Posts Tagged ‘corrupt legal system’

Slater and Gordon supports IBM GSA fraud

Slater and Gordon is one of Australia’s most well know law firms that touts its reputation for giving compensation to the disadvantaged individual who has been wronged by Corporate Goliaths.

IBM GSA is a joint venture between IBM, Telstra and Lend Lease. IBM GSA as a general rule, contracts its workers through its Tier Level 1 suppliers. Some Recruitment agencies that specialise in IT Recruitment are Candle ICT, Ambit and Paxus.

It was noticed, that a portion of monies was unaccounted for. This equated to a figure of 6.66%. This person then queried their manager. The manager was quite aware of this procedure, and proceeded to explain in confidence that this figure was evenly divided between IBMGSA and the agency, when the figure (the worker’s salary) should be retained by the worker. The manager then proceeded to explain that if this was to be made public, the worker’s employment would then be terminated, and they would never again have employment.

This procedure was documented, and presented to Slater and Gordon. Slater and Gordon then replied, that it is a matter the their department would look into as it falls into the category of Corporate Fraud. The individual then suggested that a Class Action Law Suite be initiated against IBM GSA and the relevant Recruitment Agencies.

The response Slater and Gordon gave was that :

  • it was too busy to pursue the matter,
  • it does not have the resources, and it would be too costly for them, therefore
  • the individual, under their own finances would have to pursue the matter.

If it’s too costly for a large law firm, how costly is it to an individual?

Since it has been established that the fraudulent amount is 6.66% of a contractors salary, then if we assume (for easy accounting) an average salary of $100,000 p.a. an approximate 2,500 workers, then $16,500,000.00 per annum are being fraudulently obtained by IBM GSA and their agencies at the expense of the worker. Over a 10 year period the figure is

165 Million Dollars.

A case that Slater and Gordon did not want to handle.

If an individual defrauded 1/100th of the above mentioned amount, then they would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Since when does a legal firm say “NO” to litigation ($$$,$$$,$$$)???

Privilege means Private Law, determined by ones wallet, not by justice.



Contempt of court


Meet lawyer Mark Morgan. He acted for a Victorian woman who was beaten up by police. Just last week Mark Morgan was given a four month suspended sentence for contempt of court: he could lose his practising certificate and he owes the state government hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the police who bashed his clients? They’ve never paid a cent. And neither has the State of Victoria.

The Law Report, 11 Sept 2007

Another typical example of an oppressive biased law system.



Rene Rivkin – Corporate Fraud, reward.

One name that comes easily into mind when one thinks of corporate fraud in Australia is that name, Rene Rivkin.
Being a person of influence one would expect one to have friends like doctors, lawyers, judges, politicians and the like, of course naturally some if not all being part of the boys club. This becomes more evident as more sequence of events unfold.

One of Rene’s rises to fame was that of a transaction which included the purchase of a company not its worth of $3 million dollars, then insuring it for $50 million, and then burning it down, naturally collecting on the way out.

An operation of such complexity cannot be carried out by one’s lonesome, and has to involve all sorts of people. Since there was no other option, than to lodge an inquiry into the matter, prior to Rivkin’s testimony (which would implicate others, eg. Politicians, insurers, etc), he conveniently committed suicide.

One of the most important facts that the mainstream media puts an unconditional blanket on is that the Anglo-Masonic law system, together with its peers realistically ‘rewards’ those so called ‘individuals’ who commit crimes against the ‘commoners’. In Rene’s case, he defrauded the Australian public of monies, through insider trading. The punishment served on Rivkin can only be described as a joke. The court system ‘punished’ Rivkin, with a weekend jail sentence, for nine months, which was postponed most of the time, supported by claims, with a doctor’s certificate, that he was unfit to serve jail time, yet he was not unfit to commit fraud.

The banning of his stock broking license mean absolutely zero, as he could entrust anyone to carry on his business deals.

This is a classic example of how corrupt the Australian legal system is, to the detriment of the Australian public, but to the benefit of the chosen few.