HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Places » International » Australia (Group) » Some useful information
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu May 24, 2012, 11:42 PM

Some useful information

Watching the 7.30 report on a couple of occasions lately I learned...

Cathy Jackson is being represented pro bono by the same law firm that represents James Ashby. She "earns" $270 thousand a year from union funds and still apparantly cant afford to pay for her own legal fees.

She has paid out (out of union funds) approximately $60 thousand to her ex husband.

Her current partner is second-in-charge of Fair Work Australia.

On June 12th she will be a speaker (along with Peter Reith) at the H R Nicholls society

It all beggars belief, doesnt it?

8 replies, 1360 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply Some useful information (Original post)
pink May 2012 OP
Matilda May 2012 #1
anakie May 2012 #2
pink May 2012 #3
peakhillfm May 2012 #4
Matilda May 2012 #5
anakie May 2012 #6
anakie Jun 2012 #7
Matilda Jun 2012 #8

Response to pink (Original post)

Fri May 25, 2012, 02:36 AM

1. It goes a long way to explaining why the HSU never asked for money back from Thomson.

They'd have to be asking a lot of other people for money back too, including Jackson.

Thomson may have been very stupid - and it's not proven yet - but I don't think there's anyone in the HSU who's got clean hands. Especially not Jackson; her game is very obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pink (Original post)

Fri May 25, 2012, 06:03 PM

2. On Kathy Jackson

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/thomson-and-jackson-5-sticky-fingers/

she seems to be somewhat of a protected species with the media. How surprising? Not. I really can't fathom any other reason for at least some of what is written in the article hasn't made it to the MSM. Imagine substituting one word with another - Jackson with Thomson - and then see how crazy the media would go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to anakie (Reply #2)

Fri May 25, 2012, 10:38 PM

3. Thankyou so much for that website. I've shared it on facebook.

With the journalists looking for every morsel of information regarding this case, it seems a total mystery why they aren't investigating Jackson more thoroughly. Who is protecting her?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pink (Original post)

Sat May 26, 2012, 11:27 PM

4. Cathy Jackson is UNTOUCHABLE

I believe that Cathy Jackson feels that she is 'untouchable' with the media and she feel that she can say and do as she wants.Its time that someone put a stop to this,as I feel that she is more guilty that Craig Thomson,BUT who will believe this.
I support what Craig Thompson said on air,BUT hey why hasnt Cathy Jackson opened her mouth and said something instead of letting Thompson get 'hammered'.
I believe that something 'stinks' with her,BUT cant put a finger on it,otherwise what has she got to hide........
Time for the Print & Electronic Media start questioning her,and leave Craig Thompson alone.Also time for Messers Abbott & Pyne to lay off and get their facts in order as well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peakhillfm (Reply #4)

Tue May 29, 2012, 03:20 AM

5. Neither the Coalition or the media will lay off Thomson

because his political demise would suit them fine. Truth or fairness don't even come into play here.

Nobody would give a damn if the numbers weren't so tight, because they've all got their fingers in the cookie jar.

I don't believe Thomson's story, but is there enough to warrant a charge? Probably not. And can we accept the word of a prostitute being paid $60,000 to say she remembers Craig Thomson out of hundreds of clients over the past seven years? I wouldn't, but thousands of the Great Unwashed would, and unfortunately, they vote.

He's set himself up for this, but in reality it's between him and the HSU and over the years, they've never made a move against him – perhaps because they're all tarred with the same brush. It has nothing to do with his status as a politician, unless he faces a criminal charge that carries a jail term, and that's highly unlikely.

But truth doesn't matter when Abbott can see the prize before him …

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pink (Original post)

Tue May 29, 2012, 04:56 AM

6. the next installment on Kathy Jackson

well worth a read


http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/thomson-6-the-falling-few-and-the-fall-guy/

eg


'On page 18 of that report, it shows a payment described as “Key Management Personnel Compensation”. The only recipient of this payment is Katherine Jackson — and it is for $522,570. That’s over half a million dollars taken from some of the nation’s lowest paid workers. Given the size of the sum, it may worthwhile for authorities to investigate whether Jackson added to her real estate portfolio during this period.

Now, it doesn’t take Albert Einstein to understand that this is a lot of money for a union official to receive in a single payment. Also, bear in mind that this is also in addition to Jackson’s $270,000 salary as well as all of the “consultancy fees” her companies have charged the union — which have totalled $36,867.46 for Neranto No 10, and $4,860.72 for K Koukouvaos Consulting, where as an ABN does not appear on the invoice, I understand this makes them direct payments. (Given no ABN appeared, it would also be useful to know whether all the appropriate taxation has been paid on these fees.)'


Peace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to anakie (Reply #7)

Fri Jun 8, 2012, 01:27 AM

8. Jackson sacks lawyers in HSU court case

Health Services Union National Secretary Kathy Jackson has sacked lawyers representing her in a court case about putting the union into administration.

Representing herself in the Federal Court, Kathy Jackson told Justice Geoffrey Flick she is against the suggested appointment of former Federal Court judge Michael Moore as interim administrator.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-08/jackson-sacks-lawyers-in-hsu-court-case/4060984

Who is she to say she agrees or doesn't agree to who is appointed as interim administrator? Especially when she has already put the judge offside by contacting him directly via email during the hearing, and when there are so many questions she should be asked about her finances.

Does she think she's untouchable? From the way the media is looking the other way, perhaps she is.

There is something very odd going on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread