Brothel Owners To Testify In Craig Thomson Case

[icyfroth]

PROSECUTORS have started to call brothel owners to give evidence in their case against former MP Craig Thomson, who is defending allegations he used union funds to pay for porn and prostitutes.

Prosecutors allege Mr Thomson used union credit cards to hire escorts, pay for X-rated movies, withdraw cash, buy cigarettes and pay for interstate flights for himself and his wife.

Brothel owner Peter Lazarus, who owns A Touch of Class in Sydney's Surry Hills, told the court services cost $300 an hour plus a 10 per cent fee for credit card payments.

The court heard a $660 transaction was listed on a credit card used by Mr Thomson while he was HSU secretary.

The amount was recorded as being paid to "Staff Call", the merchant name of A Touch Of Class, the court heard.

Earlier, the court heard Mr Thomson has access to several credit cards and was the only union official who could withdraw cash from at least one of the cards.

HSU honorary national president Lloyd Williams told the court union cards didn't have the facility to allow users to withdraw cash.

He said he learnt Mr Thomson could withdraw cash from his card following an exit audit conducted after Mr Thomson left the union.

"I was flabbergasted. It was unheard of," he said.

"I didn't understand why a union official would need to withdraw cash."

Link To Article

Who's been a naughty boy, then?

[boris1gary]

Part 4 (only one more to go)

On the 2nd May, police officers from the NSW Fraud and Cybercrime Squad raided the HSU East headquarters in Pitt Street, Sydney, in a much publicised operation.

However, my inside sources have pointed out a few anomalies about the official story of the raid that was reported in the press. Police were offered the option of using the service elevator and the rear entrance to the building to make things simpler, safer, and faster for officers — but this offer was rejected as the police were reportedly keen to use the main entrance, where the press had been assembled. Sources also state that the large number of boxes shown on TV being carried out by officers were all virtually empty — it was allegedly all done for show, to make it look like there were mountains of documents seized. Also, sources say, the story about HSU boss Michael Williamson trying to sneak out a back door with evidence was total rubbish — done presumably to implicate guilt. In fact, Mr Williamson left the office via the entrance the police were offered access to, as his car was parked in the car park opposite; the things he was carrying were taken by police as a routine part of the operation, as were his personal items — and probably a sandwich as well.

Of course, Kathy Jackson has acted very strangely for a so-called union boss.

In Melbourne, Jackson has hired Stuart Wood, a former Vice President of the HR Nicholls Society, as her lawyer. The HR Nicholls Society is a right-wing lobby group with close ties to the Liberal Party, set up as a think tank dedicated to Industrial Relations “reform”— much of which fed into the architecture of the Howard Government’s infamous “WorkChoices” policy.

It would seem valid to question why the Secretary of a union would hire a solicitor that is anti-union — and, indeed, one whose ideas you have apparently spent your whole working life fighting against. A quick look at HR Nicholls Society’s website shows just how close its ties are with the Liberal Party. Former Howard Government industrial relations minister Peter Reith is a board member, for example, and other notable names on the list of who contributes to this Society are Tony Abbott (there’s that name again), Eric Abetz, Peter Costello, Michael Kroger… the list goes on and on — even Andrew Bolt gets a mention.

Even more strangely, for a union rep, Jackson is due to be guest of honour and give a speech at the HR Nicholls Society annual dinner on June 12th. Strangely, Mal Brough – who has been accused of being implicated in the allegations against Peter Slipper – fronted the HR Nicholls Society only a week or two ago.

[boris1gary]

Last one

And, in yet another strange coincidence, Peter Slipper accuser James Ashby is using Kathy Jackson’s Sydney lawyers.

On the 14th May, on the Chris Smith programme on radio station 2GB, Kathy Jackson said that rumours of the Liberal party paying for her vast team of lawyers were rubbish. These lawyers, expensive lawyers, were all working for her for free – pro bono – she stated. Chris Smith, however, chose not to pursue the matter…

People can say whatever they like about Craig Thomson’s credibility and his explanation of events, however most people would find it totally unbelievable, and absolutely inconceivable, that these right wing lawyers, one of them from a Liberal Party aligned union busting “think tank”, would provide their services free to a union boss — especially one who pays herself a $270,000 salary.

So, it would seem there are many questions to be asked — and not just of Craig Thomson.

The mind boggles as to how someone who is a former employers’ barrister in their disputes with unions and was appointed to the AIRC by Tony Abbott as well as allegedly being a personal friend, is able to allegedly hack the emails of a Union official and then make a criminal complaint regarding this Union even while being the Vice President of the organisation actually in charge of investigating the same Union — as well as being the partner of the Union whistleblower most deeply enmeshed in the whole affair, who is soon to speak at a function for a union busting Liberal Party-aligned think tank, and who is being represented in all her actions against the union for free by the Liberal Party’s favourite lawyers — and yet none of this is widely reported in the media, or seemingly of any major interest to police?

Talk about conflicts of interest.

[monman12]

FN: "PS. What happened to all the other brothel owners that were going to testify?"

FN If you research you will find:

" a large number of witnesses, including sex workers and brothel owners, will no longer be required to appear at the trial after a deal was struck between the prosecution and defence.

Thomson's lawyers have told the court they will not contest the witness statements themselves, only the authorisation element of their client's credit card payments.

In the past, Thomson has claimed he was set up."

Meaning that  Thompson's lawyers consider  the evidence the above witnesses would provide would be "difficult" to refute, and now they will argue that Thompson was  "authorised" to make his  various union withdrawals.

At least Thomson has ditched  the  nonsensical I was "set-up" defence.

[freakiness]

---

@monman12 wrote:

FN: "PS. What happened to all the other brothel owners that were going to testify?"

FN If you research you will find:

" a large number of witnesses, including sex workers and brothel owners, will no longer be required to appear at the trial after a deal was struck between the prosecution and defence.

Thomson's lawyers have told the court they will not contest the witness statements themselves, only the authorisation element of their client's credit card payments.

In the past, Thomson has claimed he was set up."

Meaning that  Thompson's lawyers consider  the evidence the above witnesses would provide would be "difficult" to refute, and now they will argue that Thompson was  "authorised" to make his  various union withdrawals.

At least Thomson has ditched  the  nonsensical I was "set-up" defence.

---

Did you actually read the articles and watch the video?

Or read any of the court transcripts?

[freakiness]

---

@monman12 wrote:

FN: "PS. What happened to all the other brothel owners that were going to testify?"

FN If you research you will find:

" a large number of witnesses, including sex workers and brothel owners, will no longer be required to appear at the trial after a deal was struck between the prosecution and defence.

Thomson's lawyers have told the court they will not contest the witness statements themselves, only the authorisation element of their client's credit card payments.

In the past, Thomson has claimed he was set up."

Meaning that  Thompson's lawyers consider  the evidence the above witnesses would provide would be "difficult" to refute, and now they will argue that Thompson was  "authorised" to make his  various union withdrawals.

At least Thomson has ditched  the  nonsensical I was "set-up" defence.

---

As an aside, it may be worth recalling what the notorious FWA report previously had to say about cash withdrawal transactions.

However, this writer cannot recall Mr Curtin making any mention of any figures anywhere close to $100,000 in relation to cash withdrawal transactions in his testimony yesterday.

Is anyone shocked by this?

This writer believes that Mr Curtin’s audit was far more thorough and credible then that done by FWA.

According to my notes, Mr Curtin stated to the court that out of a total expenditure of $164,556 on the card, of which $35,634 was in cash withdrawals, around $21,000 of cash expenditure was not able to be reconciled.

$21,000! Such a small amount in the scheme of things, given the card was part of his salary package to be used when undertaking union business.  It's not so much over the time he was in the job. It don't appear to be worth the cost of the witch hunt that's gone on.