Saturday, September 7, 2013

Where's That WikiLeaks Party Inquiry?

UPDATE 3: I have now published my own 20 page WL Party Inquiry here.

UPDATE 2: OK NEWSFLASH!!! After 5 months and a whole lot of harassment from yours truly, WikiLeaks Party finally released a paltry 4 page review (plus cover page titled "Terms of Reference" plus attached email from outside the terms of reference).

The review was greeted with snorts of derision. The auditing company normally does environmental studies, the auditor is apparently a friend of John Shipton's and also a financial member of the WLP. He admits he had no access to required emails and documents, and did not talk to many involved. He doesn't even mention @akawaca's submission.

And on the same day @akawaca advises that multiple email accounts have been hacked and all emails prior to August 13 have been deleted (a critical WLP meeting was held on August 12).

Surely nobody is taking this ship of fools seriously anymore? And yet they continue to damage the reputation of WikiLeaks, whose support seems stubbornly and inexplicably entrenched. So who knows what about those hacked @akawaca emails? A response from WikiLeaks and WikiLeaksParty is required.

UPDATE 1: Terms of Reference for an Independent Review have now been posted. Some professional auditors who know nothing about WikiLeaks will be paid to produce limited recommendations. Meanwhile, key insiders remain silent. For me, such standard political party operational bullshit is very disappointing (but hardly surprising at this stage). I have cancelled my membership of the WikiLeaks Party.


On Saturday 20th July 2013 I received a phone call from Julian Assange's father, John Shipton. I was in Rockhampton for the Yeppoon Peace March at the time, protesting against US military exercises which saw four bombs dropped on the Great Barrier Reef that same day. John was wondering if I could pick up a load of printed material on my way back to Brisbane. He explained that “the WikiLeaks Party printer" was based on the Sunshine Coast. Then he told me the printer's name: 

"James Ashby, you may have heard of him".

It took a moment for the penny to drop, but when it did I was gob-smacked. Ashby? Seriously? Assuming I might have missed something about the scandalous #Ashbygate affair, I waited for an opportunity to research the whole story more closely. But no, there it was: James Ashby,  a 33 year old gay staffer who made sexual abuse allegations against the parliamentary Speaker, Peter Slipper, in a move which could have brought down the Gillard government. Of course much more about #Ashbygate was yet to be revealed (none of it good), but a Federal Court Justice had already dismissed Ashby's claims as politically motivated. Why the hell was the WikiLeaks Party associating itself with such a person? If this got out before the election, I thought, it would be a catastrophe.

In the end I did not pick up the printed material because I was back home before John contacted me again with Ashby's address. I wondered if I should discuss my concerns with others in the party, but by then I was already "out of the loop". @WikiLeaksParty had quietly unfollowed me. My email address was getting dropped off discussion threads. And of course my phone and laptop were being targeted, so there was a good chance I could make things worse by talking about this before the election (such are the Orwellian constraints under the WikiLeaks Party was forced to operate). So I crossed my fingers and hoped that John Shipton knew more about the Ashby case than I did. But I seriously doubted it.

I first met John Shipton when he was contacting National Council members prior to the formal registration of the WikiLeaks Party. As a long-time vocal supporter of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, I was honoured to have been invited to join the Council. But given that the party would soon be under huge public scrutiny, there was something I needed to explain: I had gone bankrupt a few years earlier (after the failure of Kevin Rudd's Green Loans scheme, ironically) and I was still not formally discharged, so I was not sure if I was legally allowed to be on the Council. 

John made a quick phone call to lawyer Kellie Tranter, later the party's NSW candidate, and then told me I would not be able to join the Council. After years of dedicated support for WikiLeaks, I felt gutted. But I accepted the decision in the best interests of the party.

"Never mind," smiled John with a sly wink, "we all have a few skeletons in our closets, don't we?"

John did not seem too unhappy at all about my situation, and I couldn't help wondering if that had something to do with my friendship with Julian's mum Christine. It was never going to be easy for the two of them to work together.  [removed at request of Christine Assange - Gary]. My original understanding was that John would help set up the WikiLeaks Party and then step away from the day to day running of it. It’s a pity this did not happen.

Months later, as the divisions within the party became more obvious, I contacted the Australian Electoral Commission myself, and learned that bankruptcy did NOT in fact prohibit me from being on the National Council (it only made me ineligible to run as a Candidate in the election, an option which was also discussed).

In retrospect, sharing my financial situation with John Shipton may have been one of the biggest mistakes of my life. I do not regret it because I did what I thought was right for the party and the values WikiLeaks represents. But given the WikiLeaks Party's own subsequent lack of honesty and transparency, my voluntary personal disclosure seems bitterly ironic.


When the WikiLeaks Party preferences were announced, I was again gob-smacked. 

For two years I had been pressuring Australian MPs and Senators to support Julian Assange and WikiLeaks, and painstakingly documenting their responses at - the Greens were clearly the only major party doing anything to help. Why on earth would we slap them in the face? It was madness.

In New South Wales, the White Nationalists from Australia First and the militant Shooters and Fishers party were preferenced above the Greens. In Western Australia, Julian Assange's staunchest parliamentary supporter, Greens Senator Scott Ludlam, was preferenced below his strongest rival, the National Party. Even in Victoria, the Greens were well down the list behind minor parties. By contrast, the Greens had preferenced the WikiLeaks Party (WLP) extremely highly in every state.

I had just spent a week on Twitter trying to suppress rumours that the Greens would be preferenced well down the WLP list, and now it turned out the rumours were true. Worse yet, the source of those rumours was a WLP National Council member, Cassie Findlay, who helped submit the NSW preferences. And after helping me and others look like fools, Cassie conveniently disappeared off Twitter and ignored my DMs (thanks for that, Cassie).

The WikiLeaks Party issued a statement blaming an "admin error" for the preferencing debacle and promising a review AFTER the election. That was never going to be good enough. Social media was going off. The mainstream media was all over it. Our biggest detractors were rubbing our noses in it and there was nothing we could say in reply. 

We clearly needed a proper public response from the party ASAP. But all the WikiLeaks Party insiders were suddenly - and very strangely - silent. This was not OK. 

I spoke with the only National Council members I knew personally, Sam Castro and Kaz Cochrane. They were both in tears on the phone. I urged them to be patient and give things time to work out, but they explained that others were already walking out the door. When Leslie Cannold's resignation prompted a wave of departures the next day, I started publicly demanding answers from @WikiLeaksParty on Twitter. 

John Shipton rang me three times that day, and three times I refused to take his call. 

"I do not want phone calls and excuses," I texted him. "Don't tell me. Tell the world."

I continued demanding answers on Twitter for several days, until it became absolutely bloody obvious that the "admin error" in NSW was really no mistake at all (as WA candidate Gerry Georgatos belatedly admitted, while still defending his foolish decision to preference the Nationals ahead of the Greens in WA).

The WikiLeaks Party had promised a full inquiry AFTER the election. But Julian's August 30th appearance on ABC The Drum suggested that no inquiry would be necessary. Mistakes were made but nobody would be held accountable, the people who resigned over these errors were somehow out of order, even if Julian accepted responsibility, and in any case he agreed pretty much with everything that was done anyway. 

Was her serious? Or just trying to bluff his way through?


I write this now because the election is over and it is time for the truth. I believe WikiLeaks Party can still play a vital role bringing transparency and justice to governments around the world, but only if it addresses the mistakes of the past few months, apologizes to disenfranchised staff and supporters, and commits to less ruthlessly cynical politics in future. 

Lessons must be learned. Mistakes must be acknowledged. If we demand transparency and accountability from others, we must provide it ourselves.

Julian has previously hinted at a some absurd left-wing conspiracy: 

"There were some views that the WikiLeaks Party should be a front for the Greens but it was never meant to be a front." 

I do not know anyone within the party who wanted it to be “a front for the Greens”. If there is evidence of this, it should be presented. Let’s not just smear people with innuendo. 

For example, a Greens supporter offered to donate $3,000 to help the WikiLeaks Party field a Queensland candidate, an offer which I passed on to John Shipton, who rejected it. Perhaps that Greens supporter was hoping that WikiLeaks Party preferences would help get the Greens candidate across the line, but that was never my intention. If Julian really thinks such things then he has either been badly misinformed by party leaders, or he is getting paranoid with all the pressure he faces daily.

Many of us within the party assumed we would be able to work with the Greens (and the Pirate Party and others) even if we were in competition with them for Senate places, because we shared many common goals (see Scott Ludlam’s work on Internet freedom, for example). We believed the party could still appeal to people on both the Left and Right side of politics, because as Julian himself said:

"We are a party of the Senate. We are not a party of Government. We are a party of accountability and oversight. Our role is independent precisely because we are not in the government."

In fact it was critically important to stay above that Right-Left divide if we wanted to maintain our independence and credibility. So how did we become so internally divided?

I am deeply concerned that the WikiLeaks Party was unnecessarily politicised, not by Greens supporters, but by people with a hidden right-wing agenda, including John Shipton, Greg Barns (campaign manager, former Liberal Party candidate and advisor to former PM John Howard) and Julian Assange himself.  

I assume this was either: 

a. An unfortunate consequence of people at the top imposing their personal politics on the party without concern for due process, other staff or party members; or 

b. A deliberate attempt to differentiate the party from their closest competition, the Greens, make the party more appealing to right-wing voters, and embrace a "win at all costs" attitude, whatever the consequences.

It may be both of the above. But it was also incredibly foolish and deeply disappointing. It not only alienated countless loyal members and supporters, it has also potentially terminated ongoing political support from the Greens. More importantly, perhaps, it has damaged the global public perception of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.

I suspect there was a deliberate attempt to marginalise people in the party who were deemed by the leadership to be "left wing Greenies" (myself included) even though these people were in fact the most dedicated WikiLeaks supporters in Australia. People like ostracized Social Media manager Sean Bedlam, who was arrested after multiple sit-in demonstrations at the US Embassy. How many of the candidates have even helped organise such a demonstration?

I am writing this now because I believe the explanations for what went wrong need to be public, and because (sadly) I do not trust the WikiLeaks Party to conduct a proper inquiry on their own. As a supporter who was not privy to all the inside conversations, I want answers. If I do not get them, I will cancel my membership.

For example: whose brilliant idea was it to use James Ashby’s services? What other links exist with major political parties? What really happened with the NSW preferences? Who came up with the “admin error” explanation? Did Julian seriously endorse Gerry Georgatos’s decision to preference the Nationals indigenous candidate David Wirrpanda ahead of Scott Ludlum, or did he just publicly pretend to understand it as a way to limit the damage?

The Australian election is now over and the damage has been done. On election day, #PirateParty was trending on Twitter and my timeline was full of people voting Pirates or Greens. Many of these people would have been willing to put a "1" next to WikiLeaks Party if not for the preferences debacle. Julian's public embrace of right-wing US politician Ron Paul, in the final weeks of the campaign, did not help either.

The Australian WikiLeaks Party could have and should have been the model for other WikiLeaks Parties around the world, including the USA and Britain, where people desperate for change have been jealously following our progress. It still can be, if it learns from these mistakes. If not, I am done with it.


How to understand this mess? And why does Julian Assange keep getting into these massive fuckup situations with people? Personally, based on my own family’s experiences, I think Julian Assange shows many symptoms of high functioning Aspergers Syndrome, and I think that might help explain (but not excuse) what has happened with the WikiLeaks Party.

Like I say, that does not excuse all the lies and bullshit, and it certainly does not absolve Greg or John or others for their part in all this. But for me it helps explain why Julian might have been mislead by them, failed to see whom he should have trusted best, and may still find it difficult to admit he was wrong about anything.

Of course it was never going to be easy running a political campaign from detention in a foreign embassy on the far side of the world, while under surveillance by history's most extensive spy network, with all major domestic parties and the corporate media actively hostile to your efforts. But  we could have and should have done better.

I am willing to acknowledge that many good people did their best under difficult circumstances. I hope we can take something positive from the ruins, and overcome these divisions. But we need to be guided by the core principles of transparency and justice. And that means accountability. Carrying on as if nothing happened is simply unacceptable.



Sam Castro, Sean Bedlam and Leslie Cannold explain why they had to resign:

Dan Matthews' letter of resignation:

Leslie Cannold letter of resignation:


  1. "As a supporter who was not privy to all the inside conversations"

    A tip. Put this line in bold, recognise that you have heard only one side of the story so far - all the people having criticisms directed AT them have not given their side of the story to date - and wait for the internal review.

    Otherwise you may end up with egg on your face. What if the account you've heard so far glosses over a few vital facts of people's OWN actions? That is what usually happens, isn't it?

  2. I think it is important to distinguish between WikiLeaks as a publishing organisation and the the WikiLeaks political party. The publishing operation has done some amazing things. It operates as a small group of people maintaining a high level of secrecy. There are some very good reasons for this. This organisational model of tight control by a few insiders seems to have transferred from WikiLeaks to WikiLeaks Party. However, this model of organisation is the exact opposite of what is needed to build a grassroots political movement.

    1. I agree. I think that those internal secrecy habits are going to be very hard for Assange to break. That's why the Pirate Party was trending so much, they have had over 3 years of transparency, seemed to have the sanest party preferences and are the model political party that the Wikileaks party should have been. At least that's my understanding, being in SA and not being able to vote for Wikileaks or the Pirate Party or any other good minority parties, thus making the Greens the party that most closely aligned with my values.

      Well, I do hope that the Wikileaks party gets its shit together. I had hoped that Julian Assange would get in, but obviously that isn't the case.

      may be well worth a read, just to realise how disgusting having ANYTHING printed by this arsehole James Ashby is

    3. no, we will see something even greater with the WA re-voting!

  3. You say you are a "long term vocal Assange & Wikileaks supporter' and yet proceed to malign his father, have a section of your blog removed at the request of his mother, and go on to call Julian Assange paranoid, with a secret right wing agenda.

    Then you blame a mess created by people quitting even before they spoke with Julian Assange on Mr. Assange not because he overdelegated (as he himself said) but on your fantasy diagnosis that he has asbergers.


    With "supporters" like you, who needs enemies.

    1. The mess was not created by people quitting....

    2. agree to that statement.. people crying not because of their disapointment, but those who had taking things in their hands and in haste moved on without waiting for an explanation of their most trusted leader, who in haste stabbed him in the back whilst his life is in danger and has represented all of us in exposing the truth.... who wants anyone who doesn't stand their ground until all makes sense. The reasons of their distresses came by the fact that they wouldn't be able to return; one causes one to fall in his greatest distress and then suffers great remorse.. that is a sad fact, after so much that was given by them, what a story, who would trust them in the future, not even the liberals for the time being..

    3. People like this are used by agencies to pervert the truth; all of a sudden Julian has Aspergers, but not during all that time prior to this?? is your diagnostic reliable? a bit of poison here and there, and all the mass ferments, that's what I see happening.

  4. The comments contained in this video that suggest that the WLP was set up to 'look' democratic' without actually being democratic are to say the very least concerning....

  5. This little bit is too little, too late. Your extremism blinded you for years -- this is the bed you made.

  6. I can almost live with, tolerate, all the other idiosyncrasies of Julian Assange and the Wikileaksparty, but I cannot live with betrayal. And Scott Ludlam was betrayed in a way that shames Julian and the party. And for me if he loses his seat there is no coming back from that.

  7. Gary, you are going to regret sooo much your incessant campaign on Twitter when you find out the truth about what Sam Castro actually DID.

    Roll on, that review - but I think that you, personally, will find out a lot that you will wish you'd been told from the start. It's never pleasant when you find out that friends have not told you the WHOLE truth.

  8. PS. You may also wish you'd taken those calls from John Shipton when he was trying to contact you to fill you in. Your understanding of what was happening within the structure of the party would have been immeasurably better if you had, no doubt. Instead you have had to rely on one side of the story for the "truth", so far. Had you subconsciously already taken "sides" at that point, and did not wish to inform yourself as fully as you could? Roll on that review, eh?

    1. Have you seen this tweet, Gary:


      @JosueXange not about left/right -about subversion of the constitution and democratic process @seanbedlam @BarnsGreg @WikiLeaksParty

      3:02 AM - 10 Sep 13

      So, it WAS all about a power play within the National Council. Nothing to do with the preferences decision really - it was to do with who got to call the shots! (And then resigning in a blaze of publicity, without giving a fuck about - and without even INFORMING - the person who would be most damaged by it. And then keeping up a relentless "if I'm not in it anymore, the Wikileaks Party has to die" campaign, both on social media and direct to the mainstream press.) Well, I do hope in comes out in the review whether the National Council was supposed to operate under that person's direction in the first place. Otherwise the charge of "subverting the constitution" is going to look a little hypocritical.

    2. I'm not John. You're the second person to say that. I guess because you simply can't understand how all this looks to an outside observer. Sorry if this kind of feedback upsets you.

    3. I also thought that the phone calls and the opportuniies to talk to John weren't genuine, or else?? someone had already made up their mind, that's what I read all along.

  9. Hey anonimous, it is easy spitting at a real person, with bs accusations while hidding behind the anonimity.

    1. there is no accusation(s), no more than yours;and by the way, you're anonymous to me as I haven't met you; stop blaming by the way, it is no excuses or answers to what answers you are looking for..

  10. Yes, indeed - there has been an *awful* lot of spitting at real people, hasn't there? John Shipton, Greg Barns, Kellie Tranter, Gerry Georgatos - I've seen all these people have a great deal of stuff spat at them, and only admirable restraint on their part in not spitting back. I do not want to preempt the full internal review, just to warn people that there was a lot of, shall we say, "jockeying for position" and personal political ambition in what went down and that people may be surprised, and feel misled, when the full story comes out.

    1. Hi John, re: "I do not want to preempt the full internal review," - forget your bullshit inhouse review, how is this one you all publicly committed to, going? - projected release date?

      The WikiLeaks Party Announces Independent Review
      admin — August 21, 2013
      - issued on behalf of WLP National Council and all WLP Federal Election Candidates.

      "The WikiLeaks Party stands for unswerving commitment to the core principles of civic courage nourished by understanding and truthfulness and the free flow of information."

    2. I'm not John. I'm not any of the people I mention in my post. For me to know and you to wonder how I know the things I'm alluding to. Wait for the full review. It will be revealing.

    3. And I would also like to say that it seems to me a GOOD idea that there's a little bit of a wait before doing the full review. Judging by the way you jumped to conclusions about my identity, it seems to me that many Wikileaks supporters have already made up their minds on the basis of what they have been told so far (have we still not learned anything from the example of how Julian Assange is treated by the mainstream press?) are not yet ready to approach things with an open mind. Time is needed to let things settle down and tempers to cool first, I think.

  11. GREAT! So bring on the inquiry! If Sam Castro and others are to blame I will gladly acknowledge it. But so far we have only heard one side of the story, as commenters above say. Nobody from the other side has even tried to explain their version of events. We are entitled to ask why not?

    - Jaraparilla

  12. well, Anonimous, we have a number of ways to point to bs from Gerry, who has been caught lying numerous of times. GG says one thing, and instantly different a second later. He completely lost the plot. We have gvt for wlp, which is showing blackonwhite what was done, we have wlp members saying it is a load of crap "admin error" excuse...

    So, lies, upon lies, upon lies, and then what? Ah, I am anonim, I will say BS about Sam, and not even concrete bs, that can be checked and proven right or wrong, but some vague bs about jockeying for the position. BS. You are a liar and that is the fact.

  13. Hi Gary,

    Thanks for that acknowledgement. I think the reasons are timing - too divisive to do so prior to an election, and a desire not to undermine all that hard work from the Wikileaks Party as a whole. As you know, so many good people volunteered and put their hearts and souls into this campaign. And, before you say "well, do it now", give 'em a break please - give people who at this moment might be feeling a bit bruised and demoralised a chance to recoup and rally themselves.

    (PS. I should also have added the name Julian Assange to that list of people who have had a great deal spat at them, but have had the good grace not to spit back. (But he's always like that!))

  14. Brett Stokes, AdelaideSeptember 9, 2013 at 5:39 AM

    The WikiLeaks Party is sick but not dead.

    I for one am a member in good standing, with a voice that is being raised now.

    I am raising my voice in order to reform the WikiLeaks Party, to make the WikiLeaks Party act in line with its own clear objectives.

    I am raising my voice against the sabotage of the WikiLeaks Party by Greg Barns.

    My view is that there is a case to be answered - and Greg Barns is the main suspect - Barns looks like a blatant right wing stooge, making back room deals with his mates and betraying the ideals of the WikiLeaks Party ...

    I see the campaign as a failure and I want campaign director Greg Barns ejected from the party.

    The reasons for this action against Greg Barns:

    1- Failure to be transparent

    2- Failure to stand candidates in all states and territories

    3- Failure to secure vote counts in line with polling

    4- Failure to get any candidates elected

    5- Wasting of time and resources doing compromising preference deals with right wing parties

    1. I agree. Julian and Greg are now spinning the results as "not too bad" but in fact I think the campaign was a disaster.

      If we had maintained momentum in the final weeks, we would have gotten Julian (at least) elected, plus the critical 3 or 4% vote to be eligible for public funding. Instead we have embarrassing idiots taking those final Senate places.

      The Preferences issue exploded 2 weeks before the election: a week is a long time in politics and there was still plenty of time to fix things. A smarter campaign manager could have taken that media attention and turned it into a positive by admitting the mistakes, apologising immediately, and using the admission of error as an example of the kind of transparency WLP represents.

      Instead we got a cover up. Because of course it was NOT an error, was it? And that is the heart of the problem.

    2. What killed things was the prolonged social media campaign against the Wikileaks party by those who left it, and their supporters. It completely (and deliberately in my view) divided the supporter base. You are still believing that there was no bad behaviour from certain people, whilst believing everything they tell you about others. Do you truly believe that certain people gave a fuck about how much all this rage-quitting and subsequent high publicity tactics would damage the man who was the party's lead candidate if they never even bothered to discuss their concerns with him before doing it?

    3. "It completely (and deliberately in my view) divided the supporter base"

      Clarification: "The Wikileaks Party has to die" - remember that? Objective achieved by the social media campaigning (after going to the mainstream press with resignations instead of informing lead candidate, and thereby giving him some warning or input to the problem. And the leaking to the mainstream press, of course) in the final two weeks.

    4. There's always so many people who really don't know what they're doing who jump on the bandwagon of someone more famous, in order to get their own 15 minutes.
      From what I can gather, Wikileaks "Australia" was set up by a couple of women who simply registered a website. They then courted Assange's mother, and now they 'cry' about the party - Samantha Castro and Kaz Cochrane- what kind of 'ownership' do they have of Julian Assange and what he does or doesn't do? Honestly- I'm not saying the guy is perfect, but endless, amateur volunteers that want to use any platform to promote their own 'integrity' - when they have no political, or other kind of expertise. This is where these things always fall down, because they attract idealistic freaks, who can't wait, can't contain themselves, and cannot help but use the press for attention.
      Whatever did or did not happen, these people show their rank amateurism in politics by their sheer inability to go through a thorough process, before 'crying' etc... This tells me they are simply using the party for some kind of personal emotional need. Every political party has to offer its preferences to the other parties that are most likely to help them get elected. I'm not saying this should have been done in secret, but these 'crying' women, are damaging things beyond belief, because they cannot keep their own need to be seen as full of integrity and honesty, from damaging the party and the natural political process.

  15. All these dark aspersions against Sam Castro and others who resigned are kind of pathetic with no information to back them up. Why the secrecy? Gotta get your stories matching before you go public? Give us a break.

    The basic facts are already out there: the NC directed preferences one way and the candidates went another way, with the leadership's blessing. Greg Barns is now suggesting the NC was too powerful! But that is how the party was set up.

    If the WLP was ever going to be able to survive into the future on its own feet, and inspire similar parties around the world, it had to be more than just a sockpuppet for Julian Assange. And I say that with full respect to Julian, whom I still greatly admire.

    But perhaps Dan Matthews was right: perhaps Julian is just not capable of relinquishing control to the degree required for a functioning democratic party; perhaps he should have run as an Independent instead. But he didn't, and people who joined the NC under the existing Constitution have a right to feel aggrieved.

    Julian is only human, he was unfortunately physically absent, and he admits to being distracted with other issues. OK. We all make mistakes. If Julian approved the NSW and WA preference lists before they were submitted he should admit it. If not, those who stuffed up should offer their resignations.

    1. "Greg Barns is now suggesting the NC was too powerful! But that is how the party was set up."

      This is the bit you need to explore further - how the party was set up; how the National Council was supposed to function; what were people's alloted positions and roles, etc. But you are too impatient to wait for a proper review. You think you already know everything about this matter. You don't. There are facts you don't know, Gary. There is context - a lot of it, actually - but you are simply not prepared to wait for it. Instead you insist, in your ignorance, in continuing an incessant campaign on Twitter to create even further division, never really caring how much it is damaging to Wikileaks, the publisher, and its founder - the social media campaigning by the defectors, that is. There is absolutely nothing, repeat nothing, in Julian Assange's behaviour during this campaign that will damage him. He hasn't told a single lie. But the ongoing behaviour of his erstwhile supporters will.

      Sorry, but I feel angry towards you now Gary. You have been given a few hints that things might not be how you've been told, but you're choosing to ignore the advice.

    2. "There are facts you don't know, Gary."

      This is all I get. I am sick of it.

      I KNOW there are facts I do not know. That is why I am asking for a fucking inquiry.

    3. "That is why I am asking for a fucking inquiry."

      You've been promised one! Days ago. I've seen the tweets explaining that to you. How many times do you need that repeated? How many different people do you need to tell you "there is going to be an full inquiry and the results will be published" before you will believe that it's true? Lord! (no pun intended. Peace.)

    4. So where is that inquiry. Still waiting, one month later...

    5. Here:

      I make that, sensibly, 11 days after the election. Too bad the fatal wounds to the Wikileaks Party were inflicted three weeks ago, eh?

  16. I personally wonder whether a widely respected international publishing organisation also forming a political party is a conflict of interest?

    As in Gary's comment above, I also wonder why Assange didn't run as an Independent. Then although there could still be no democracy, transparency or accountability in how he ran his campaign, people would be voting for Assange on his credibility, not for an organisation on the credibility of Assange endorsing it.

    I still think Assange running as an independent is a viable option, although I think what has happened with WLP so far has damaged his credibility.

    I see two potential benefits of having Assange in the senate:

    1. He could do the work that Greens Senator Scott Ludlam does and question the lies.

    2. It would raise the profile of the plight of Assange as an individual and wikileaks as a publishing organisation.

    It looks like we are going to see a review happen that will be an insult to investigate journalism, blaming the people who quit the party.
    WLP was a good experiment.
    Fortunately, the people who quit, and the people who supported the WLP are motivated by values, and will continue their work in other forms.

    There's always the Pirate Party & the Greens, both seeming to have a lot more credibility as political parties.
    But is a political party really the way for information activists to make change? I'm not so sure.

    Let's see what form this review of WLP actually takes.

  17. Anonymous is criticising the critics for not having all the facts.

    But not having all the facts is precisely the point here. One side of this has been "transparent" (released documents backing up their story) and "accountable" (put their name and therefore credibility to their account). The other side has not. Therefore the only side which has acted on Wikileaks Party's core principles (so far) are the ones who have quit. So you can understand why they have more credibility at this point.

    If there are plans for an inquiry then the timing of that should be publicly released. If there are plans to explain the other side, then that should be stated. Total silence looks like a coverup.

    1. And what documents would they be? Did you read the whole document, or just the headline above Crikey's paywall? Who do you think leaked that document to Crikey? You believe the people who say "it wasn't us"? Oh dear... That kind of behaviour gets you "credibility" now? Oh dear...

      Everything in that email series is exactly consistent with what Julian Assange said in interviews. Go check, I'm sure the videos of the interviews will be online somewhere. What on earth is wrong with a party's lead candidate expressing that there isn't time for micro-managing preferences and calling umpteen National Council meeting that many on the Council are simply too busy (or asleep in a different time zone) to attend and therefore suggesting the candidates plus a deputy choose the preferences and said lead candidate gives them a final check once they're ready, to make sure there are no mistakes. You can see by the email chain itself there was only one person who thought that idea was "shit", but they got their way that time and the National Council (how many of the full complement?) voted it down. Whose role was it again at the outset to lead the National Council? Who ended up doing it? Why was that?

    2. There is, of course, the possibility that if the National Council had agreed to Julian Assange's idea - and the email chain seems to indicate two-thirds of the respondents to his email already did (but that was before the final vote by the NC vetoing the idea) - and he had got the opportunity to do the final check of the preferences to make sure there were no mistakes in it, this whole debacle might never have happened.

      But instead people decided to go to the press with their resignations, without even the courtesy of informing their lead candidate that they were resigning. Charming! How supportive is that! Off to the press with us, never mind about the man asleep on the other side of the world who would be the most damaged by it!

  18. Campaign Manager Greg Barns now says that he and Julian Assange share Libertarian values and therefore any WLP supporters who did not expect them to attack the Greens are just stupid:

    If this guy is not sacked within 24 hours then I am cancelling my membership.

    1. "If this guy is not sacked within 24 hours then I am cancelling my membership."

      Good idea. You have been told by many different people that a review is coming and will be published. You have been asked to be patient. Wikileaks is an organisation under threat from many directions. Witchhunts are not what Wikileaks needs or is about.

    2. Greg Barns told me this afternoon that his role with the party is ended. Interestingly, he is not even a member.

      There is much more that could still be said. It's about time people like John Shipton started explaining their side of things properly, instead of just slandering others as "treacherous" without giving any real details. We've already waited over 2 weeks.

    3. The election was three days ago. It's been suggested to you that it was felt that to do one prior to the election would be too divisive - that info, I believe, was put out there almost two weeks ago. Did it stop people from continuing the high publicity tactics (because "the Wikileaks party must die")? No, it didn't unfortunately, with the resulting descent into a back-and-forth bunfight amongst supporters and Assange's support crashing to 1%. I guess Julian Assange - lead candidate of the party - must have been thrilled!

      But now the election is over, and a thorough review has been promised and it has been promised that the results will be published. Do you want a thorough review? Or just something thrown together to satisfy your inability to wait?

  19. Just leave, he'll just keep fucking with you. It took me ages to leave, but it's worth it. You get your life back. You do know he also keeps pointless secrets too. It's a game for him. These people are sideshows, designed purely to stop you from taking The torch and achieving something meaningful yourself.

    1. Well, the rage-quitters are obviously a bit worried about what the Wikileaks Party full review is going to reveal about their own behaviour and have resorted to some *very* low, *very* crude propaganda tactics to bias the minds of Wikileaks supporters ahead of time.

      Somebody should tell Leslie Cannold that this kind of propaganda was the hallmark of the Nazis. And she calls herself an "ethicist"! Extraordinary.

    2. Don't you even know how to disguise your style of writing? For still do the same repetitive crap over and over again. Speaking of patterns, how do you expect people to swallow this one? Another group of long term supporters leave you ((again)). What fantasy are you going to create this time? Really. When are you going to reflect on your own behavior? We all live in the real world where we have consequences for ours. We hurt our friends, they tell us. We don't listen, they warn others not to be so giving. There is no cost to an apology, its cruel not to. There is no cost to admitting wrong. Those who do are the ones marked down in history as noble, the rest are glorified narcissists. The question is, which one are you?

    3. Hahahahhhaha - who do you think I am? Let me guess...

      You are so wrong that you've just made yourself look like a conspiracy theorist. If you think my writing style is anything like Julian Assange's then may I suggest you actually read a few of his articles?

      PS. I myself have never published anything, so it's going to be a little hard for you to do a comparison of styles. Sorry

    4. I am going to make an anonymous profile look like what? How is that suppose to matter? I personally think it looks worst The other way around. Too amused to tell you how, other than that I am really over it. It was nice to see that I am not The only one either. I am not coming back to this page. There is nothing more to read or write. Goodbye

    5. Oops, sliding out the door now you've blown your own cover?

      What I meant was that your foolish presumption about my identity revealed that your claimed *personal* knowledge of Julian Assange and his faults was obviously not as close or as personal as you were claiming - you clearly DON'T know as much about how Julian Assange talks or writes as you say you do. So what are we to make of the rest of your assertions about him?

      If you can read "Julian Assange" into a complete stranger's posts, then you sound like either a bitter obsessive who didn't get what they wanted for themselves out of any association, real or imagined, they had with Wikileaks, or a troll who's just outed themselves as one.

  20. Interesting. Out of 62,000-plus votes, the Wikileaks Party gave the Shooters and Fishers a princely 252 preference votes.

    Was that what all this fuss was about? Jeez! Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. The Sex Party gave the Shooters more votes - quick, go picket them! The Greens gave Family First 10,000 votes, oligarch Clive Palmer 1,600. I'm expecting mass defections from the Greens party any day now...

    It's becoming more and more obvious - particularly from the kind of propaganda tactics employed by Leslie Cannold and whoever overdubbed that video for her - that this whole thing was really about personalities and self-serving ambition, not the preference decisions/mistakes or the WL party structure. These people - Leslie Cannold, Sean Bedlam, akaWAKA - were the ones who were all shouty about being on the moral high ground, but just look at the reality of their behaviour

    compared to that of the people they've been slagging off. It's a disgrace. They should be ashamed.

    1. Gary Lord

      . @Hanissee @LeslieCannold did not make the video. I did. And I have since deleted it. It made some valid points but JA = Hitler was unfair.

      Oh Gary. That is a pretty long way beyond just being impatient for a formal review and heckling for the answers you crave. A VERY long way beyond. I can see now why people might have backed away from considering you a suitable personality-type for office on the National Council after your name was first put forward (by John Shipton? It's not clear from this blog).

      That's a guess, by the way - I don't know if that is what happened with you - but it's sure looking like a reasonable hypothesis. You are clearly a very passionate and committed person, and a good soul, but this kind of hot-headedness - videos comparing the party's lead candidate to Hilter after party in-fighting, when he himself seems to have been largely out of the loop? - would be the last thing any political party would need in its officers.

      Did you see that Leslie Cannold is now retweeting articles entitled "Assange as tyrant"? Seems to me that "the other side" are the ones who are behaving ethically in refusing to make any comments ahead of the outcome of a formal review, while "ethicist" Leslie Cannold doesn't know the first thing about fair play and is continually trying to queer the pitch and preemptively bias the minds of Wikileaks Party members and supporters ahead of that review.

      I distinctly remember Julian Assange saying after she had resigned that he had had precisely one conversation with Leslie Cannold in the whole time since she had been selected as his running mate. Must've been one hell of a conversation if she's now telling all her followers he's a "tyrant"...

  21. As a journalist I support Assange but I believe he erred in setting up a political party.

    Nevertheless, it is disappointing but all too predictable to see the self-obsessed petty egos that wrecked this project.

    The WLP should not be yet another left party covering the same ground for the same self-appointed activists.

    Surely it is about defending and building support for Assange and the Wikileaks project.

    Yet again and again we see those who professed to such loyalty - such as this blog's author - cut and run at the first sign of conflict and then do maximum damage on their way out.

    Assange has made many errors but he is a historically important publisher and an Aussie who needs our support.

    It sickens me to read this blogger boast about his family connections, then suggest Assange is not quite right in the head.

    You join the great 'ethicist' Cannold, who will never be taken seriously again in that portfolio.

    1. If you think I "cut and run at the first sign of conflict" then you better read my 80,000 tweets, blog posts etc. I have defended Julian Assange and WikiLeaks through worse crises than this.

      I am very tired of uninformed people who do not know what happened - or do not care - telling me to shut up.

      PS: I added the note about Asperger's because it's the only way I personally can understand Julian's apparent involvement in this debacle. I could be wrong. I do not profess to be a psychologist, although I do have a long family history with Aspergers. This is a blog. I am writing my own thoughts and experiences. I am entitled to an opinion even if you do not like it.

    2. MOSSAD, the CIA and ASIO must be indulging in a bit of mutual backslapping and celebration this week They destroyed Julian Assange's attempt to get elected to the federal parliament by relying on a bunch of ego driven amateur dimwits to do their job for them. What a joke...And it didn't cost them a cent....or did it...?

    3. If you've sent 80,000 tweets then you understand the way media works.

      If you've defended Assange in the past then you know the terrifying array of forces aligned against him.

      So your decision to dish the dirt on the WLP and to expose your personal knowledge of the Assange family cannot be defended on the grounds of ignorance.

      While you swan around attending minor protests in the tropics, Assange is trapped in a room, no doubt grappling legion external and internal demons.

      Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but don't pretend you are fighting for Assange when you are an active player in destroying the organisation he founded.

  22. The moral midgets and process freaks who set out to destroy the Wikileaks party and any chance that Julian Assange had of being returned to Australia because of his changed status as an elected member of parliament...can now return to their lifelong obsession....polishing their own aura....the party as I see it is better off without them....congratulations to those who stuck with the party, worked their arses off and didn't look for an excuse to bail when the going got tough...cowards make heroes...cheers...Brian

  23. I quit WikiLeaks Party in disgust during election campaign and commend you on making this statement Gary. I had no idea about the Ashby connection... I don't quite have words to adequately describe my feelings of disappointment right now. Very big sigh

    1. • Conscientious citizen has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.

  24. Sounds like the lead candidate is a bit pissed off with you.

  25. "After years of dedicated support for WikiLeaks, I felt gutted"! As instead of the formal attestation, WLP foundation member (used for the purpose of registering the party) faced their cavalier styled email: "With the election date set for Sept 7 exciting days lie ahead as we take the fight to Canberra. We're pleased to link to your WikiLeaks Party membership card. Simply fill in your name and your unique membership number 645 and you are ready to print or share a copy on Facebook, Twitter and beyond. We're proud to have you with us. Let everyone know you're part of the party that stands for Transparency, Accountability and Justice"!

    Whereas earlier, 18 Apr 2013 email from John Shipton, Secretary WikiLeaks Party informed me: "Dear Leo, thank you for your application (dated 3 Apr 2013) to join the WikiLeaks Party, I am pleased to advise that your membership is now confirmed. As a foundation member of the party you may be contacted by the Australian Electoral Commission to confirm your membership for the purpose of registering the party. The AEC will check 50 of our first 550 members by phone or email. Your assistance in providing this confirmation to the AEC is appreciated".

  26. "I suspect there was a deliberate attempt to marginalise people in the party who were deemed by the leadership to be"... expendable fools!

    • No wonder foundation member such as myself, exploited for the purpose of registering the party, was told: "Simply fill in your name and your unique membership number 645 and you are ready to print or share a copy on Facebook".

    Whatever such a "share a copy" suggestion, supposed to mean? When undoubtedly membership number 645 allocated to me on the false pretences, surpassed the maximum 550 foundation members extent -- acceptable by the Australian Electoral Commission for the purpose of registering the party -- following superficial scrutiny.

  27. "I am writing this now because I believe the explanations for what went wrong need to be public"! Starting with the clarification concerning 500 foundation members role beyond the fulfilment AEC prerequisite in registering political party. Set up to uphold the democratic values! Otherwise, why would be essential to have 500 foundation members in the first place?

    "OK, so we have a national council. All right you've got to kick off somewhere but if this is to be a 'party' in the true sense of the word then we all have to have a voice", insisted Scott Dunmore early in May 2013. "What sort of blog site is this? No discussion thus far and no editorial feedback". Seconded by Linda Steven: "I agree with Scott Dunmore on a number of his points, I too think a members only area of the site would be appropriate"!

    "Well said Linda, at least I know someone is out there. You understand where I'm coming from. Until I have assurance that this so called 'party' is more than a clique asking for foot soldiers, I'm not about to vote for it, let alone part with my hard earneds", declared Scott Dunmore. "Am I correct in thinking that this was originally going to be Julian's Blog? I joined the Party because I believed in many of the principles that Julian has voiced", wondered Linda Steven.

    "I think we all understand the principle on which the party was founded, but if you think Wikileaks is going to swan into the senate without disclosing where it stands on a range of issues, forget about my vote. Let me explain how democracy works: You get a bunch of people together that share a commonality of mindset, stiff them twenty bucks, come up with proposals by consensus, find out where the common ground is and move on from there. What's coming across is a self serving clique disdaining all outside opinion and touting for money and canon fodder", concluded Scott Dunmore.

  28. • Electoral Act stipulates that the political party must meet the membership criterion of at least 500 members. The AEC checks 50 of first 550 members, so assistance in providing my membership confirmation to the AEC was sought by the WLP. Hell-bent to allocate then membership No: 645 on the false pretences! Obviously I am not alone ripped-off of the entitlement. How about you? Compare chain of events provided for your perusal:

    On 18 Apr 2013 email from John Shipton, Secretary WikiLeaks Party informed me: "Dear Leo, thank you for your application (dated 3 Apr 2013) to join the WikiLeaks Party, I am pleased to advise that your membership (No:???) is now confirmed". However, no membership card or a letter of attestation ever received to confirm its authenticity.

    On 23 Apr 2013, the Australian Electoral Commission received an application from The WikiLeaks Party to be registered as a political party. Preceded by the WikiLeaks Party emails dispatch (18 Apr 2013) to the deceived citizens such as myself:

    "As a foundation member of the party you may be contacted by the Australian Electoral Commission to confirm your membership for the purpose of registering the party. The AEC will check 50 of our first 550 members by phone or email. Your assistance in providing this confirmation to the AEC is appreciated".

    Consequently, WikiLeaks Party was registered on 1 July 2013, on the false pretences. Sadly, no oversight by AEC to stamp out diabolical exploitation of the misled citizens. Culminating with scores devastated Julian Assange supports such as myself, agonising in vain since the (6 Aug 2013) received WLP email:

    "With the election date set for Sept 7 exciting days lie ahead as we take the fight to Canberra. We're pleased to link to your WikiLeaks Party membership card. Simply fill in your name and your unique membership number 645 and you are ready to print or share a copy on Facebook, Twitter and beyond. We're proud to have you with us. Let everyone know you're part of the party that stands for Transparency, Accountability and Justice"!

  29. Applied online 4 Apr 2013 to join the WLP. John Shipton, Secretary WLP wrote on 18 Apr 2013 at 23:50 ..."Dear Sue, thank you for your application to join the WikiLeaks Party, I am pleased to advise that your membership (No: ???) is now confirmed. As a foundation member of the party you may be contacted by the Australian Electoral Commission to confirm your membership for the purpose of registering the party. The AEC will check 50 of our first 550 members by phone or email. Your assistance in providing this confirmation to the AEC is appreciated".

    Subsequently, 5 Aug 2013 email sent at 23:59 from the WLP advised the foundation member used for the purpose of registering the party: "Dear Sue, we're proud to have you with us. With the election date set for Sept 7 exciting days lie ahead as we take the fight to Canberra. We're pleased to link to your WikiLeaks Party membership card. Simply fill in your name and your unique membership number 701 and you are ready to print your WikiLeaks Party membership card ... Let everyone know you're part of the party that stands for Transparency, Accountability and Justice"!

  30. • Welcome onboard, Sue. Obviously we're not alone ripped-off of the entitlement by the shonks, shysters and scammers. As a foundation member of a party that purported to hold itself to the highest principles of transparency, accountability and justice -- nevertheless being taken for a ride -- I feel your pain! Feeling like (Bruce) I'd been set up and this was a "principled" party in name only. Party which ostensibly believes that truthful, accurate, factual information is the foundation of democracy. Essential to the protection of human rights and freedoms!

    Where the truth is suppressed or distorted, corruption and injustice flourish, avowed WLP while giving insider accounts of the corrupt media system where controversial reports are suppressed, people are censored for speaking out, their lives are shattered. Precisely copped by me at the WLP debate forum where a party member of the impeccable integrity has been vilified, name soiled and dragged through the mud in succession.

    Whatever it takes to trash personality of the moral citizen who relied on civic courage, nourished by the championed truthfulness to shine a light on injustice and corruption in the era of universal deceit.

    Consequently, debate forum was sabotaged, topic locked and uprooted from the general discussion. Relegated out-of-sight out-of-mind into oblivion!

  31. • Likewise intimidated Liz, beset by the wolves gang (shadowing WLP debate forum) nowhere to be found. Since the shared opinion by the health freedoms proponent:

    "I am massively concerned about GM foods, fluoridated water, and a one-size-fits all approach to vaccines. I believe that science is not static, it should always be questioned and that we the people need to take more control over our own health. I also believe there is a heavy bias in mainstream media in favour of the agenda of those with vested interests. I hope that Wikileaks will work to preserve our right to determine what we put into our own bodies and make sure that we are always have a voice -- even on controversial issues -- that some groups would rather we don't talk about".

  32. "I believe in facts about conspiracies"! "Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there's enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news".

    What about 9/11? "I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud". What about the Bilderberg conference? "That is vaguely conspiratorial, in a networking sense. We have published their meeting notes".

    Since when did WikiLeaks become the tip of the spear in the global war for truth, transparency, knowledge, and freedom? An organization that rejects the truth that 9/11 was an inside job is not working to promote transparency, free speech, and truth, but more nefarious causes.

    Those who seek to marginalize the global 9/11 truth and justice movement are not on the right side of history. The official 9/11 fable does not rest on solid foundations, but on totalitarian propaganda and trauma-based collective brainwashing. By endorsing the 9/11 fable, WikiLeaks proved itself to be a compromised organization that has no interest in revealing secret truths to the masses of the world.

  33. Andrew Crook wrote: Although Julian Assange has claimed the WikiLeaks preference deal was an "administrative error", leaked emails reveal Assange was behind the controversial deal. A damning internal email trail from inside the WikiLeaks Party has revealed that Julian Assange was intimately involved in the Senate preference debacle that led to the party's implosion.

    Leaked emails sent by Assange (obtained by Crikey) lay bare the internal war that consumed the transparency advocates and show how the self-described "president" and "party leader" tried to railroad democratic processes and impose the will of a small clique of acolytes.

    Under the subject line "NC (national council) micromanagement of preferences", Assange, the lead Victorian Senate candidate, slammed the council and suggested it should become a rubber stamp for decisions taken by individual candidates!

  34. David Haidon wrote: Meeting Monday 19th of August. We start at 11:30 amish when everyone gets there. After much yelling and tears we decide on the idea of an independent review. It is agreed that it is the only way to get this all sorted out with any integrity intact. Myself, Sam, Kaz, and the others in the office leave Greg Barns and go to discuss details of the review to present to the NC. There is resistance from some on NC.

    Tuesday morning: Review has more traction now. NC have basically agreed it shall happen. Just working on the details. I'm fielding phone calls from volunteers wanting to know what is going on. We have a volunteer meeting that night, 50 odd people are there. Spend most of the time discussing what has happened. People are pretty upset, but say that we should have the review as soon as possible.

    Wednesday morning: John Shipton tries to call me, but I'm in the city loop and can't take his call. I get to the office and see Sam, Kaz and Leslie Cannold are at a cafe across the road. Daniel Mathews joins us. Review looks in jeopardy again. Then it's not. Then we are waiting for Julian to have a say on the statement. It goes out. Ok again we can get back to work. Leslie is having continued doubts about what is happening. I leave a message with John Shipton that he can call me back any time.

    John calls Sean Bedlam, social media captain, and says that he is taking direct control of the campaign and is circumventing the National Council. He then calls me back and says the same thing to me, "You and Sean have to make myself and Gregory the point of reference and bypass the National Council because they are a bunch of raving fucking lunatics"! Huh? Is he saying that we now need to circumvent the democratic processes of the party?

    Resignation statements start being written! The small office we are in starts to smell of sweat and tears. Pete Green, National Volunteer Coordinator, say he has to leave, he doesn't want to be a part of this. He was originally hired by Greg, so we are not sure if he will go straight to him and tell him what is happening. Pete insists that he won't, I believe him, but it is making everyone very nervous.

    People are insisting we give the NC one last chance to fix this. Sam and Kaz email everyone. No answer. Greg calls Leslie to scold her for sending out a tweet he didn't like earlier this day. They start calling other council members, discussions are held. Time to call London. They message Julian's assistant, it's 7am there, he should be able to answer. Nothing!

    John Shipton calls Kaz and threatens her with legal action if she opposes him running the internal review. Has he gone mad? Leslie says she can't wait. She posts her statement ...

  35. WACA
    @KealohaDudoit @wikileaks This is Kaz. WACA have been discussing name change for 10wks.our resources are our own.this change will come soon.

    10 weeks, eh? That would make it the first week in August that akaWACA were thinking of changing their name. If anyone cannot see by now that the whole National Council debacle and rage quit wasn't really about a mistake in the preferences ordering on the ballot paper, then they are blind. Sam Castro made a powergrab in the NC and tried to hijack the Wikileaks Party to her own political project. When it failed she rage-quit, taking her accolates (and Dan Mathews - I don't include him. I kind of assume he didn't have the full picture on what was really going on) with her, then immediately started a high-profile campaign (leaks to media, smears of her "opponents", lying to the supporter base on twitter) to destroy the WLP. Clear as day that's what happened, to me. Seems to be what WL are saying too:

    @akaWACA @KealohaDudoit Ten weeks well preceeds our request and reflects that akaWACA is a power vehicle and does not put WikiLeaks first.

    @AnonOpsAU Of course not. Almost all are good people. Sam Castro operates WACA for her own ambitions. Others are recruited in our name.

  36. Halle-bloody-lujah. FINALLY the truth is getting out. It's great that it's a candidate from the Sex Party saying this about what happened with the Wikileaks Party preferences and their attempts to join the Minor Party Alliance:

    "Wikileaks were players who made a couple of genuine administrative errors in their final preferences."


    "At one stage, a young and inexperienced staffer who had mistakenly allocated a high preference vote to Australia First thinking it was Australian Voice, was so bombarded with hate mail by Greens supporters, that she went into hiding." < not sure if that's referring to Cass Findlay or Gail Malone.

    So, I was almost right. I guessed the mistake was mixing up the Family First and Australia First parties; in fact, it was Australian Voice and Australia First. Still, close - and I'd like that cigar please anyway.

    1. Disgruntled comments from a Greens-bashing rant from the Sex Party? Not exactly a substitute for a proper explanation is it?.

  37. exactly, which one is yours? are you asking for answers when you are yet assuming?? stop assuming and the answers will come, if you're worthy of receiving them at least..

  38. Whoops! Looks like akaWACA just admitted that they knew all along that the "WLP preferences far-right parties" was a simple human error mistake:

    So, what was all that fuss and smearing akaWACA did all about, eh? It wouldn't have been, by any chance, a diversionary tactic to distract from their own coup attempt to take over the top spot of the Wikileaks Party, would it?

    Like I said right at the beginning, akaWACA didn't give a fucking shit about what they were doing to the lead candidate's chances of getting out of the Ecuador embassy, as long as they protected themselves from any fall-out from their own thwarted - and over-reaching - political ambitions.

    No wonder Assange has disowned the kind of "support" akaWACA offers now. When are they going to stop feeding off Wikileaks' reputation and take the word out of their bloody name, as requested?

    Sorry Gary, I know Sean Bedlam was a friend of yours so it's understandable which way your initial sympathies and belief would go, but honestly mate, you got conned. It's no surprise that you are now completely confused when what you've come to believe is the "climate change deniers, Greens-bashing" WikiLeaks Party tweets the Environment Chapter of the TPP - you got fed so much bullshit right at the start that your beliefs about the Wikileaks Party are now fundamentally "locked in" and it's impossible for you to see them with an open mind. I am so sorry that that was done to you, as you were such a great supporter of Wikileaks and now your effectiveness has been well and truly damaged.

    1. 1. WACA did not admit that in the tweet, although I can understand why you interpret it that way. Even if WACA thinks that, who is to know for sure without some proof including testimony from Cassie, Gail etc?

      2. Even if NSW was a human error, what about WA?

      3. If NSW was really just human error, why not admit that and publish some honest inquiry results for all the world to see? This is not just about ME, which is why I keep pushing it publicly. A political party running on a transparency and accountability party has to live up to those values or it is just a joke.

      4. Sean Bedlam's treatment did not influence my opinions, so don't pretend it did. I have never met him, and only got to know him slightly through WLP before all this shit went down. Of course I now consider him a friend, given how he has been treated, how he has responded, and how he continues working to inspire others.

      5. I have been told that WLP CEO John Shipton circulated emails claiming man-made global warming is a hoax and the WLP blog still post climate denialist nonsense. Many still associated with WLP are disgruntled ex-Greens and I have seen many of them publicly blaming the Greens for the WLP election result. Unless things change, there is no denying that WikiLeaks Party are "climate change deniers" and Greens-bashers. This is having a damaging effect on WikiLeaks reputation, as my RTs show. WikiLeaks needs to explain their stance on this.

      6. Why are you posting this anonymously? Why is it so fucking hard for ANYONE associated with WLP to be honest IN PUBLIC? What have you all got to hide? How do you expect me or anyone else to take you seriously when you whisper like children behind the toilet shed, constantly blaming others instead of manning up and giving a public account for your own actions?

      Now we have Greg Barns and Gail Malone threatening to sue people for defamation? Sorry, but this is way beyond a joke. It is time for WikiLeaks to admit that this experiment has failed. If Julian doesn't want to shut down the party he should at least change the name - how about the Denialist Libertarian Party?

  39. Hi Gary,

    Thanks for that detailed response. It all makes sense to me, even though I disagree with some of it.

    While I insist on my right to post anonymously, I can see that your views on the Wikileaks Party are so entrenched by now that it is somewhat automatic for you to assume that any view that opposes your own must somehow come from the Wikileaks Party themselves. However, I want to assure you that I have no connection whatsoever with WLP - none at all; I have never met nor spoken to a single WLP member. These are the views of an outsider, who happens to have some inside knowledge of what really went on. I too, like you, will be very very glad when it all comes out in the inquiry. I've had a LOT more patience than you have had about the delay in the facts being published (because I personally can't tell from the terms of reference of the inquiry just how much work is involved for the outside auditor, so I feel I can't judge whether the delay is appropriate or to be expected), but I sympathise with you that it does seem to be taking a very long time.

    1. PS. I should add that I think it is correct that the Wikileaks Party people do NOT make public statements ahead of the results of an official enquiry. It would be deeply unprofessional. Where you see "hiding" and "dishonesty" I see "restraint" and "professionalism". Our difference of opinion on that I think are, to some extent at least, the result of your views having been formed early in this scandal by being much closer to, and believing, the huge amount of high-profile media smearing and selective leaking that went on right at the start. As I said, I think your opinions got "locked in" at that stage and you are now quite prejudiced against the Party. Nothing they say publicly now can change your mind; you will never forgive them a single wrong step, even if you later find out that you were originally misled and your views are based on false information. For example, you "were told" that John Shipton ciculated climate change-denying emails - I assume from that you don't know whether that allegation is true or not; nevertheless, it fits your now-set-in-stone views about some schism between Wikileaks Party and Greens Party, so you are happy to believe it regardless. Personally, I DO remember seeing some pretty below-the-belt tactics in print and in social media from the Greens against WLP - almost to be expected in an election - and can't see how the Wikileaks Party is in any way climate-denialist. They are tweeting about the TPP Environment chapter, I've read articles on their website that give a "climate change is definitely happening" slant. Perhaps they are simply posting BOTH sides of the climate change argument, or posting the odd "counter-factual" piece, without necessarily taking a side?

  40. Sorry, one last thing. Here's a tweet of yours from yesterday.

    So do Assange &@wikileaks disagree with @wikileaksparty & @johnshipton who think man-made global warming is a hoax? Can we clarify this now?

    Above in this blog you've said " I HAVE BEEN TOLD that WLP CEO John Shipton circulated emails claiming man-made global warming is a hoax" but here you are re-stating what you only know as having "been told" - essentially hearsay - as a FACT on twitter. Can you not see how wrong that is? Why are you surprised that people in Wikileaks Party think you might have to be slapped with a defamation lawsuit? That is exactly what you are doing - defaming someone by publicly stating hearsay as fact! You're a journalist, right? How on earth can you not understand how wrong it is to potentially libel someone based on hearsay evidence?

    Do you see now why I make statements like "I am so sorry that that was done to you [ie. your views got poisoned early on and are now 'locked in'] as you were such a great supporter of Wikileaks and now your effectiveness has been well and truly damaged."?

    1. Shipton's climate denialism has been confirmed to me by multiple sources who are in a position to know. That would be sufficient for any journo. I have given Shipton and WLP plenty of opportunities to deny it. They have not.

      Now you come out with the usual bullshit anonymous threats of defamation cases? Fuck off.

    2. Let me guess the names of those "multiple (insider or ex-insider?) sources...

      Sure, that's why you have to resort to "They are schizophrenic" when you are hopelessly confused by the fact of Wikileaks Party tweeting out links to scientific reports proving that climate change is a reality. I would have said that was ample rebuttal/answer to your belligerent Twitter campaign for answers/"plenty of opportunities to deny it".

      Do you not see how your obsessive focus on the "John Shipton as idiot/scourge of the earth/Hitler meme is distracting you from giving Julian Assange any real support? For example, there have been a couple of significant items about the Swedish farce come out recently that you missed entirely. Or, at least, you didn't bother to retweet them. Too busy, I guess...

  41. Gary, you should stop, you really should.

    Danish Doctor Offers Ten Myths About Psychotropic Drugs. By Pete Calautti #WLParty #auspol

    Looks like @WikiLeaksParty is supporting psychotropic drug use now. I don't remember THAT being in the Constitution either... #EndWLparty

    You didn't even read the link in WLP's tweet, did you? If you had, you'd have seen that the article they are promoting is clearly AGAINST pyschotropic drugs.

    You're beginning to embarrass yourself with this blind hatred and chronic impulsiveness. You're gonna end up wrecking your own reputation if you don't stop this, mate.

    1. Supporting or opposing, what is the difference? What has this got to do with WikiLeaks? How does this help get Julian Assange out of the Ecuadorean Embassy? Why are you WLP defenders always anonymous?

      Pfft! Fuck off.

    2. But I'm not suggesting you stop criticising Wikileaks Party - that's your right. I'm suggesting you research your facts BEFORE you do so. "Supporting or opposing, what is the difference?" - that wasn't the point of my post. The point was that you MISTAKENLY leapt onto something - anything - you could find that you thought you could use to criticise WLP. And you got it wrong, thereby damaging your own reputation as a "truth-seeker". Don't you see that if you try TOO HARD to smear an organisation, and you repeatedly get your facts wrong, it's gonna rebound on you? You want to continue to be taken seriously as a social media commenter, right? My suggestion is meant to help you get back on track.

    3. "Danish Doctor Offers Ten Myths About Psychotropic Drugs" - why should I bother reading that shit? Fuck off.