-mails discovered may prove to be embarrassing. I do not mean the cartoonist’s sketches, of course. Legal professional privilege, not to mention shredders, would have to come to the rescue.

We can be sure that if the ‘legal firm’ v- ‘cartoonist’ action is instituted, no more will be heard of it in our media. Even without a likely injunction they already obey the Finkelstein Rule – Thou shall not publish anything to offend Father Gough, Spirit of Marx and all daughter socialist parties.

Fog of Chaos welcomes all legal and especially common sense comments on this legal, public interest conundrum. I hope, for your sake, that the legal protection of fair comment has not yet been abolished. Naturally, nothing written heretofore is to imply any impropriety whatsoever by any honest legal firm. I believe that the public discussion of this subject is for the public benefit and I do not believe that the (possibly) defamatory matter is untrue.

About Antisthenes

A Greek philosopher, a pupil of Socrates. Led a revolt, with Diogenes, against the demands of the city-state and the sophistication of life. Accepted the interrelation of knowledge, virtue, and happiness; and sought the ideal condition for happiness in return to primitivism and self-sufficiency. Rejected all social distinctions as based on convention, scorned orthodox religion as a fabrication of lies, and studied early legends and animal life in order to arrive at a true understanding of natural law. The individual was free and self-sufficient when he was master of his passions, secure in his intelligence, impervious to social or religious demands, and satisfied with the poverty of a mendicant. Needless to say, a person who on the Fog of Chaos adopted the Athenian philosopher's name has nothing whatsoever in common with him.
This entry was posted in Australia, Corruption, Labour Party and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Legal questions

  1. sky-top says:

    Adding this to twitter. Great info.

  2. free aussie says:

    Pickering, and you, Antishenes, are right. Theys won’t dare to sue, unless they can be sure that it would be one of the socialists judges.

  3. Mutter says:

    I like Pickering. Thank you very much for the post.

  4. Windsor says:

    What do we do with the corrupt judiciary? Shoot them? The problem is very deep, and I am not sure that democratic process will handle it.

  5. mellior says:

    Nothing to it. Abbott’s lot is equaly corrupt.

  6. Tarina Vox says:

    I really like the post, but do not flatter yourself, Antisthenes. The caravan goes on…

  7. Maximus says:

    See any solution but a violent revolution?

  8. Jeweler says:

    In a functioning democracy there wouldn’t be any need for Pickering provocation or your post.

  9. Dresner says:

    Pickering got it right.

  10. Wemzel says:

    I wish Pickering luck.

  11. Suncaster says:

    No news is good news, isn’t? Or is the injunction in force already?

  12. Drongo says:

    Hey great stuff, thank you for wonderful post.

  13. Robert says:

    They will not dare to sue.

  14. Big Jacket says:

    Our politicians and our media are hopeless.

  15. Vei says:

    Some people here are despairing of “democratic” process. Somehow, I’m starting to agree.

  16. Sorios says:

    That could be very interesting case!

  17. Perfect says:

    Excellent post. I admire you sense of humor. After all, you must know that the swine will win.

  18. Pero says:

    Wow! This can be one of the most helpful blogs.

  19. fakir says:

    It is a disgrace that all the media are not asking the same questions as Pickering.

  20. bag art says:

    They will not dare to sue Pickering.

  21. Symphonic says:

    She can’t sue – she would have to disclose documents.

  22. Pingback: Gogole

  23. gadfly pi says:

    Silence, suspicious silence…

  24. Pingback: canada mice

  25. Pingback: longitudes

  26. Pingback: Marie Skoll

  27. Pingback: sack her

  28. Pingback: My pager

  29. Oncer says:

    The issue seems to have died.

  30. zip franck says:

    Isn’t it time to do something about it? It takes far too long.

  31. Eat Stopy says:

    Is she in jail yet?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>