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. 

[monman12]

FN: "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."

Please FN, I would like a link to your quote above, as all I can find are these:-

"Mr Thomson's barrister Greg James QC said it was "very likely" there would be no issues about the facts of the expenditure, and the case instead related to whether Mr Thomson had authority for the spending as HSU national secretary.

"The prosecutor asked, "Are you saying identity will not be in dispute?"   By that he means is the defence admitting that the person named in the charges as Craig Thomson is the person who used the credit cards.   I'm told that the defence said that was the case."

"because they are under $30 amounts and were for reasonable expenses while he was away from home."
What nonsense FN, Thompson lost a fight against Fairfax for a 2009 SMH article that claimed he’d used a union credit card to pay for prostitutes, for withdrawing cash advances equalling more than $100,000 and that union money funded his election campaign. He also paid Fairfax costs (actually the ALP did), and as for "under $30.00:

Some figures from CC receipts:-
$805.50 on lunch at the Melbourne restaurant Langton’s.
$2050 on sporting memorabilia from Bing Lee 
$1893 on whitegoods from The Good Guys
$175 on Margaret River wine
$354 at Strandbags.
$1500  Beppis in Sydney
$13,809 on 19 separate flights on Qantas booked for his ex-wife Crista Thomson
$2050 on signed sporting memorabilia from Golden Years Collectable,

"they are under $30 amounts" ????? Really!

FN, after all the silly nonsense (and posts) about forged signatures, copied credit cards, cloned mobile phones, under $30 payments, and other rubbish has gone,  there will now be no argument apropos expenditure and identity  (Thomson),  but the new defence will be that Thomson was acting within the HSU CC guidelines.

Now all Thomson's lawyer has to do is teach him to spell his name correctly!

nɥºɾ

[1sweetap6v8]

monman12, I happen to agree with you its ridiculous and short sighted to not see this for what it is, And it should not matter who does it Abbott or any others , they should be held to accountability for there actions just like anyone.

Problem is though like so many other politicians (like Mary Joe Fischer) who were blatantly caught red handed stealing and got of , few weeks later caught again. My point is if you have the right lawyer and the right funds you can do as you want. OH and she (Fisher) successfully got her money for the legal costs paid as well. 

Do not be surprised if this one is let lose to.  I wouldn't be putting any money on him getting a guilty charge no matter how guilty he is.

[freakiness]

That's 8 of 170+ charges.

Where are the brothel charges?

Where is the $500,000?

Why not wait for the court ruling?  

[lakeland27]

 it seems many have use of a card at the HSU, kathy jackson appears to have bought a Volvo among other things. considering she is the 'whistleblower i't appears the whistle was blown as a distraction to cover her own tracks .. only when the entire matter is unravelled will the 'facts' appear.

[monman12]

FN: "That's 8 of 170+ charges."
No FN,  it is but 8 of many  amounts charged to  the HSU account. It would not matter if it was only one, as I selected them to  refute your nonsense claim : "The   lawyer said it's unlikely they will contest most of the costs he is charged with because they are under $30 amounts"  UNDER $30 ??????

I have written before on CS that when making a definitive claim that is demonstrably wrong, the rest of a post (and subsequent ones) can be viewed in the same light, I still hold that view.

FN, I would still like the reference to the alleged comment from the lawyer: ".....they are under $30 amounts ....."

LL: "it seems many have use of a card at the HSU, kathy jackson appears to have bought a Volvo among other things"

CHRIS UHLMANN: "Well Mr Thomson's made many accusations about you as you have of him. He points out that you drive a union paid for Volvo."
"Jackson drives a luxury Volvo SUV, that it is owned by the union"

Not you LL?, but at least you wisely used: "appears to have bought a Volvo" whereas debating with FN is like discussing science with DLA.
The whole bunch of the  HSU "officials" are/were in my opinion, a bunch of parasites on the member body of the HSU.

"Why not wait for the court ruling?"  Which court FN?  

nɥºɾ

[lakeland27]

there is another car beside the volvo, one bought from a chap in hong kong.  its not been established what happened to the car (intended for ex-husband geoff apparently )  the thing is ms jackson signed off a payment for a car that wasn't or was sold on as the union was not repaid. perhaps that is one of the matters she's facing. as for chris uhhlman (Spelling) he's a lackey murdoch wanna be. nothing much going on there..

[freakiness]

---

@monman12 wrote:

FN: "That's 8 of 170+ charges."
No FN,  it is but 8 of many  amounts charged to  the HSU account. It would not matter if it was only one, as I selected them to  refute your nonsense claim : "The   lawyer said it's unlikely they will contest most of the costs he is charged with because they are under $30 amounts"  UNDER $30 ??????

"Why not wait for the court ruling?"  Which court FN?  

nɥºɾ

---

As the thread was about the Magistrates Court and the charges laid are after an extensive police investigation in 2 states it is obvious that is the court ruling I am talking about. 

Yes, the lawyer's claim is that most of the 170 charges relate to amounts under $30.

[monman12]

"Yes, the lawyer's claim is that most of the 170 charges relate to amounts under $30." "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." 

Wrong FN, he now agrees that the accusations are  "factual matters" or in my parlance Thomson  has been full of it, and having failed when Fairfax called his bluff,  has probably been advised by his lawyer,  James,  to try a another defence strategy.

So provide the lawyer's "claim" here in the form of a link FN because I do not accept  unsupported comments within a partial post, and so far all the lawyer's comments appear to be your own FN.
However,  Thomson's lawyer Greg James QC said there was likely to be little debate on the factual matters in the case but questions would be raised over his authority to use the cards, is the best I can find

I took the trouble to read part of :Investigation into the National Office of the Health Services Union under section 331 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 and within the long list of Thompson's CC charges I found  only 4 below $30 (short taxi rides)
It is also reported that: Thomson used his credit card to spend the amount of $5793 for the procurement of escort services, if that was for $29.00 services it would be 206 of them!.

That is very cheap union  business!

Why debate?, Thomson  finally will not argue the facts, only the authority to be a legal parasite on the HSU members.

nɥºɾ

[freakiness]

---

@monman12 wrote:

"Yes, the lawyer's claim is that most of the 170 charges relate to amounts under $30." "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." 

Wrong FN, he now agrees that the accusations are  "factual matters" or in my parlance Thomson  has been full of it, and having failed when Fairfax called his bluff,  has probably been advised by his lawyer,  James,  to try a another defence strategy.

So provide the lawyer's "claim" here in the form of a link FN because I do not accept  unsupported comments within a partial post, and so far all the lawyer's comments appear to be your own FN.
However,  Thomson's lawyer Greg James QC said there was likely to be little debate on the factual matters in the case but questions would be raised over his authority to use the cards, is the best I can find

I took the trouble to read part of :Investigation into the National Office of the Health Services Union under section 331 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 and within the long list of Thompson's CC charges I found  only 4 below $30 (short taxi rides)
It is also reported that: Thomson used his credit card to spend the amount of $5793 for the procurement of escort services, if that was for $29.00 services it would be 206 of them!.

That is very cheap union  business!

Why debate?, Thomson  finally will not argue the facts, only the authority to be a legal parasite on the HSU members.

nɥºɾ

---

It's called conversation. Don't offences valued at half a million have to go to a higher court?

If you have found a link to the proceedings of last week would you share it, please?