Craig Thomson to front the Magistrate next month

[freakiness]

Not to avoid a jury trial, not because the maximum penalty in that court is five years in jail, but because the sum of the offences is a grand total of $27,000 over a number of years on things that may or may not have been reasonable expenses.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out now it's not a matter of bringing down the government the robbed the LNP of their rightful place on the throne.

Whoever created the credit card in his name didn't even get the spelling correct. 

[the_great_she_elephant]

But why do we need a trial at all when we have our very own judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one right here on CS? Think of the money this country could save if we just appointed Monman supreme Ruler.

[katydidthat]

Maybe less champagne, TGSE 🙂

[monman12]

TGSE: "But why do we need a trial at all when we have our very own judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one right here on CS? Think of the money this country could save if we just appointed Monman supreme Ruler."

Trials actually TGSE,  Magistrate and Federal, but I actually disagree with Justice Jessop when he said :

"If, as I presume will be the case, the media will report the present proceeding in an accurate and responsible way, the risk that reasonable members of the public would fail to appreciate that there are two proceedings against the respondent, each with its own factual allegations, is a negligible one."

CS would possibly prove him wrong!

nɥºɾ

[freakiness]

---

@monman12 wrote:

FY "What have statutary limitations got to do with it? " If you researched you would know FN. Hint, why did FWA take 3 years to complete their investigation, oh gosh!

SN: "The gutter media did their best to get some evidence, real or manufactured, and failed."  Really SN,  is that why Thomson settled with Fairfax and paid their legal costs when they indicated they were prepared to  provide evidence in court to support their allegations?.

FN: "I do know that unions did provide funds for election campaigns in 2007 because they informed the members and asked for contributions."

Asked?, they slapped on a levy.

The "contributions" from union members were destined for the ACTU Labour party election support effort in the form of widespread media advertising. Thomson used his union funds for his personal re-election campaign, and without (allegedly) any authorisation.

And now Thomson's "defence" is: "yes  I did it", but it was authorised by the union. Right, union members would be happy, and agree to Thomson exercising his union member at their expense!

nɥºɾ

---

You were a union member at the time were you?

I was and no, they did not slap on a levy they asked if we wished to contribute.

You are just happy to stick the boot in and it has nothing to do with any statute of limitations.  

It's funny coming from one who usually advcates letting the courts decide and one who so often has a go at putting down the rest of us for our supposedly myopic views.

[freakiness]

---

@monman12 wrote:

TGSE: "But why do we need a trial at all when we have our very own judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one right here on CS? Think of the money this country could save if we just appointed Monman supreme Ruler."

Trials actually TGSE,  Magistrate and Federal, but I actually disagree with Justice Jessop when he said :

"If, as I presume will be the case, the media will report the present proceeding in an accurate and responsible way, the risk that reasonable members of the public would fail to appreciate that there are two proceedings against the respondent, each with its own factual allegations, is a negligible one."

CS would possibly prove him wrong!

nɥºɾ

---

Actually the media have already proved him wrong.

[the_great_she_elephant]

Alas, Katy, I fear it would be only porridge for the peasants.

[monman12]

FN: "You were a union member at the time were you?
I was and no, they did not slap on a levy they asked if we wished to contribute." Really?

"The ACTU imposed an annual levy of $3.85 on each member of an affiliated union in 2005, which rose to $5.50 ahead before the 2007, raising millions of dollars for the "Your Rights at Work campaign".

I would assert your non levy contribution  was not for an individuals re-election fund, and in the case of Thomson he did not ask the members of the HSU he just used  the union credit card for  allegedly" unauthorised  deductions from the HSU account.

FN: "You are just happy to stick the boot in and it has nothing to do with any statute of limitations. "
Actually FN my previous post had everything to do with them (research) and this comment of yours: "Whatever the truth is there is a huge difference between $500,000 and $26,000. "
I suggest you do some impartial  research FN,  hints:   AEC, statute of limitation, FWA, 3 years.

"our supposedly myopic views." just like NW, DY, LL, TRBAG et al have supposed myopic views. I have no idea what colour Al is though.

"Actually the media have already proved him wrong.", I agree, they reported the proceedings, and some certainly failed to appreciate that there are two proceedings against the respondent.

"Alas, Katy, I fear it would be only porridge for the peasants."
I agree again, and there is plenty being dished out sans research.

However it would appear that wiser council has prevailed (more likely the evidence is damning) and "now Thomson's "defence" is: "yes  I did it", but it was authorised by the union. Right, union members would be happy, and agree to Thomson exercising his union member at their expense!"

[freakiness]

Your statements are contradictory.

You remind us (not I had not forgotten that as you assumed in your haste to attack) that he has to face the Federal Court re FWA charges then you say that there is a 3 year statute of limitations re FWA.

In the opening post I said it will be interesting to see the result and that the media mis-reported, as was evidenced by the edits in the published stories on Friday.  But you probably didn't see or hear that.  

[monman12]

FN: "You remind us (not I had not forgotten that as you assumed in your haste to attack) that he has to face the Federal Court re FWA charges then you say that there is a 3 year statute of limitations re FWA."
Codswallop, again, I said nothing of the sort (AEC, statute of limitation, FWA, 3 years.) in that order. I just pointed you in a research direction with some key words, but obviously you did not understand, so let me help:- 

Electoral Act. Subsection 315(11)
A prosecution in respect of an offence against a provision of this section (being an offence committed on or after the commencement of this subsection) may be started at any time within 3 years after the offence was committed.
AEC
However, in relation to the return lodged by the candidate agent for Mr Thomson and the ALP NSW Branch returns, the three year period to commence any prosecution has expired.
I do wonder why the FWC (FWA) report took 3 years to produce.

FN,  I find it hard to follow most of your OP.
Currently Thomson will have a criminal hearing before  the Melbourne magistrate as a result of charges laid by the Victorian Police, he will also have a Federal Court civil jury trial as a result of charges laid by FWA (now FWC) e.g.:

"Federal Court judge Christopher Jessup today ordered the civil case brought against Mr Thomson by Fair Work Australia, now known as the Fair Work Commission, proceed apart from allegations which overlap with the 154 criminal charges pending against the former Labor MP in the Melbourne Magistrates Court."

He has now (suddenly?) indicated through his lawyer that "he did it all", and the union authorised all the goodies. Obviously the union credit card was burning a hole in his trouser pockets, when he had them on!

FN: "Whoever created the credit card in his name didn't even get the spelling correct."
Well it would now seem that Thomson obviously can not spell his own name!

nɥºɾ

[freakiness]

Thomson has never agreed that he spent $500,000 of union funds or fraudulently used the card.

The lawyer said it's unlikely they will contest most of the costs he is charged with because they are under $30 amounts and were for reasonable expenses while he was away from home.