The Pickering Post
Sunday, 24th March 2019

If you would like to be involved or support the upkeep and further development of this site, it would be very welcome no matter how small.


... crooks need the best crooked lawyers

Larry Pickering

Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.


Labor and corrupt unions’ favourite corrupt law firm, Slater & Gordon, is under an ongoing ASIC investigation concerning a, a’hem, “book-keeping error” totalling $90 million.

Its share price has dropped sixty per cent, from $7.85 to $2.96, under heavy selling after it admitted it had “made mistakes” in the reporting of cash receipts from its UK venture. (It recovered marginally today to $3.41 after earnings rose 21 per cent to $121.6 million.)

Under ACTU instructions, Slater & Gordon is currently attacking Commissioner Heydon trying to prevent him unearthing more union corruption leading right up to the Opposition leader’s doorstep.

Slater & Gordon, headed by Andrew Gretch (pictured), is a rat’s nest of dirty deals and client rip-offs that had its genesis in the Gillard/Wilson scandal that saw a frantic exodus of partners and senior partners scurrying from the firm.

One of its disbarred lawyers, bankrupt Mr Russell Keddie was found guilty of overcharging his clients $23 million. Other partners, Scott Roulstone and Tony Barakat, who are also facing bankruptcy, were ordered to repay $15 million.

It was also ruled Keddie must repay his clients the scammed amounts but it was found he had transferred his $3.7 million Sydney home in Double Bay and a $2.7 million Bungan Beach house to his wife, Sarah Key.

There was also a London property in the upmarket suburb of Paddington, which Mr Keddie forgot to mention on his assets declaration form and a little matter of a $60,000 Range Rover, along with $700,000 from the sale of cattle, and $400,000 in his self-managed super fund.

It was estimated the best his clients could hope for was a settlement of 22 cents in the dollar.

Slater & Gordon and its junior partner in crime Maurice Blackburn have been the stopping off point for Juliar Gillard, Adam Bandt, Bill Shorten, Nicola Roxon and many other Labor notables on their way to pre-selection for safe Labor seats.

Both companies use the dishonest “no win, no fee” slogan that catches many a poor and disabled person in the compensation net.

The truth is that a win is a win only for the law firm and often any payout is entirely usurped in outrageous lawyers’ charges. The myriad stories are sickening.

If a compensation case is lost the law firm can’t charge its client but the winning side’s costs then become the responsibility of the disabled client.

The “no win, no fee” law firm simply walks away leaving its destitute client to face bankruptcy.

So a corrupt Slater & Gordon is ideally placed to represent the ACTU and its corrupt Labor unions in attempting to have a Royal Commission shut down and the integrity of an honest Commissioner trashed.

Was he getting too close to the truth?


I worked as a lawyer for this lot. Absolute fucking shysters

And thes guys are lily white compared to the miscreants who operate in the jury free involuntary divorce courts.

Licensed thieves, pure and simply.

aah UNION LAWYERS......a bought and sold commodity....and what of the ........union/ALP appointed DOESNT WORK our JUSTICE SYSTEM>

Anyone else have visions of Andrew Gretch's head exploding in a red mist?

Post below from the mike smith site

Reader JW writes:

Dear Michael

I just thought the following given tomorrow's expectations might be of some albeit belated interest. I have practiced in administrative law for 30 years. The following is an extract of the thoughts of one of the Commissioner's former colleagues who taught law at Sydney Uni.

Firstly, the Privy Council in Durayappah v Fernando, the House of Lords in Ridge v Baldwin and the High Court in Twist v Randwick Municipal Council when applied to the Heydon facts including the R.C. Act would all say that you need an express provision in the R.C. Act for the bias rule to apply because there is no implication in that act to import a bias rule. All binding unchallenged authority. There is no express provision in the R.C Act allowing anyone to make an application for bias: I thought it odd the Commissioner didn't rule so but entertained hearing submissions and demands he recuse himself. Secondly where the bias rule applies it is an application that a judge not hear a case. It is not an application that judge ceased to be a judge and cannot hear any case again because he has an “apparently biased” personality for the rest of his career not only in this case but every prior case and every case in the future.

Heydon is a RC inquiring into criminal corruption and mismanagement in unions. The point is that investigations and the bias rule are like chalk and cheese and have nothing to do with one another. They (Unions, Labor party parliamentary members and MSM) have used some wonky notion of the bias rule totally out of its true legal context to repeal in essence the RC Act. There is no lis inter partes at all. The contest is between the party and the R.C. he is supposed to be bias in favor of himself. The only rights of the parties before the Royal Commission is what the R.C. Act gives them with any necessary implication that arises from that. All cases (and I have had a little bit of a look) on the application of natural justice to investigative bodies concern the right to be heard rule so unless the bias leads to a denial of the opportunity to be heard there is no independent case as far as I am aware that the bias rule can apply to any investigative body let alone a Royal Commission. Further the decision to call a Royal Commission into union corruption was an administrative decision made by the executive government so why is that not invalid for bias because Abbott is leader of the Liberal Party and the decision to call this particular R.C is polluted by apparent bias and invalid making Heydon’s appointment invalid. It all seems to me again of large numbers of idiots trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

I assume that Heydon was to be paid a professional fee for the Barwick speech and I note this aspect seems to be overlooked. Tell me if instead of Heydon and the Barwick speech the Libs decided to hire a stripper instead would the reasonable observer think that the stripper had a close connection to the Liberal Party?

Keep up your valuable work.




low life ambulance chasing scum

Not worried at all Bruce as you know nothing and still making things up as you go and its really your obsession not mine you just don't know anything at all as to what really happened. You don't even know where your beloved letter from Abbott is but I do. Move on Bruce and stop making an ass out of yourself.

We really do need an Australia Card. I would be happy to carry one and present it at any time. I don't have anything to fear.

Ziggyfish- thanks for adding the time and date.

On another subject. Cooper's Brewery - SA has now declared that its malt is now HELLAL certified. I thought Moslims didn't drink alcohol - so why does the brewery need to have its malt contaminated. WHY - because they are paying EXTORTION MONEY.

Slater & Gordon - What great credentials. A 'slater' is a WOODLOUSE, a pest that causes untold damage to houses. Basically, it's a PARASITE. An aptly named law firm.

Bruce you don't have any Credibility on this matter and you still don't get it as you make out Abbott was still assisting Sharples after Sharples left Everinghams. Bruce its all over and done with get it into your thick skull, move on better things to do than make a fool of yourself every time you put something online regarding PH. Now which QC is that Bruce that I work for or worked for?

The Fonz he just likes to try and make out he was the main man but was never that or going to be and doesn't know the facts in the matter. He just cannot get over the fact that Abbott had nothing more to do with the matter after Sharples left Everinghams Lawyers and others took over sponsoring Sharples and what he hates he doesn't know who they were and only a few people knew this. He was never ever going to be asked to give evidence as he didn't have ant evidence to give to either trial, simple as that he knew nothing of what really happened

Bruce neither Sharples or the Queensland Police wanted to have you give evidence as you didn't have any credible evidence to give as you didn't know what really happened only your mind thinking you were important. PH dropped you and started her own Supporters Group Bruce simple as that, you are still making out you know what happened and if you had been in charge non of this would have happened well Bruce that's just a figment of your imagination. Bruce PH was behind this also she knew what was going on all the time and wanted it to happen. Bruce again Abbott CEASED all involvement when Sharples left Everingham Lawyers and had no further contact with Sharples nor did he have anything to do with the Trials oh that document is very safe and you will never find it.

Dunno why you are telling me this Bruce. Honestly, I don't care.

Bruce Whiteside, I read online that one of your interests is justice and I suppose by extension that means the truth. Here's a website I set up to expose the wannabe dusty, , I hope you read it....more to come.

PH is a spent force now Bruce and your lack of the truth in the matter shows through. Oh Bruce that Document was seen by many people before the Launch at Ipswich. Much like you go on about the Abbott letter you don't even know where it is but Bruce its very safe under lock and key. Oh and Pelican not long after the launch many people started to see the cracks in the Party so between the 3 of them the 2 David's and PH they knew exactly what they were doing in not allowing anyone to control the Party that's why they formed a new Supporters group and didn't use Bruce's data base. They were not members of the Party but only supporter and that was written on the Supporters membership form.

Bruce they didn't use your list for the registering of One Nation as Pauline was a Federal Member they used another list gathered after the Opening in Ipswich and had more that 500 names. Your still trying to distort the truth. Bruce the Courts never mentioned you and never called you as a witness in either the Civil or Criminal Trial. So what did Pauline do with the Money from the Qld Electoral Commission it was well hidden from view and PH could have paid it back but choose to cry poor which she wasn't. Bruce no one wants to listen to you as your just trying to make people think you had more to do with PH but remember Bruce PH dropped you as she and many others knew what your motive was and that was to try and take over the Party but you didn't know what to do Bruce.