Trump's new world disorder catches Turnbull government napping.

"Watching Donald Trump take the oath of office is like seeing Bobo…

There is a big problem in the construction…

In November last year, Malcolm Turnbull issued a press release titled ABCC…

The Fiction Of Unemployment

"This is actually why Smith’s (Adam) work is so important. He created…

Federal ICAC: The Keys to the Electoral Mint?

By Tim Jones Would the promise of a Federal ICAC give one of…

Day to Day Politics: How time flies when…

Monday 23 January 2017 1 How time flies. Thursday 26th is Australia Day.…

March in March 2017: Are You Angry Enough…

Are you angry enough yet? That is the question March Australia would…

Pauline’s picks are on the nose

As someone who has railed against the rise of the political class…

Trump's First Day!

Ok, I'm going to try and be fair and remember that not…

«
»
Facebook

You stay in bed my beloved, I’ve got this covered

With Kathy Jackson due back in court in a fortnight’s time, one wonders what will come next to try to avoid facing the consequences of her actions.

The Heery Report into the actions of her partner, former Vice President of the Fair Work Commission Michael Lawler, gives an insight into just how strange this saga has been.

On 20 June 2014, Ms Jackson was due to appear at a directions hearing in the Federal Court of Australia at Melbourne before Justice Tracey, in proceedings commenced against her in the previous year by the HSU.

At 8:52 am on the morning of 20 June 2014, Mr Lawler sent an email to Justice Tracey’s Executive Assistant.

Dear [Executive Assistant]

I am the partner of Kathy Jackson.

I write as her partner in the discharge of my family responsibilities in respect of my beloved partner.

The need for me to take the step of writing to you causes me acute embarrassment because I happen also to hold the office of Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission. I am mindful of the duties of my office. I would not ordinarily write to you save that extraordinary circumstances obtain, and after taking counsel, I have conscientiously adjudged that I should write this email to you to inform his Honour that private circumstances have arisen since she returned home last evening which mean that she cannot appear in person at today’s mention.

She asked me as her partner, and I have agreed as her partner, to make application to the Court to seek leave to appear as her McKenzie’s friend to assist the Court in relation to the mention of the matter.

I will make that application when you call Ms Jackson’s number.

I do not relish having to make that application but in circumstances where there is no one else to act for her and she is mindful of not committing a contempt of the Court, I will make that application, and seek relief from whatever riles [sic] may be required for that application to be considered by his Honour.

I have a detail understanding of the case and can speak to issues of non-compliance.

If the Court insists on Ms Jackson appearing in person, I will wake her. I humbly beseech his Honour not to require that of me.

Yours faithfully

Michael Lawler

as partner of Katherine Jackson

Not quite the language one would expect from a member of the judiciary in correspondence with the court.

The directions hearing commenced at 9:35am. The transcript describes Vice President Lawler as appearing for Ms Jackson. At the commencement of the hearing, the transcript records the following exchange:

MR M. IRVING: I appear for the Health Services Union.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Irving. And I understand, Mr Lawler, you’re on the line.

MR M. LAWLER: Yes, your Honour. I have an application to make potentially depending upon what Mr Irving says. Your Honour should be in receipt – or your Honour’s associate should be in receipt of an email that I sent earlier this morning.

HIS HONOUR: I have read the email and I’m sure that you’ve made a mistake in referring to the proposed role as a McKenzie friend because I’m sure you’re well aware McKenzie friends cannot be advocates.

MR LAWLER: Well, I have to confess my ignorance, your Honour. I had thought that was the correct term and if I have erred, I apologise.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Well, you might like to consult the authorities but they’re quite clear that a McKenzie friend is someone who can sit in court, quietly take notes, advise, but not act as an advocate and certainly not act as an advocate in the absence of the party concerned.

MR LAWLER: Of course, your Honour. I would not countenance for one moment pressing any application from the court that was inconsistent with the authorities and I’m grateful to the court for pointing them out to me.

HIS HONOUR: Well, you’re more than welcome to listen in on the proceedings and you may, of course, take such notes as you may wish and you may relay what is said here this morning to Ms Jackson.

MR LAWLER: Thank you, your Honour.

Following this exchange, the hearing then proceeded with Mr Irving on behalf of the HSU making submissions with respect to various procedural issues that had arisen in the conduct of the proceedings. After approximately 10 minutes, however, Vice President Lawler interrupted and began to participate in the hearing. As the above exchange makes plain, this was contrary to the express direction of the presiding judge.

For the remainder of the hearing, Vice President Lawler made submissions on behalf of Ms Jackson, asked questions of the Judge, requested that a photo of Ms Jackson be removed from the internet, and also provided information about certain aspects of Ms Jackson’s case, including an intention by her to seek an application that the proceedings against her be dismissed on account of the Union being guilty of an abuse of process and fraud on the Court.

On 23 June 2014, Vice President Lawler sent an email to Acting President Hatcher, Justice Ross, Vice President Catanzariti, Deputy President Smith, and Senator the Honourable Eric Abetz, the then Minister for Employment.

In his email, he sought to make a number of points, which included the following:

His involvement in the hearing occurred in extraordinary circumstances, namely that:

(i) Ms Jackson had been fully occupied in the Royal Commission for some weeks, and found herself unrepresented at the eleventh hour and with no practical capacity to ready herself for the hearing.

(ii) She sought an adjournment which was refused

(iii) Distressing personal circumstances on the evening of 19 June 2014 prevented Ms Jackson from sleeping for most of the night, which meant she was in no position, or state of mind, to engage with the Federal Court proceedings

(iv) There was no time to obtain a medical report or fresh legal representation (which she could not afford in any event)

(v) He adjudged that waking Ms Jackson to participate in the hearing could be seriously injurious to her health and would have involved him in a grave breach of his family responsibilities.

Will Lawler represent his beloved on January 24 as she again faces 70 theft and deception charges?

Will he think it worth waking her for this time?

Help Support The AIMN

Please consider making a donation to support The AIMN and independent journalism.

Regular Donation
Frequency Amount

Your donation will be processed securely through PayPal.
One-off Donation
Amount

Your donation will be processed securely through PayPal.


29 comments

  1. Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.com

    I think they are going for a plea of “bizarreness”, hoping that if enough people go WTF that she’ll magically just get let off. It is truly a car wreck in slow motion.

    But I expect that at the end of it, this whole sorry tale will be twisted to disparage the union movement, and any mention of the previous support of senior Liberals will quietly be expunged from the record.

  2. Miriam English

    One law for them, another for the rest of us.

  3. lawrencewinder

    How the Liarbrils have trashed this country….

  4. LOVO

    Abbotts connection to this sorry saga will be buried in obfuscation and legalise.

  5. townsvilleblog

    I agree wholeheartedly with all of you, why do these parasites refuse to take responsibility for their crimes, if it were you or I we would be behind bars quicker than I could say “unfair verdict”

  6. David1

    I found all the answers to my question of will Jackson be tried in court as any ordinary citizen would? in how ‘His Honour’ after instructing Lawler to remain silent and only take notes, completely ignored His Honour’s own instruction and allowed Lawler to take part 100%

    That substantiated my belief from the early stages of this Jackson saga, she is a protected species and will never answer for her crimes. Such is the sorry state of the association in this country between much of the judiciary, law enforcement and the big end of town with this Govt..We see evidence of it day after day after day.

    Now it has spread to the Senate, where the insidious One Nation is doing the Govts bidding in close voting, in response to favours granted. Have we heard Hanson or her 2 remaining fools of Senators supporting the pensioners being vilified in the Govts Centrelink debacle? Not on your Nellie. The Ley and fellow Ministers rorting of taxpayers money? Mind your head, pig flying.

    This will be one hellava mess of a country before Australians see the light.

  7. Kyran

    Bearing in mind this ‘poor lass’ has suffered such a troubled life, I was trying to recollect which of the many traumatic episodes may have caused her distress, to such an extent she couldn’t wake up. Having glossed through the link to the Heerey report, and recalling incident’s of people dying on their property (next door to the old bloke they were allegedly defrauding) and the house fire (allegedly in the bin beside the house), it was inescapable that these events occurred well after 19th June, 2014.
    What could possibly have happened on the 19th June, 2014?
    Talcum invented this internetty thingy. It’s a funny beast.
    Wasn’t the 19th June, 2014, when she appeared before TURC?
    Didn’t ‘7.30’, that night, interview her?
    No wonder the ‘poor lass’ couldn’t sleep.
    With regard to your opening premise ‘You stay in bed my beloved’, it seem’s only appropriate to note the passing of Peter Sarstedt.
    Thank you, Ms Lee. Take care

  8. John Skene

    the heading of this article brought me back to a song from the 60 that would suit Jackson down to the ground.

    https://youtu.be/L8XQZYIiNgo

  9. Kaye Lee

    Yes I find the 19th interesting too Kyran. The 19th was the day they grilled Jackson about her slush fund at the TURC.

    “You could say it was a tougher day on the stand for her. There was particular interest in something that we’ve spoken about called the Peter Mac Fund. Now, that was a sum of about $250,000 that was awarded to the union in a legal settlement.

    Now we learnt today that that was channelled into a bank account that Kathy Jackson had opened. She was the sole signatory to that account, and the only records of how the money was spent in that account were contained in an exercise book which she says has since been lost.”

    Her response outside the commission….

    KATHY JACKSON: “I think I’ve done well out of the royal commission. I’ve got nothing to hide. I’ve never had anything to hide. The smears and the innuendo put out there by my enemies, and some of the media have lapped up as if it was truth, I hope that after today’s hearing the media understand and the members particularly understand what’s happened, and what has happened is that there has been malicious smears being peddled out there by certain sections of the Labor Party and the union movement to smear me.

    Just remember, I’ve been through three years of hell. I have three young children at home, and finally I can get on with my life.”

  10. Terry2

    “I’ll be characterised as that scumbag, crook, fraudster and, at the very best, somebody who’s been bewitched by an evil harridan, namely Kathy; that I’m c**t-struck and that I have been utterly, taken in by somebody who is a serious crook.”

    Michael Lawler on Four Corners talking of his love for Kathy

  11. Kyran

    Ms Lee, I’m still trying to work through the 300 pages, plus. Timelines and correlation. It’s a really old concept, matching facts with facts.
    The 19th was clearly traumatic for her, poor lass. It’s not like her. It’s normally all those other people that have caused her problems.
    Whilst me think’s she doth protest too much, the only regard I will ever have for her is contempt, likewise her ‘charity shag’s’, who keep rallying to her defence.
    Me think’s Terry2 nailed that.
    Take care

  12. My say

    Jackson and Ley should be sharing a room behind bars

  13. rossleighbrisbane

    Kathy Jackson’s health problems remind me of the tale of the boy who shot his parents and asked the judge for clemency on the grounds that he was an orphan…

    Yes, I know it’s not true…

    That’s the orphan story, in case Michael and Kathy suddenly find money for a lawyer in order to sue me!

  14. Steve Laing - makeourvoiceheard.com

    My say – I think that would be an excellent punishment for both of them. Indeed if you could find places for Bronnie and Sophie, that would make for a heartily amusing reality tv Big Brother. Perhaps that could be used as the modern equivalent of the pillory for public figures who are caught stealing from their members/taxpayers?

  15. Kaye Lee

    If all the MPs and Senators were locked in Parliament House and you had one vote to remove one of them, who would you choose?

  16. LOVO

    Ann Aly ☺
    …or maybe Pauline Hanson……is this a trick question???. ❓

  17. Kaye Lee

    Who would you want to vote off parliament. You have right of veto for one person….perhaps we better make it one from each house. Who doesn’t deserve to be there? Who does the most damage?

  18. Matters Not

    Who doesn’t deserve to be there?

    Well, if you believe in our system of democracy and its many imperfections – then they all deserve to be there – technically speaking. Apart from Cullerton, perhaps, who may be disqualified on the grounds of being ineligible to stand in the first place.

    But I suspect you had a different ‘intent’ – above and beyond the technical – and hoped to elicit a different type of response when you asked this question. But maybe not.

  19. Kaye Lee

    The word “deserve” implies some sort of merit, some qualities that earn you reward. Just because the voting system landed them there does not mean they deserve to be there.

    I am having trouble answering the question. Peter Dutton or George Christensen? Pauline Hansen or Cory Bernardi? Scott Morrison? George Brandis? It’s toooooo hard….

  20. Roswell

    Pauline Hanson for me, Kaye. She’s just as dangerous out of parliament than in it, but I want to see her out because her vote’s too easy to buy.

  21. LOVO

    Kaye, I think I’ll stick with my original answer.. Ann Aly (and ‘others’)…..save the humans first…then bolt the door shut on the rest of ’em 😤 …..
    But thats not what your ask’n…… the ‘one’ that has to “go”…..is…… TONY.. 🙄 ….easy as… Kaye 😛

  22. Matters Not

    The word “deserve” implies some sort of merit, some qualities that earn you reward

    Indeed it does. In a ‘democracy’, citizens nominate for Parliament and the ‘merit’ is determined via whether you are elected or not. If you are elected then you ‘deserve’ your position – as determined by the election process. If not, then you are deemed to be ‘undeserving’. That’s the guts of our ‘democracy’.

    As to whom I think aren’t ‘up to the task’, in any number of ways, and who will ‘damage’ in the broad sense, I think the ‘arguments’ of Malcolm Roberts have the potential to be very damaging. His ‘science’ – laughable as it is – can lead many astray. And does. (I should stress that ‘science’ isn’t about what one thinks – it’s not a popularity contest nor a ‘democratic’ exercise’ – its ‘tests’ are much more rigid than that.

    Dutton is the ‘copper’ from Queensland who demonstrates that ‘cruelty’, ‘xenophobia’, ‘ethnocentrism’ and the like are powerful political tools.

    One could go on.

  23. LOVO

    @MN “One could go on.” ….now that’s ‘some quote’ there 😛 *toungeincheeksmiley* 😆

  24. Steve Laing

    What a wonderful parlour game Kaye! But so many to choose from. I would have been tempted to choose Pyne, but it would have to be ScoMo. He has a very ugly soul. Leave Hanson alone – the best place to let her self destruct is as publicly as possible. She doesn’t deserve martyrdom.

  25. Miriam English

    Oh. I thought you meant vote out as in saving them from being sealed in with the rest of the goddamn vampires.

    If I could choose two I’d probably save Larissa Waters and Scott Ludlam. They seem smart and genuine. They don’t deserve the fate of being locked up with our ruthless Australian politicians who would probably all turn cannibal after a few days of being locked up together.

  26. Matters Not

    LOVO, I will go on – but on a slightly different track. Ms Ley is in deep shit. And has been pointed out – so are Dutton, Brandis and any number of others who have fiddled their ‘entitlements’. Indeed it’s so ‘widespread’ – expect to read about all the ALP Members who have been guilty of ‘fiddling’ also in the relatively recent past. A whole stream of shit to be thrown against the fan in the coming days. What a mess. What a … doesn’t matter because – wait for it – the ‘fix’ is at hand.

    Kelly gave a hint today.

    Mal et al will (promise) to legislate the new, ‘restricted’ ‘entitlements’ which will provide the ‘certainity’. In so doing, Ley et al will be excused (Mal really needs the Ley) – all down to a set of ‘confusing’ guidelines and therefore she can’t be blamed’ – the future will be so much better because the confusion will be eliminated. Too easy.

  27. David1

    For me Dutton and Brandis

  28. James Cook

    I’ve been following the Jackson saga on Wixxyleaks for some time and have always thought she would either get off totally or get a judicial slap on the wrist. What you have written, Kaye, unfortunately does nothing to change my mind.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: