Some intriguing grabs from the Western Australian Parliamentary Hansard around the time of The AWU Scandal – Michael Smith News.
A Tangled Webb said…
I find it very interesting that the only individual name listed as a payee on those documents was ‘R. Blewitt’. Even though Wilson was front and centre in the swindle his name is glaringly absent. Why would the $25,000.00 if used as stated for the deposit on Kerr Street be in the name of R. Blewitt who was not even at the auction? There has been a concerted effort, in my opinion, to have Ralph Blewitt only named in any financial records and stitch him up completely, while leaving no trace of Wilson’s involvement. It would have been quite some effort to set up all the legalities to pull it off – and I keep thinking of Ralph’s disclosure of the meeting he was called to at Slater & Gordon with Gillard, Murphy and Wilson – the one where Ralph was told to sit in the corner while the others worked out how to complete the paperwork to establish AWU WRA. How much did Murphy know I wonder? There is no way Wilson would have had enough knowledge to set up the legal paperwork for the purchase of Kerr Street. ‘Someone’ had to be giving him legal advice.
ReplyMonday, 07 October 2013 at 11:24 PM
Blackswan said in reply to A Tangled Webb…
“How much did Murphy know I wonder?”
Imagine an ordinary scenario where a law firm employee was indulging in a little pro bono work that hadn’t been approved by the firm’s pro bono committee. How likely is it that such an employee would involve her immediate boss in the process?
What about a senior partner in a law firm who is licensed to practise in WA, who recently opened a branch office of his Melbourne law firm in Perth, who receives a request for information from the state secretary of the AWU but who hands that inquiry to a Melbourne colleague who is NOT licensed to practise in WA?
What was unique about that AWU official’s request to have a “re-election fund” incorporated, that had two AWU officials fly to the other side of the country (by-passing the Perth office) to consult with the lawyer AND her boss in their Melbourne office to effect that incorporation?
When the ship finally hits the sand and that employee is told to resign or be sacked, why would her boss resign too unless he was inextricably involved?
He goes to head up the Industrial Unit of a rival law form and takes the AWU account with him, so he’s in a perfect position to maintain control of the aftermath.
I hope that helps Tangled Web to stop you ‘wondering’ any longer. Cheers.
ReplyTuesday, 08 October 2013 at 09:45 AM
