Clive Palmer and PUP.....what can I say ?

[allover]

What? It hasn't worked at all...he's a thief who tried the same scam a second time...oh, by the way, the ALP and the government are on the same page on this one....
It did in the context of getting Tony off his back, but certainly not later

[admin]

Despite his ramblings he is correct, you just have to look at how much property they have been buying including massive farms in the top end.

I don't suppose you have seen what he has been selling them ?

He has been telling everyone how great the Chinese are for years. The only reason he has changed his tune is because the Chinese company he has been doing business with has caught him taking 12 million out of their bank account. And that's why its in the supreme court, criminal charges should follow.

[Landytrack]

My understanding is that if a politician has criminal charges filed against him/her, the politician has to step aside from the position they hold until the court case is over.

If the charges are proven correct well that is the end of the politician as thereby being a person of bad character.

A chance the Chinese ex business partners may get him in the end.

[CONAXLE]

Keep buying the properties,it will catch up with them like the desolate leftover properties that I saw on 60 minutes.I will support them from this story I saw..
We will see what will happen in near future..

[admin]

Things are getting worse for Clive as 2 court cases yesterday went against them in his fight with Chinese Government owned Citic Pacific. These are separate to other legal action involving Citic over Palmer taking 12 million dollars.

CLIVE Palmer has suffered a #disastrous day in his multi-pronged legal war with Chinese corporate giant Citic Pacific, with judges in two states ruling against attempts by his flagship company to take control of a key iron ore port in Western Australia’s Pilbara region.

Mr Palmer suggested on the ABC’s Q&A on Monday that he had won a series of recent legal judgments over Citic, describing his estranged business partner as “Chinese mongrels”.

In Sydney yesterday, the full bench of the Federal Court overturned a ruling in February that designated Mr Palmer’s vehicle, Mineralogy, as port operator for maritime security purposes at Cape Preston, a key infrastructure component of the $10 billion Sino Iron project. The state-owned Citic’s successful appeal means the federal Department of Infrastructure will decide on a new port operator at Cape Preston, which Citic has been using to export iron ore since December. When Mr Palmer won the first round of the port battle in February, he said: “I predict this will be the first of many judgments to come our way in the next 12 months.”

IN DEPTH: Clive Palmer

In a separate case in Perth, the Federal Court threw out Mineralogy’s application to become the security operator of Cape Preston’s facilities — a smaller area that includes buildings, installations and equipment used in connection with ship loading. Mineralogy was ordered to pay Citic’s costs for both cases, adding to a $1 million-plus legal bill that Mr Palmer sustained in a separate loss in the West Australian Sup#reme Court this month. In that case, judge James Edelman described Mineralogy’s courtroom tactics in its fight with Citic over royalties from the Sino Iron project as “absurd” and “unreasonable”.

Mineralogy’s law firm in both of yesterday’s cases was HopgoodGanim, which was named one of the biggest recipients from more than $12m in Chinese funds allegedly wrongfully siphoned by Mr Palmer from a bank account set up for expenses at Cape Preston.

The Australian revealed in June that Federal Court documents showed HopgoodGanim was paid more than $450,000, with cheques drawn on the bank account between March and December last year for legal costs related to disputes with Citic Pacific.

In a third case, before the Queensland Supreme Court yesterday, Mr Palmer argued a legal attack on him by Citic was an abuse of process driven by a desire to destroy his reputation. Citic subsidiary Sino Iron is suing Mr Palmer for $10m, alleging he knew of his company’s allegedly fraudulent and dishonest misuse of the $12m.

Mr Palmer’s barrister, Thomas Bradley QC, told the court Sino Iron’s claim was “founded on fiction” and was improperly claiming financial relief from Mr Palmer when there was no allegation he had personally received a benefit from the allegedly misused funds. Mr Palmer and his companies have denied any wrongdoing.

At Mr Palmer’s request, the judge ordered that none of the affidavits and supporting exhibits be released to media and other third parties until another legal argument next week.

In the Federal Court in Sydney, judge Robert Buchanan said the court had found in favour of Sino Iron, after its lawyers argued Mineralogy should not have been granted federal government approval to control the port as it failed to meet a string of key requirements.

Mineralogy lawyer James Peters SC rejected claims the company had been improperly appointed to run the port and said it had the “blessing of the state” to do so. In January last year, the Infrastructure Department announced Mineralogy would be the operator “for the security regulated port of Cape Preston”, but reversed that decision.

Sino Iron sued to gain control of the port but in February the Federal Court ruled in favour of Mineralogy. Sino Iron appealed and, yesterday, the court ruled the orders in February be set aside and that Mineralogy pay Sino Iron’s legal costs.

Earlier, in Perth, judge Neil McKerracher ruled against Mineralogy’s application to become the security operator for the facilities at Cape Preston. “Mineralogy’s complaints cannot be sustained,” he said. Citic said yesterday it was pleased the court had found in its favour in both cases. Mr Palmer could not be reached for comment.

Source :

[admin]

And what do you know........Clive Palmer makes a full apology for what he said.



I wonder if he will make Wacky Jacky do the same ?


I was was also reading the other day the Palmer United Party rules. Have a read of this of this extremely undemocratic party

FOR voters looking beyond the public facade of the Palmer United Party, its constitution — the framework of rules that govern how it is meant to be operated — is a good starting point.

The constitution has not been available on the party’s website, but it can be #accessed at the Electoral Commission Queensland.

The PUP constitution makes it plain that this is a political party with a unique base. Its rules — and the identities of the family appointees who run its committees — highlight the PUP as an entity owned and ruled by the patriarch with the support of relatives.

But the constitution is not all his own work: large chunks have been lifted and copied from the constitution of the Liberal National Party.

Palmer has been accused of rampant cronyism by Alex Douglas, who last week quit the PUP as Queensland parliamentary leader and slammed doors on his way out.

Neither Douglas nor anyone who has read the PUP’s 60-page constitution should be surprised at Palmer’s propensity to run the party like a family business.

The cronyism is formally #enshrined in the party’s constitution, guaranteeing there is iron-clad family control over the political wing.

The foundation members are the first clue: Clive Frederick Palmer, Clive Theodore Mensink (nephew), Blair Brewster (nephew), Martin Brewster (nephew), Michael Palmer (son) and Anna Palmer (wife). It takes a majority of the foundation members to expel a member; four could do it over a family dinner.

Power within PUP can be traced to the party’s “Interim Executive Committee’’, which is, perhaps unsurprisingly in a family business, made up of the same six relatives who are the foundation members.

The chairman is Palmer, the national treasurer is his wife Anna; his son Michael makes do with the title of president.

But as rule W3 says, “the chairman is fully authorised to exercise all powers of the Interim Exec#utive Committee and a declaration signed by the Chairman shall be conclusive proof of the subject matter of anything to which it #relates”.

It means that if Palmer wants the PUP to do something, he can go ahead and execute without a nod from the family members who comprise the interim executive committee.

He can also “at any time wind up the Party”.

Party promoters claim there are thousands of PUP members, but few know they have zero influence if Palmer decides he is tired of the PUP and wants to delete it.

Further power comes from section V33 by which Palmer is empowered, not necessarily as an office holder (his name is sufficient) to change the constitution as he sees fit.

Contrary to the party’s stated objectives of attracting large numbers of like-minded individuals and letting them have their say, the rules give Palmer total control of the PUP and its resources. There is a facade of democratic values.

In addition to their other roles, Anna Palmer is also “President of the Palmer United Party Women”, and Michael Palmer is “President of the Young Palmer United Party”.

The constitution also permits Palmer wide discretion by #giving him the right “to invest any monies of the Party not immediately required for any of its objects in such manner as may from time to time be required”.

Palmer launched the party last year with a pledge to “reunite the nation, restore competency to government and provide a plan for jobs growth to enable Australia’s economy to move forward”.

And he wants to carry on about communists ? Fark me.

[enf]

And he wants to carry on about communists ? Fark me.

Fascists usually do. The Palmer Youth and The League of Palmer Women are in the family too I see.

I have no problem with people who were sucked in by this charlatan as long as they wake up....

[gordon_s1942]

A slightly niggly thought here is that the Clive Palmer PUP party was elected by a majority vote and as the numbers of those eligible to vote didnt change, it means that some who voted for the PUP are also those who voted for the Coalition in the Lower House !!
Does that suggest they voted for the LCP in the lower house but voted for the PUP in the Upper House as they wanted Labour out but didnt want give the LCP totally free reign??
Remember there had to be a second vote in WA as there was a discrepancy in the counting of the first vote so to me that says even though the voters were given a second chance to think it over, the PUP got the majority of the votes and won the seats even though by then it was perfectly clear that if the PUP was elected, they would hold the 'Balance of Power'....

[lsemmens]

Why can't the G.G. sack individual members?

[Reschs]

Why can't the G.G. sack individual members?

There would be no one left except the G-G.

Mind you, having met and interacted with Peter Cosgrove over the last few years, this may not be a bad outcome.

Previous G-G's is a different matter.

[enf]

A slightly niggly thought here is that the Clive Palmer PUP party was elected by a majority vote and as the numbers of those eligible to vote didnt change, it means that some who voted for the PUP are also those who voted for the Coalition in the Lower House !!
Does that suggest they voted for the LCP in the lower house but voted for the PUP in the Upper House as they wanted Labour out but didnt want give the LCP totally free reign??
Remember there had to be a second vote in WA as there was a discrepancy in the counting of the first vote so to me that says even though the voters were given a second chance to think it over, the PUP got the majority of the votes and won the seats even though by then it was perfectly clear that if the PUP was elected, they would hold the 'Balance of Power'....

What seems pretty clear after the last TWO elections is that many people are not willing to trust EITHER major party. Which makes effective governance of the country almost impossible.

[gordon_s1942]

The only person I would trust to govern is me and even then I would need to keep a close eye on me............

[admin]

Well, it hasnt taken long for the wheels to fall off. Personally, I think Clive has met his match in the loony department. Maybe he could sue her ?

[Reschs]

Ah shite. I have already put her in the loony bin and then she says something sane.
Then again most looneys have Lucid moments.
Bloody Tasmanians, whoops, Policitians.

[exited]

What seems pretty clear after the last TWO elections is that many people are not willing to trust EITHER major party. Which makes effective governance of the country almost impossible.

Oddly enough, the only times the Govt had a majority in the senate they became unpopular immediately afterwards. I don't think the trust was ever there in the first place.

P.S. admin, Clive Palmer owes you $1 times 23823 for resetting your post counter

[admin]

Oddly enough, the only times the Govt had a majority in the senate they became unpopular immediately afterwards. I don't think the trust was ever there in the first place.

P.S. admin, Clive Palmer owes you $1 times 23823 for resetting your post counter

Not sure what happened there, fat #### might have sat on it.