Monday, August 6, 2012

Putin, Washington & Syria: important negotiations by Putin


We are constantly told that "Russia opposes USA" = "Russia is bad". Putin, in trying to stabilise the mess happening in Syria, may in fact be saving lives. Remember that Egypt was more tolerant before the "Arab Spring" liberated them. Most of the nations that have fallen, with (covert and overt) support from the good old USA/NATO stone faced democratic war machine have fallen in pace with the Muslim Brotherhood, making life a misery for minority groups, including (and sometimes especially for) Christians. See the following articles from Barnabus Fund, who have been keeping an eye on Syria. It is true that minority groups like the Hazara people (see my recent post) need our help, but it seems the UN and Australia constantly (and deliberately) overlook persecuted Christian groups like the South Sudanese (who are being slaughtered), Egyptian Christians and Syrian Christians. Anyway, check these articles from Barnabus Fund and then read on!
Now, from Global Research, here's some more on Syria...

Since reassuming his post as Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin has lost no minute in addressing the most urgent geopolitical threats to Russia internationally. Not surprisingly, at the center of his agenda is the explosive situation in the Middle East, above all Syria. Here Putin is engaging every imaginable means of preventing a further deterioration of the situation into what easily could become another “world war by miscalculation.” His activities in recent weeks involve active personal diplomacy with Syria’s government as well as the so-called opposition “Syrian National Council.”  It involves intense diplomacy with Erdogan’s Turkey regime. It involves closed door diplomacy with Obama. It involves direct diplomacy with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu.

Syria itself, contrary to what most western media portray, is a long-standing multi-ethnic and religiously tolerant secular state with an Alawite Muslim President Bashar Al-Assad, married to a Sunni wife. The Alawite sect is an offshoot of Shia Islam which doesn’t force their women to wear head scarves and are liberal by Sunni standards, especially in the fundamentalist places like Saudi Arabia where women are forbidden to even hold a driver’s license. The overall Syrian population is a diverse mix of Alawites, Druze and Kurds, Sunnis, and Armenian Orthodox Christians. Were the minority regime of Al-Assad to fall, experts estimate that, like in Egypt, the murky Sunni (as in Saudi Arabia) Muslim Brotherhood organization would emerge as the dominant organized political force, something certainly not welcome in Tel Aviv and certainly not in either Russia or China.1

According to an informed assessment by Gajendra Singh, retired Indian diplomat with decades of service in the Middle East and a deep familiarity with the ethnic mix inside Syria, were the minority Alawite regime of Al-Assad to fall, the country would rapidly descend into a bloodbath that would make estimates of 17,000 killed to date a mere prelude. Singh estimates, “A defeat of Assad led regime will lead to slaughter of Alawites, Shias, Christians, even Kurds and Druzes. In all, 20 % of a population of 20 Million.”2 


 Read on... Putin’s Geopolitical Chess Game with Washington in Syria and Eurasia

Friday, August 3, 2012

What on earth is happening with Syria

Syria has warships massing off its coast. China and Russia have sworn to enter into war should western powers attack Syria; and USA/NATO/Israel have been covertly supporting the uprising three (supplying training, arms and covert leadership).

Some months ago, Venezuela was criticised for having warships in the eastern Mediterranean also. The plot thickens. Who knows exactly which powers are there right now! Certainly France, Germany (and NATO in general), USA, Canada, & Turkey in the blue corner; with Russia, China, Iran and perhaps Venezuela (western media doesn't say much about this side) in the red corner. 

Some news articles that substantiate the mass of military hardware meeting in this large pond include:
As you can see, the sources are very varied here.

The questions are:
  1. What on earth is happening with Syria?
  2. Why is all this happening?
  3. What will take place next?
  4. Where will it all lead?
Let's take a look at these, in order. This article addresses point #1, more points coming soon...

1. What on earth is happening with Syria?

I have included two articles from Global Research below to give an overview so you don't have to go to all the above links. These will fill you in a bit on what's going on.

Russian warships enter the Med, bound for Syria

A Russian naval flotilla of warships destined for the Syrian port of Tartus has entered the Mediterranean, Russia's defence ministry said today.
"The Russian ships today passed the Strait of Gibraltar and entered the Mediterranean at 1200 GMT," said a defence ministry spokesman, quoted by Itar-Tass agency.
Led by the Admiral Chabanenko anti-submarine destroyer, the three landing craft left their home port of Severomorsk in the Arctic Circle earlier this month. They are due to be joined in the Mediterranean by the Russian patrol ship Yaroslav Mudry as well as an assistance vessel.
The ships will perform "planned military manoeuvres", said the ministry. Earlier in the month a military source said the ships would be topping up on supplies of fuel, water and foodstuffs.
Russia has denied that the deployment is linked to the escalating conflict in Syria.

source: http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20120724/world/russian-warships-enter-the-med-bound-for-syria.429985

The US-NATO War on Syria: Western Naval Forces Confront Russia Off the Syrian Coastline?

Global Research, July 26, 2012



















"As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff
officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said.
But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said,
and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya,
Iran, Somalia, and Sudan."

Former Nato Commander General Wesley Clark.
  
"Let me say to the soldiers and officials still supporting the Syrian regime -- the Syrian
people will remember the choices you make in the coming days...."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Friends of Syria conference in Paris' July 7, 2012

While confrontation between Russia and the West was, until recently, confined to
the polite ambit of international diplomacy, within the confines of the UN Nations
Security Council, an uncertain and perilous situation is now unfolding in the
Eastern Mediterranean.

Allied forces including intelligence operatives and special forces have reinforced
their presence on the ground in Syria following the UN stalemate. Meanwhile,
coinciding with the UN Security Council deadlock, Moscow has dispatched to
the Mediterranean a flotilla of ten Russian warships and escort vessels led by the
Admiral Chabanenko anti-submarine destroyer. Russia's flotilla is currently
stationed off the Southern Syrian coastline.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L) meets with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in St. Petersburg on June 29, 2012, on the eve of international talks in Geneva to find a political solution to the Syria crisis 
"Polite Diplomacy" (without smiles). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L)  and Russia's Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov meet in St. Petersbourg, June 29, 2012

Back in August of last year, Russia's Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin warned
that "NATO is planning a military campaign against Syria to help overthrow the
regime of President Bashar al-Assad with a long-reaching goal of preparing a beachhead
for an attack on Iran,..."  In relation to the current naval deployment, Russia’s navy chief,
Vice Admiral Viktor Chirkov, confirmed, however, that while the [Russian] flotilla was
carrying marines, the warships would "not be engaged in Syria Tasks".
"The ships will
perform "planned military manoeuvres", said the [Russian Defense] ministry" 
The US-NATO alliance has retorted to Russia's naval initiative, with a much larger naval
deployment, a formidable Western armada, consisting of British, French and American
warships, slated to be deployed later this Summer in the Eastern Mediterranean, leading
to a potential "Cold War style confrontation" between Russian and Western naval forces.
Meanwhile, US-NATO military planners have announced that various "military options"
and "intervention scenarios" are being contemplated in the wake of the Russian-Chinese
veto in the UN Security Council.

The planned naval deployment is coordinated with allied ground operations in support
of the US-NATO sponsored "Free Syrian Army"(FSA). In this regard, US-NATO has speeded
up the recruitment of foreign fighters trained in Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Russian warship in the Syrian port of Tartus
Franco-British War Games: "Warship Diplomacy"
France and Britain will be participating later this Summer in war games codenamed
Exercise Cougar 12 [2012]. The games will be conducted in the Eastern Mediterranean
as part of a Franco-British  "Response Force Task Group
" involving  Britain's HMS
Bulwark and France's Charles De Gaulle carrier battle group. The focus of these naval
exercises will be on amphibious operations involving the (planned simulated) landing
ashore of troops on "enemy territory". 
File:HMS Bulwark midships.jpg
Britain's HMS Bulwark
Fichier:Charles De Gaulle (R91) underway 2009.jpg
France's Charles De Gaulle aircraft carrier
Smokescreen: The Proposed Evacuation of Western Nationals "Using a Humanitarian
Naval Fleet of WMDs"
Barely mentioned by the mainstream media, the warships involved in the Cougar 12
naval exercise will also participate in the planned evacuation of  "British nationals from
the Middle East, should the ongoing conflict in Syria further spill across borders into
neighboring Lebanon and Jordan.":
The British would likely send the HMS Illustrious, a helicopter carrier, along with
the HMS Bulwark, an amphibious ship, as well as an advanced destroyer to provide
defenses for the task force. On board will be several hundred Royal Marine
commandos, as well as a complement of AH-64 attack helicopters (the same ones
used in Libya last year). A fleet of French ships, including the Charles De Gaulle
aircraft carrier, carrying a complement of Rafale fighter aircraft, are expected
to join them.

Those forces are expected stay offshore and could escort specially chartered
civilian ships meant to pick up foreign nationals fleeing Syria and surrounding
countries.  (ibtimes.com, 24 July 2012). 
Sources in the British Ministry of Defense, while confirming the Royal Navy's
"humanitarian mandate" in the planned evacuation program, have categorically
denied "any intention of a combat role for British forces [against Syria]".

The evacuation plan using the most advanced military hardware including the HMS
Bulwark, the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier is an obvious smokescreen. The not so
hidden agenda is military threat and intimidation directed against a sovereign nation
located in the historical cradle of civilization in Mespotamia: 
"The Charles De Gaulle alone is a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with an entire
squadron of jets more advanced than anything the Syrians have -- is sparking
speculation that those forces could become involved in a NATO operation against
Syrian forces loyal to Bashar al-Assad...

The HMS Illustrious, which is currently sitting on the Thames in central London,
will likely only be sent to the region after the end of the Olympics." (Ibid)
This impressive deployment of Franco-British  naval power could also include the USS
John C. Stennis aircraft carrier, which is to be sent back to the Middle East:  
[On July 16, 2912], the Pentagon also confirmed that it would be redeploying the
USS John C. Stennis, a nuclear-powered supercarrier capable of carrying 90
aircraft, to the Middle East... The Stennis would be arriving in the region with an
advanced missile-launching cruiser, .... The carrier USS Eisenhower is already
expected to be in the Middle East by that time (two carriers currently in the region
are to be relieved and sent back to the U.S.).
Amid unpredictable situations in both Syria and Iran, that would have left
U.S. forces stretched and overly burdened if a firm military response were
needed in either circumstance.
(Ibid, emphasis added)

The USS Stennis, at left, and the HMS Illustrious, at right, together in the Persian Gulf in April 1998. The two ships may be sailing together again sooner than expected. Photo: Wikipedia Commons
USS Stennis aircraft carrier
The USS Stennis strike group is to be sent back to the Middle East "by an unspecified
date in the late summer" to be deployed to the Central Command area of responsibility:  
"The Defense Department said that the early deployment had come from a
request made by Marine Corps General James N. Mattis, the commander for
Central Command (the U.S. military authority area that covers the Middle East),
partly out of concern that there would be a short period where only one carrier
would be located in the region." ((Strike group headed to Central Command
early - Stripes Central - Stripes
, July 16, 2012)
Marine Gen. James Mattis, commander of U.S. Central Command, "asked to move up
the strike group’s deployment based on “a range of factors,” and  Defense Secretary
Leon Panetta approved it"... (Ibid)
A Pentagon spokesman stated that the deployment shift of the USS Stennis strike
group pertained to "a wide range of U.S. security interests in the region". "We’re
always mindful of the challenges posed by Iran. Let me be very clear: This is not a
decision that is based solely on the challenges posed by Iran, ... " This is not about
any one particular country or one particular threat.”
intimating that Syria was also
part of planned deployment. (Ibid, emphasis added) 
"Intervention Scenarios" 
This massive deployment of naval power is an act of coercion with a view to terrorizing
the Syrian people. The threat of military intervention purports to destabilize Syria as a
nation state as well as confront and weaken Russia's role in brokering the Syrian crisis.  
The UN diplomatic game is at an impasse. The UN Security Council is defunct. The
transition is towards Twenty-first Century "Warship Diplomacy".  
While an all out allied military operation directed against Syria is not "officially"
contemplated, military planners are currently involved in preparing various
"intervention scenarios": 
‘Western political leaders may have no appetite for deeper intervention. But
as history has shown, we do not always choose which wars to fight - sometimes
wars choose us. ‘Military planners have a responsibility to prepare for
intervention options in Syria for their political masters in case this conflict
chooses them. ‘Preparation will be proceeding today in several Western
capitals and on the ground in Syria and in Turkey
. ‘Up to the point of Assad’s
collapse, we are most likely to see a continuation or intensification of the
under-the-radar options of financial support, arming and advising the rebels,
clandestine operations and perhaps cyber warfare from the West. ‘After any
collapse, however, the military options will be seen in a different light.’
(Daily Mail, July 24, 2012, emphasis added)
Concluding Remarks
The World is at a dangerous crossroads.

The shape of this planned naval deployment in the Eastern Mediterranean with
US-NATO warships contiguous to those of Russia is unprecedented in recent history.  
History tells us that wars are often triggered unexpectedly as a result of "political
mistakes" and human error. The latter are all the more likely within the realm of a
divisive and corrupt political system in the US and Western Europe.
US-NATO military planning is overseen by a centralised military hierarchy. Command
and Control operations are in theory "coordinated" but in practice they are often
marked by human error. Intelligence operatives often function independently and
outside the realm of political accountability.
Military planners are acutely aware of the dangers of escalation. Syria has significant
air defense capabilities as well as ground forces. Syria has been building up its air
defense system with the delivery of Russian Pantsir S1 air-defense missiles.
Any form of US-NATO direct military intervention against Syria would destabilize the
entire region, potentially leading to escalation over a vast geographical area, extending
from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border with Tajikistan
and China.
Military planning involves intricate scenarios and war games by both sides including
military options pertaining to advanced weapons systems. A Third World War scenario
has been contemplated by US-NATO-Israeli military planners since early 2000. 
Escalation is an integral part of the military agenda. War preparations to attack Syria
and Iran have been in "an advanced state of readiness" for several years.
We are dealing with complex political and strategic decision-making involving the
interplay of powerful economic interest groups, the actions of covert intelligence
operatives.
The role of war propaganda is paramount not only in moulding public opinion into
accepting a war agenda, but also in establishing a consensus within the upper echelons
of the decision-making process. A selective form of war propaganda intended for
"Top Officials" (TOPOFF) in government agencies, intelligence, the Military, law
enforcement, etc. is intended to create an unbending consensus in favor of War
and the Police State.
For the war project to go ahead, it is essential that both politicians and military
planners are rightfully committed to leading the war "in the name of justice and
democracy". For this to occur, they must firmly believe in their own propaganda,
namely that war is "an instrument of peace and democracy".
They have no concern for the devastating impacts of advanced weapons systems,
routinely categorized as "collateral damage", let alone the meaning and significance
of pre-emptive warfare, using nuclear weapons.
Wars are invariably decided upon by civilian leaders and interest groups rather
than by the military. War serves dominant economic interests which operate from
behind the scenes, behind closed doors in corporate boardrooms, in the Washington
think tanks, etc.
Realities are turned upside down. War is peace. The Lie becomes the Truth.

War propaganda, namely media lies, constitutes the most powerful instrument of
warfare.
Without media disinformation, the US-NATO led war agenda would collapse like a
deck of cards. The legitimacy of  the war criminals in high office would be broken.
It is therefore essential to disarm not only the mainstream media but also a segment
of the self proclaimed "progressive" alternative media, which has provided legitimacy
to NATO's "Responsibility to protect" (R2P)  mandate, largely with a view to dismantling
the antiwar movement.  
The road to Tehran goes through Damascus. A US-NATO sponsored war on Iran would
involve, as a first step, the destabilization of Syria as a nation state. Military planning
pertaining to Syria is an integral part of the war on Iran agenda. 
A war on Syria could evolve towards a US-NATO military campaign directed against
Iran, in which Turkey and Israel would be directly involved.

It is crucial to spread the word and break the channels of media disinformation.
A critical and unbiased understanding of what is happening in Syria is of crucial
importance in reversing the tide of military escalation towards a broader regional war.
Our objective is ultimately to dismantle the US-NATO-Israeli military arsenal and restore
World Peace.

It is essential that people in the UK, France and the US prevent "the late Summer"
naval WMD deployment to the Eastern Mediterraean from occurring.

It is essential that people in the UK, France and the US prevent "the late Summer"
naval WMD deployment to the Eastern Mediterraean from occurring.

The British
Ministry of Defense has announced that several British warships are required
"to ensure the security" of the Olympic Games. HMS Bulwark is stationed in Weymouth
Bay for the duration of the games. HMS Illustrious is "currently sitting on the Thames in
central London". The deployment of British warships including HMS Bulwark and HMS
Illustrious to the Middle East is envisaged  "after" the Olympic Games.
source: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=32079
 

Friday, July 27, 2012

Do you or your kids use this hand gesture?

See https://picasaweb.google.com/ericdubay/DevilHorns. This is a NWO/occultic symbol. Christians should recognise and abhor it.

WARNING, Avoid 2012 London Olympics on 3RD AUGUST 2012! ILLUMINATI NWO A...

Classic Illuminati symbolism and numbers again. Could 03/08/2012 be the day for an incident at the 2012 London Olympic games?

Where will key figures be during the 2012 London Olymics?

The Queen will be at the opening ceremony. The Obamas go home on Sunday 29/7. Where will the Queen, Duke and Prince be toward the end of the Olympic games? Where will the Rothschild family be?

One thing is for sure, if a bomb is going off, these NWO figures will be nowhere near the detonation site!

If you have any information on the planned whereabouts of major dignitaries, please share the information by placing a comment on this post.

Will the ILLUMINATI BOMB the London 2012 Olympics - WARNING to humanity!

This video tallies with much of my research regarding the New World Order. The intentions of the Illuminati are increasingly published. The London Olympic games are just full of NWO/occult symbolism. Will an event happen? May Yehovah, the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob forestall such a disaster.

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s criminal history and her hypocrisy with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s criminal history and her hypocrisy with WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.

Julia Gillard had criminal allegations made against her in 1995 when she was accused of helping her boyfriend steal over $1,000,000 from the Australian Workers Union (AWU) and helping him spend the money on such things as her personal home renovations and dresses.

Julia Gillard has never denied helping him rip off the $1,000,000 plus dollars, what she has done is denied doing it knowingly. Her part was helping set up an account called the “AWU Members Welfare Association No 1 Account” and possibly other accounts that the money was laundered through when she was a lawyer working for Slater and Gordon who were the solicitors representing the Australian Workers Union.

The allegations against Julia Gillard were initially raised in the Victorian Parliament in 1995.

In an interview with Glenn Milne of the Sydney Sunday Telegraph in 2007 Julia Gillard said:


“These matters happened between 12 and 15 years ago,” Ms Gillard told The Sunday Telegraph. “I was young and naive.

“I was in a relationship, which I ended, and obviously it was all very distressing. I am by no means the first person to find out that someone close turns out to be different to what you had believed them to be. It’s an ordinary human error.

“I was obviously hurt when I was later falsely accused publicly of wrong-doing. I didn’t do anything wrong and to have false allegations in the media was distressing.”

The article also says “But she has strenuously denied ever knowing what the association’s bank accounts were used for.” (Click here to read the full article)

I will dissect Julia Gillard’s above comments later in the post because they beggar belief and raise more questions than they answer. But the part that would stand out at this point for anyone who has been following the Julian Assange and WikiLeaks matters over the past 10 months or so is the part where Julia Gillard whinges “to have false allegations in the media was distressing” which is exactly what Julia Gillard did to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange at the end of last year when she falsely said their actions were illegal.

In this post I will cover:

1. Julia Gillard’s part in ripping off the AWU for over $1,000,000

2. Julia Gillard’s hypocrisy in relation to her allegations of illegal conduct by Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

3. Prima Facie Case to have Julia Gillard charged for breaching section 41 of the 1914 Crimes Act “Conspiracy to bring false accusation” and section 137 of the 1995 Criminal Code “False or misleading information or documents”.

To appreciate how Julia Gillard’s answers she gave in the 2007 interview beggar belief it is important to have some knowledge of what happened when she helped Bruce Wilson steal from the AWU. A brief outline is below.

The way the scam worked is best set out in another article by Glenn Milne where it starts off:

“THE con used by Julia Gillard’s former lover to cream off possibly more than $1 million was simple and backed by standover tactics.

As union secretary, Bruce Morton Wilson would go on to construction sites and tell bosses they “needed” an industrial agreement which he would negotiate.

But there was a price – they would have to purchase hundreds of AWU membership tickets in exchange for the industrial peace guaranteed by the “agreement”.

However, when the employers made out the cheques – sometimes for more than $50,000 at a time – the money for memberships that never existed would go into phony AWU accounts that actually belonged to Wilson.” (Click here to read the full article)

The scam seems to have first started in Western Australia when Bruce Wilson was State Secretary of the AWU and he had already set up two bogus accounts to funnel the money through. He later moved to Victoria to become State Secretary for both Victoria and Western Australia.

By this time Julia Gillard and Bruce Wilson were in a sexual relationship and Julia Gillard should have stopped representing the AWU as there was a clear conflict of interest.

Bruce Wilson had Julia Gillard set up the account named “AWU Members Welfare Association No 1 Account”.

The AWU management claimed they knew nothing about the accounts and when they found out the joint national secretary Ian Cambridge put a freeze on the accounts. Somehow money kept on going in and out of the accounts.

Some of the money was also used to buy a house and Ian Cambridge put a caveat on the house so it could not be sold. Again the house was sold and the money disappeared.

From here we will go to the transcript from the Victorian Government Hansard where it says on the 12th of October 1995:

Mr GUDE (Minister for Industry and Employment)

“I understand the AWU is still receiving bills for strange items ordered by Mr Wilson. All attempts thus far to find him have come to nothing. What did Mr Wilson do when he found out that his actions had been discovered? The first thing he did was to seek legal advice from the union’s solicitors, none other than Slater and Gordon. From whom did he receive that advice? One Julia Gillard.

I am informed that Ms Gillard is no longer with Slater and Gordon due to commitments as an ALP Senate candidate. That may not be the only reason she is no longer working at Slater and Gordon.”

“Mr Gude — Consistent with the provisions of the legislation I am informed that the first thing Ms Gillard did, when asked what she would be doing and why she was getting out of Slater and Gordon, was to pay back moneys to the AWU for work” (Click here to read the rest)

Julia Gillard is alleged to have ripped off $57,500 for herself. Of which $17,500 was spent on clothing at Town Mode, which was a women’s fashion house in Melbourne. Mr Cambridge has given evidence about the likely proceeds of this. And $40,000 was spent on renovations to her house in Melbourne. This shows up in the Victorian Parliament Hansard on the 28th February 2001 and the 2nd May 2001.

In January 1996 ”Mr Cambridge wrote to the then Federal Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Laurie Brereton, seeking a royal commission into the AWU – just as the Prime Minister, Mr Paul Keating, called an election.” (Click here to read the full article)

Not long after Robert F. Smith, branch secretary at the AWU wrote a letter to Steve Harrison who along with Ian Cambridge was joint national secretary of the AWU.

The letter is in the Victorian Government Hansard and starts off:

Dear Steve,

Further to our telephone discussion this morning, I propose the following resolution to be put to national executive next month.

As we have discussed, you know as well as I do that if Cambridge is not stopped we are all history. I have spoken to Bill Kelty and Jennie George, and they are supportive of this course of action. Both you and I can work the phones before the national executive meeting to make sure we have the numbers before this motion is put. I have already spoken to a number of national executive and they are very nervous to say the least. Please ring when you have considered my proposal.

The Hansard goes on to say: By the way, there was neither a judicial inquiry nor a royal commission. Cambridge was appointed to the New South Wales Industrial Relations Court. I call for a full, open judicial inquiry. The other addressees on the letter were Bill Shorten, Terry Muscat, Graham Ray and Frank Leo. (Click here to read the full letter).

The above shows Julia Gillard being party to fraud, blackmail, money laundering and extortion etc. She claims to have not done it knowingly.

Now back to the 2007 Julia Gillard interview with Glenn Milne.

Julia Gillard “strenuously denied ever knowing what the association’s bank accounts were used for”. For Julia Gillard to say that is a breach of lawyer-client confidentiality, but since she is prepared to say that she should also be prepared to answer other questions on the matter. It also is not believable as the first thing a lawyer would do when a client wants to set up a new association is ask what it going to used for so the lawyer makes sure they are giving the right advice and setting it up correctly. Is Julia Gillard saying she was also derelict in her duty and did not ask.

Julia Gillard said: “These matters happened between 12 and 15 years ago,” “I was young and naive.” Well Julia Gillard was a partner at the law firm Slater and Gordon and in her mid thirties. Slater and Gordon are not in the habit of appointing young and naive people as partners and being in her mid thirties hardly made her young.

Julia Gillard said: “I was in a relationship, which I ended, and obviously it was all very distressing. I am by no means the first person to find out that someone close turns out to be different to what you had believed them to be. It’s an ordinary human error.” This is crap. Once Julia Gillard started having a sexual relationship with Bruce Wilson she should have stopped representing the AWU as they were the client not Bruce Wilson. It is a huge conflict of interest.

Julia Gillard said “I was obviously hurt when I was later falsely accused publicly of wrong-doing. I didn’t do anything wrong and to have false allegations in the media was distressing.” Well Julia Gillard was more than happy to falsely accuse Julian Assange and WikiLeaks of breaking Australian laws. It does not get much more hypocritical than that.

Both Bill Shorten and Jennie George who are mentioned above, and went on to become Federal Politicians, helped Julia Gillard become Prime Minister while they both were well aware of her history and helped cover it up.

Ian Cambridge as mentioned above became a Commissioner at the NSW Industrial Relations Commission in 1997. In 2009 Julia Gillard as Minister for Industrial Relations personally appointed Ian Cambridge as dual appointee to Fair Work Australia. I find this disturbing. While it could be argued that other Commissioners of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission were also given dual appointments at the same time they had not previously called for a Royal Commission into criminal conduct by Julia Gillard and her boyfriend Bruce Wilson.

Julia Gillard should never have appointed him and if Ian Cambridge had any self-respect he should not have accepted the position. It could be construed by some that Ian Cambridge has taken a bribe to keep his mouth shut about her criminal past.

I also do notice that the Australian Mines and Metals Association has documented Julia Gillard stacking the bench at Fair Work Australia with her union mates. (Click here to read).

WikiLeaks and Julian Assange

On December 2, 2010 Julia Gillard said in relation to the United States diplomatic cables leak (Cablegate): “I absolutely condemn the placement of this information on the WikiLeaks website – it’s a grossly irresponsible thing to do and an illegal thing to do.” Yet when she was asked what laws had been breached she could not name any. Even so she still refered the matter to the Australian Federal Police for investigation. The Australian Attorney General Robert McClelland supported Julia Gillard although he was not as stupid to go as far and he said that they had likely broken the law “The unauthorised obtaining of the information may well be an offence” but he also failed to name what laws had been breached.

When Julia Gillard and Robert McClelland refered the complaint to the Australian Federal Police it should have been fully documented. They should tender those documents to parliament or the media so we can see what laws they believed that WikiLeaks and Julian Assange breached.

If they can not name the particular law or laws and what evidence they had that supported the crime than there is a very powerful prima facie case to have both Julia Gillard and Robert McClelland charged for conspiring to have someone falsely charged and making a false complaint to the police.

These are covered by section 41 of the 1914 Crimes Act and section 137.1 of the 1995 Criminal Code which are set out below. Even though WikiLeaks and Julian Assange were not charged section 41 of the 1914 crimes act still applies as even if “charging a person falsely pursuant to the agreement is impossible” they can still be found guilty which is covered by section 41(3)(a).

Crimes Act 1914

41 Conspiracy to bring false accusation

(1) Any person who conspires with another to charge any person falsely or cause any person to be falsely charged with any offence against the law of the Commonwealth or of a Territory, shall be guilty of an indictable offence.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.

(3) A person may be found guilty of an offence against subsection (1) even if:

(a) charging a person falsely pursuant to the agreement is impossible; or

Criminal Code Act 1995

Division 137—False or misleading information or documents

137.1 False or misleading information

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a) the person gives information to another person; and

(b) the person does so knowing that the information:

(i) is false or misleading; or

(ii) omits any matter or thing without which the information is misleading; and

(c) any of the following subparagraphs applies:

(i) the information is given to a Commonwealth entity;

(ii) the information is given to a person who is exercising powers or performing functions under, or in connection with, a law of the Commonwealth;

Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.

Julian Assange was quoted as saying that the Australian public should consider charging Julia Gillard with treason when he was on the ABC Q&A program on the 14th of March 2011. Whether that could be justified I do not know. But certainly having Julia Gillard and Robert McClelland charged with the two laws I mention above could be sustained.

It is worth noting that section 13 of the 1914 Crimes Act empowers every Australian to institute criminal proceeding so there is no need to wait for the police who of course would never do it.

When Robert McClelland was asked about the Federal Police investigation on the 10th December 2010 he alluded that the police investigation could take a long time and he referred to the Godwin Grech investigation as an example. This is fairly standard for the Australian Federal Police to drag it out for as long as possible than quietly sweep it under the carpet when the media attention has gone.

But the Federal Police announced only one week later that WikiLeaks and Julian Assange had breached no Australian laws. Lo and behold that was the same day Dr Muhamed Haneef flew into town.

Who is Dr Haneef and what was he doing in Australia? He was here for a mediation meeting with the Federal Government on the 20th of December 2010 to settle a multi million dollar claim for wrongful arrest and detention in 2007.

This is what it says on Wikipedia: “During the 2008 inquiry into the Haneef affair, documents have revealed that former Prime Minister John Howard became involved in the case within 48 hours of Haneef’s arrest. Lawyers in the case have suggested that the early involvement of the Prime Minister mean that John Howard colluded with Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to politicise the issue.” (Click here to read more)

“Police officers Neil Thompson and Adam Simms who interrogated Haneef refused to charge him.” Adam Simms is a Queensland Police Officer and Neil Thompson is a Federal Police Officer.

So they had a senior Federal Police Officer, Commander Ramzi Jabbour, come over the top and charge him which is basically unheard of that leads one to believe it was being driven from the top. This it what it says on Wikipedia: “The Manager Counter Terrorism Domestic, Commander Ramzi Jabbour, had lost objectivity and was “unable to see that the evidence he regarded as highly incriminating in fact amounted to very little”.

Given the Dr Haneef scandal Julia Gillard should have known better than to level the claims she did against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks and then refer it to the Federal Police. It is worth noting that she has never apologised to Julian Assange or WikiLeaks for making false allegations against them.

In summary Julia Gillard is not up to being Prime Minister of Australia. Julia Gillard is a qualified lawyer and you only have to read the above to realise that she is not much of lawyer let alone a Prime Minister.

What to do about the corruption? Truth is our greatest weapon, but it’s useless if people don’t hear it. Become the media! Get active and help promote this site.

It would be greatly appreciated if you spend a minute using Twitter, Facebook and email etc. and put a link to this post (Please do not send the whole post). Just click on the icons below.

And make sure you follow this site by email which is on the top right of this page and about once a week you will get an email when there is a new post/story on this site. Thank you for your support

Update 5/9/11: Julia Gillard over the last week has been threatening the Australian media to not report on her past which I raise above. I have done a follow-up post which is at: “Has Julia Gillard blackmailed the Media to cover-up her corrupt past? The Fairfax Media and News Corp scandal.“

This site is fully funded by myself, both time wise and monetary wise. If you would like to support the growth of this site it would be greatly appreciated if you bought a t-shirt, coffee mug or a copy of my book. The links are below.

If you would like to buy a t-shirt or coffee mug visit my online shop (Click here to visit the shop)

If you would like to buy a copy of my non-fiction book on corruption in the Australian judiciary that names names visit my website for the book. (Click her to visit the website)

source: http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/2011/08/07/australian-prime-minister-julia-gillards-criminal-history-and-her-hypocris-with-wikileaks-and-julian-assange/