Even this morning the story will not go away.
Dredging the last drop of interest out of him todays press tells of him being under police investigations, again.
This time for not wearing a seat belt while being interviewed in a car by the ABC.
How did this man get the idea the law he applied to so many did not mean him too?
I am so very sorry, not that he is in prison, but that he lied, that so many he sent to prison now are in far worse conditions than he will be in serving his term.
Power and privilege , so badly miss used shame on you bloke.

Belly, it's not merely power and privilege that have been abused, but the trust and esteem of the nation for a "living treasure". His lawyers tried to use this status as an extenuating circumstance, but to me it makes the offences worse.

If nothing else, it shows that many of those we look up to have feet not just of clay, but built of the freshest manure.

This perfoemance must also make one wonder how many of the matters heard by Mr Einfeld were properly adjudicated. If he is incapable of exercising fair judgement on a simple traffic matter as it pertains to himself, how much less capable must he be of doing so in more serious matters involving others?

As expensive as it may be, i'd like to see a proper review of all matters heard by Einfeld that have not been previously appealled.

Spot on, Belly.

It was clear from his performance Monday's Four Corners programme that the man still has no concept of right and wrong, as it applies to himself.

I confess to being a little biased, having met the man and having found him to be little more than a posturing, arrogant, self-important buffoon. But his categorization of his total lack of ethics as "a mistake" is jaw-dropping. One can only imagine his treatment of a felon in front of him in court, who attempted the same rationale to excuse his crime.

You are right also to point out, Belly, that the biggest insult to the rest of us, though, will be the kid-glove treatment he receives during his incarceration, compared with the conditions to which this fundamentally criminal individual has condemned others.

"You are right also to point out, Belly, that the biggest insult to the rest of us, though, will be the kid-glove treatment he receives during his incarceration, compared with the conditions to which this fundamentally criminal individual has condemned others."

Pericles,

I agree that Einfeld's rationale for his behaviour was unethical and pathetic.

At least Einfeld has had a very public fall from grace that the ordinary criminal does not. As he said in the program, that's the cross he has to bear, probably for the rest of his life.

Which of us has never told a lie? Then told another, to cover the first?

Oh, how we like to stick the boots in when the man is down and nearly out. A national sport?

suddenly we believe in absolutes (right and wrong). Wow what a surprise!

Dear Belly,

The man has been very publicly shamed for
lying about a minor traffic offence -
let's put things into their proper perspective
here, please.

Were he not who he is - would it even have
attracted any media attention?

Let's not read anything more into it. He lied,
so he's human. He got caught out, now he's
going to pay for it in jail.

What else should be done - have him crucified?

Foxy, you appear to have missed the fact that he was a Judge, one of those appointed to sit in Judgment upon the rest, and to uphold the Rule of Law. That role carries many benefits,and responsibilities, one of which is to OBEY the law. A firie who sets fires, a police officer who steals, a soldier who kills civilians, anyone who crosses the line of their duties, is far worse than Joe Bloggs committing the same offence, IMO.
And to watch his supercilious contempt was insulting to the rest of us.
Unfortunately, half a life spent watching and listening to his peers has convinced ME that his attitude is commonplace, and he will bear no disgrace amongst them, in fact he will actually gain sympathy because the "serfs" have made him answer for it!
I'm willing to bet he will be out in under a year, probably for "health" reasons. The fact that he will keep his generous pension is the final straw, that's obscene!

I still think Belly has a valid point - which is that even in punishment, there is one law for the rich-and-famous, and another for the rest of us.

Spikey asks:

>>Which of us has never told a lie? Then told another, to cover the first?<<

The judge described his actions as "deliberate, premeditated perjury", which is a couple of steps up from lying. Einfeld's involved a statutory declaration, and I can safely say that I have never once told that kind of lie. Hizzonner also pointed out that "...Einfeld had engaged in 'planned criminal activity'" and proceeded to detail the "numerous lies in his police statement".

I can assure you, Spikey, hand on heart, that I have never made a false statement of any kind to the police.

And Foxy, your heart is so full of kindness that you are prepared overlook the seriousness of Einfeld's actions.

>>The man has been very publicly shamed for lying about a minor traffic offence - let's put things into their proper perspective
here, please.<<

I believe that the proper perspective is that his disgrace diminishes us all. If our "national treasures" behave this way, what does that say about the rest of us?

>>He got caught out, now he's going to pay for it in jail<<

If he were being sent to the same jails that he has sent those less privileged than himself, I would accept that it is a fair punishment.

However, I suspect he will be going to a suite in the Alan Bond wing of an open prison somewhere in the pleasant NSW countryside.

Pericles,

I mostly think your posts rational and well considered, but your performance on this topic is below par. I'm surprised to see you joining the baying crowd.

On the basis of having met the man (how often, for how long, and under what circumstances?) you declare him to be "little more than a posturing, arrogant, self-important buffoon". You told him this to his face I presume, and gave him a chance to defend himself?

On the basis of a TV show you conclude "the man still has no concept of right and wrong, as it applies to himself". I wish I could make such sweeping conclusions on such tenuous evidence.

You simplistically conflate the punishment of going to gaol with being punished in gaol. Furthermore you assume without any evidence that he will receive "kid-glove treatment". "I suspect he will be going to a suite in the Alan Bond wing of an open prison somewhere in the pleasant NSW countryside."

I presume he will be incarcerated in a manner appropriate to the circumstances of his crime (perjury), his age (70) and his former occupation (judge). Would you have him locked up with the people who came before him when he was a sentencing judge? They could slip the boot in too. Would that make you feel better?

You engage in empty, tabloid rhetoric: "If our "national treasures" behave this way, what does that say about the rest of us?" Personally, I think it says nothing at all about me or anyone else in my circle of family, friends, colleagues or acquaintances.

I wonder why you want to sink the slipper so viciously? The man has been tried, convicted and sentenced - as appropriate. What more do you want?

Dear Max,

I may have missed the point as you say, but
I'm judging his actions, i.e what he did
as a private individual, not as a judge.

Can't the two be separated in your opinion?
Or do you believe, that as an individual he
should be 'infallible,' like the Pope?

It's my very own, personal opinion, Spikey. It wasn't intended to be a crowd-pleaser.

>>...your performance on this topic is below par. I'm surprised to see you joining the baying crowd.<<

My overreaction is principally driven by the sight of someone in a position of great moral responsibility, trashing the entire concept of ethics, and of behaving ethically.

>>You engage in empty, tabloid rhetoric: "If our "national treasures" behave this way, what does that say about the rest of us?" Personally, I think it says nothing at all about me or anyone else in my circle of family, friends, colleagues or acquaintances.<<

Good for you. But my view is echoed by the man himself.

"It's all criminal and it's wrong and ah, and it's not just morally wrong either by the way, it's communally wrong. And if people break those rules like I did, ah the society will collapse in anarchy, and it's as bad as that, because people could be lying every day." (ABC Four Corners)

Here are some of his utterings on the programme that brought the bile to my throat.

"I don't think I'm in the slightest bit dishonest. I just made a mistake"

"I think I genuinely believed that I was not the driver of the car on the day."

"This morning at about nine o'clock my lawyers delivered a comprehensive dossier to investigating police. This information establishes that I was not driving my car which was photographed by a speed camera on the day in question. I stand by that."

"I never lie in statutory declarations if I can conceivably have any hope of it being true. I never tell untruths. There may be occasions when I've made mistakes in memory and things of this kind. And in details. I may have. I don't know."

"There were three events plus this one. I've admitted to this one. If I'd been called upon to meet the others I might have admitted to one of those when I'd got the facts and I'd checked up on them."

That last statement, from a national treasure.

Priceless.

Max and Pericles are partially correct he did commit a crime then tried to pervert the course of justice. And yes he has the obligation to set an example but under the law everyone is equal.

He has served the country well and he may well be someone whose personality is uppity but again in both law and logic this is irrelevant.

I didn’t watch the four corners on principal it was more cashing in on the lowest common denominator emotional hyped up irrelevant pap.
Tell me how this program did:
• Inform you with knowledge that you NEEDED to know?
• Was it ‘really’ interesting?
• How is this knowledge relevant to your lives?
• Is this your view of entertainment?
IMO if it’s none of the above why watch the trash.

Class indignation aside it was a man who was guilty of a traffic breach and trying to pervert the course of justice who ultimately got his come uppings. If he was Joe Glockshmidt a labourer would you be interested?
So in essence this topic has traction/coverage in the bottom feeding media is because of his status (he wasn’t paid squillions as a public figure pop star etc) and therefore based on “status envy”. I’m with Spikey on this one what do you want …selling seats to watch him being thrown to the savage animals at the MCG.
Final the suggestion that he won’t carry any extra penalty because of his status is both preposterous and based on ignorance. The impact on his family would be considerable and they did nothing yet the media hounded them too. Do you seriously think that this doesn’t have pressure and he won’t feel guilty for it? Sorry Belly old mate you missed the bus on this one.

Former Judge Einfield showed like every other human that he was born of a corruptible seed. In this matter he is no difference from you, me or anyone else. He like most is in denial having be quoted as saying that he considers himself an honest person.

Personally I feel sorry for him as he has paid a much higher price than most for a 'minor' crime. Recently a man who raped a 4 year old girl walked free from court (suspended sentence). The sentence seemed particularly harsh in light of this. Like most though he seems to be in denial when it comes to the sorry spiritual state of the human heart. Thank God Christ is able to change and cleanse a person's corrupt heart and mind.

I too think he is a pompous fool, a snob, much like those who live in Bowral and surrounds and imitate English men.
But he was a living treasure, even I thought of him as such.
He was charged to deliver the law, how can he or anyone say he is an honest man?
Such as he, not only here but in England and America do prison time in luxury compared to others.
He will get early release, he will bet on it, Foxy we differ here.
He is no normal person, life has rewarded him, his own efforts and education helped, but the law he disgraced got him to the top.
Aussie do not without reason put the boot in, this bloke is no under dog, he would walk past you and I without a glance on the street, he has earned my disrespect.

Belly
Perhaps he's the bigest ass in history but were his family to blame.
I have a fool proof way to handle pigs ignore them. "Time heals all wounds and wounds all heels." He got what was comming to him. Remember the bigger they are the harder they take the fall. Look at the "borg's" concession speech twitter and bisted or what. Was he really tring to convince us that the LNP didn't get up to personal attacks and half truths?
Anyway I'm not excusing him but the media is as usual well out of line I consider his family. and as I sad it's a 10th class issue.
But I guess we will have to agree to disagree old mate.:-)

Dear Belly,

You know how highly I respect your
point of view. Your integrity is beyond
reproach. And I have to admit that I'm
biased - as far a Marcus Einfeld is
concerned. To me he's always represented
a man whose heart was in the right place.
He stood up for so many important issues -
especially in the Human Rights Commission.

That's why I suppose considering how much
good the man did in the past - I find it
difficult to judge his life so severely
because of one lousy traffic ticket.

I guess I'm looking at the bigger picture,
and I don't think one mistake can possibly
wipe out the good done in the past.

Think about it.

Possibly Einfeld was once an honest person who tried to live an upright life. I think the power to sit in judgment upon others as a judge is ultimately corrupting. A judge can get to feel above the common herd. A possible remedy is to have judges sit for only short terms. The knowledge that a judge will in a short be dealing with lawyers appearing before him as one of their colleagues may have a restraining effect. Judges have been given long terms with the expectation that they will be insulated from politics. I think the result in many cases is that they may get corrupted due to their isolation and lack of accountability.

Maybe its just me, but I find this whole saga a bit Shakespearian. You know the drill, heroic character undone by their own character flaws. Granted, Marcus Einfeld isn't exactly King Lear, but he's been laid low by his own hubris.

Foxy asks whether "one mistake can possibly wipe out the good done in the past." Its a good question Foxy. The answer hinges on how we define a "mistake". I've certainly made plenty of mistakes in my life, and none of them have destroyed my reputation or landed me in gaol. But then I haven't lied under oath.

Did Einfeld make an honest mistake, or did he knowingly lie? Having been caught up in his first "mistake" he compounded it with 20-page stat dec full of the most absurd untruths. If he had confessed to his first "mistake" he might have got away with a fine and a bond. But it fits an ongoing pattern of deception. As I said at the start, hubris brought him undone.

Belly says "I too think he is a pompous fool, a snob, much like those who live in Bowral and surrounds and imitate English men." If that's the case Belly, then his late father must be turning in his grave. Syd Einfeld was a man of the people, who never forgot the underprivileged. I can't imagine Syd ever lied to evade a speeding fine.

Foxy and examinator, you both have points I can not Dennie, in fact partly agree with.
I can not also hide my disappointment in the bloke, yes his father was a legend too, but here is why I think like that.
In my eyes apart from the things I said of his snobbery, he was a hero.
I spent some of my childhood in my fathers birth place Bowral, the holiday home of such as him.
You nearly had to take you hat of to walk past such as he.
BUT you had the feeling they indeed are everything we expect from gentlemen, law abiding and honest.
several posters ask was it an honest mistake?
no it was not he himself admitted that, tall poppy? yes he was a very tall poppy.
made so by his own education, work and commitment , he also held the knife that cut him down.
This morning, a hundred thousand mornings, some one will be sent to prison, their family will have few to defend them, they will serve time the hard way, our living legend will have it much better.
yes we Friends will have to differ on this on, my uncharitable words are bought on by disappointment.

johnj:"Did Einfeld make an honest mistake, or did he knowingly lie?"

According to miranda Devine, he has a long history of dishonesty that has been overlooked.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/moment-of-truth-for-audience-in-einfeld-downfall-20090325-9ah0.html?page=-1

I quote:"The pattern of deception apparent in even a superficial examination of his life shows that he gained a lot of kudos and reward from his fabrications, whether it was padding his Who's Who CV with dodgy degrees from American "diploma mills", or alleged plagiarism, or allegedly claiming a lost overcoat on expenses when he was head of the Human Rights Commission, having already lodged an insurance claim, or using the names of people living overseas in statutory declarations to evade traffic fines. A habit of dishonesty went unpunished."

It's not surprising. An honest, upright person does not suddenly make a "mistake" of this nature after a life in the Law.

I really cannot understand those who would seek to make apologetics on his behalf. If he had been a less public member of the judiciary, I'm sure the same people would have been baying for blood. Let's not forget that his "good" was all down to the roles in which he acted and that someone else may well have done just as much. As a person, it appears he is not someone you'd care to leave alone with the good silver.

While I hate to see anyone persecuted, Einfeld was one of a very small class of individuals with the extraordinary power to convene a political meeting, take a verdict from that meeting and have it equal an Act of Parliament. The fact that these bods are allergic to doing so, because the Parliament of the Commonwealth seems to have persuaded them that they shouldn’t is irrelevant.

S 83 of the Constitution allows a court to appropriate moneys directly from the treasury, and the Federal Court of Australia would be an extraordinary force for good, if it functioned as a court and fulfilled its true role as a public forum where issues affecting society could be debated and decided.

Einfeld is one of many Federal Court of Australia Judges who have failed to perform the allotted role of a Justice, simply because they have been misnamed Judge. He is where he belongs, but he should have the rest of the Judges of the Federal Court for company, because they have almost universally failed in the past thirty three years to do their public duty and convene political meetings in the Federal Court.

The Judicial Power of the Commonwealth demands that juries be called in all cases, not just in criminal matters, and if Einfeld and all his fellow judges were not such egomaniacs as to think they can replace Almighty God in the world, then Australia would be a much better place. As soon as Einfeld saw he was going to be placed before a jury he pleaded guilty.

The very right he denied to his fellow men in his role as a Judge was given to him and he like most criminals immediately pleaded guilty. The crying shame is that Judges are allowed at all. The word used in the Constitution is Justices, and the word judges is uncapitalised and plural. Perhaps he will get some psychiatric help while in jail, and be taught the fundamentals of understanding the English language. He should be joined by every other Judge who has denied his fellow Australians this basic political right

Section 28 of the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) says and I quote: Interfering with political liberty: Any person who by violence or intimidation of any kind hinders or interferes with the free exercise or performance by any other person of any political right shall be guilty of an offence. Penalty Imprisonment for three years.

The Judges of the High Court and Federal Court of Australia by sitting in conclave like a college of cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church, and making Islamic style rules, to deny the very basic political right to come to a court to all except the favoured few, should all join Einfeld in the pokey. The evidence is clearly printed and published in the Federal Court Rules as order 46 Rule 7A, and High Court Rules 2004 as Regulation 6.6 and 6.7. The Judges who made these Koranic rules even put their names to them.

Just in case you are a Federal Policeman, charged with chasing up people who stick it to these sacred cows, S 24F of the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) makes it perfectly legal to do so. It is not unlawful to point out in good faith that the Sovereign has been misled and deceived into consenting to unlawful legislation. What is unlawful is to deny people the political right to challenge these bad laws in a political meeting with power to rule them illegal.

The enormous amount of money Julia Gillard wasted on getting the IR laws repealed could just as easily have been achieved if Einfeld and his fellow Judges, had called together a political meeting with twelve electors, and on their verdict called them illegal. The violence that a judge can inflict on his fellow man should never be inflicted except on higher authority.

The rot started in 1952, when Menzies wanted absolute power, and was given it by a weak forelock tugging High Court. It has continued under Liberal and Labor governments alike, and the political right to call a government to account between elections by bringing their laws before a jury has been denied since then

I think since he was only a Judge, well, it's a pretty minor offence. If he was a Rugby League player though, well...

John Howard lied consistently throughout his career. Where were the Doc Martens then, eh?

What's motivating the pack this time?

Spikey:"ohn Howard lied consistently throughout his career. Where were the Doc Martens then, eh?

What's motivating the pack this time?"

So your defence of Einfeld is based two wrongs making a right?

P' the B', since you are far more informed than I, let me ask, would it be possible for a citizen, or group, or whatever, to start an action to remedy the situation as you describe it? It would appear the Court is failing in it's duty of care, or responsibility, or something, I don't have the legalese to cover what I'm trying to ask.
As for Einfeld, he is a clear demonstration of the superiority complex that has become all too common among the elite here. Take a look at how many Pollies are the relatives of pollies, Downer being the worst example, he's not even mediocre, but having been a successful lap-dog, is granted a sinecure, and doubled his already generous, obscenely so, pension in the process. I really fear we are evolving into a new Feudal system, as the computer age wipes out the middle-class, leaving only the Elite and a service class.

Antiseptic: "So your defence of Einfeld is based two wrongs making a right?"

Not at all. That's the problem when you come to a thread with a closed mind. I said plainly on Wednesday that: "The man has been tried, convicted and sentenced - as appropriate."

I can't be clearer than that, Antiseptic. He broke the law and has been tried and convicted.

I want to know why such a concerted vicious personal assault is being laid after the event. If it's lies from a man in high office that concerns the pack, then where were the braying hounds when John Howard did serious damage to the lives of thousands of innocent people with his repeated lies?

Pericles stands as spokesman: "My overreaction is principally driven by the sight of someone in a position of great moral responsibility, trashing the entire concept of ethics, and of behaving ethically."

Prime Ministers apparently are exempt.

I can't stand the stench of hypocrisy. Enough already

The baying hounds were baying mightily, but with the support Howard was getting from the media, it was hard to get them heard. There were many many people angry and saying so, but who was listening?
On top of that, as a member of parliament, virtually all his words were immune to legal action, by act of the same parliament.
I don't honestly think the two cases are comparable, the people concerned moved, and lied, in different area's of power. People now are very cynical about pollies lies, we almost expect them to, but look quite differently upon the Legal System, it's whole base is supposed to be about "The Truth", isn't it? Einfeld made a mockery of the whole of his life and deeds, Howard merely lived down to expectations, and we all made a mockery of HIM!

This thread is not about John Howard, Spikey.

>>Pericles stands as spokesman: "My overreaction is principally driven by the sight of someone in a position of great moral responsibility, trashing the entire concept of ethics, and of behaving ethically." Prime Ministers apparently are exempt.<<

Why should you assume that simply because I make my views known on Marcus Einfeld, I automatically exonerate John Howard from the same charges?

What kind of logic is that?

If you would like to canvass opinion on the ethics of Howard and his government, start another thread.

Incidentally, given the fairly even balance of views here (including the golden-hearted Foxy) don't you think that your description of it as "a concerted vicious personal assault" is a little over the top?

It would be a sad day if we were prevented from having opinions that diverge from yours, Spikey, simply because they make you uncomfortable.

And I'd be prepared to say what I have said to the man directly.

We have a new Attorney General in Queensland. Cameron Dick. He is Labor and Queensland is in desperate need of lots and lots of Federal money, money from anywhere would do.

Before the lawyers started their insidious takeover of the law, half the Crown revenue came from what are commonly known as qui tam actions. Put Qui Tam in Google and you will see it raises billions of dollars in revenue in the United States. All the legislation is in place in Australia to restore the Qui Tam action to its once spectacular revenue raising place. Judges are a prime target for such an action in Australia today as they attempt in a way not specially defined in the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) to pervert the course of justice in respect of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth every time they sit without a jury. All the Qui Tam legislation is Commonwealth with supplementary enactments in State Law.

The procedure was to institute a civil action for a penalty, as set out at the end of a section, in the Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth). This was done by filing in a Court, and the State Courts were all given this power in 1903. The formula for calculating the penalty is set out in S 4B Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) and for an individual the penalty is calculated by reference to section 4AA which sets a penalty unit at $110.

Section 4B gives the formula for calculating the amount to be claimed, and it is Term of Imprisonment x 5. The term is expressed in months, so 5 years jail is 60 months imprisonment. That is 300 multiplied by 110, so the fine to avoid jail, is $33,000 for an individual. If the offender is a company it is five times that again, so the amount $165,000. The Federal Court of Australia is a company and suable in the District Court of Queensland every time it sits without a jury, in the sum of $165,000 with $33,000 from the Judge. Continued

Perhaps we should be clear here. This was not a case of simply telling a lie, but one of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The fact that he has continued to lie about the issue suggests this is a pattern of behaviour.

"No, I'm not dishonest, no... I don't think I'm the slightest bit dishonest. I just made a mistake."
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/s2521031.htm

This clearly was not a simple mistake. It is not a matter of simply forgetting who was driving the car, his friend Theresa Brennan had died several years before he falsely declared she was driving the car.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,,25214980-17044,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25215177-601,00.html

Not only that, he convinced one of his friends to perjure herself on his behalf.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25036161-5001021,00.html

It appears from what I read in the news that this was not the first time Einfeld had falsely claimed Brennan had been driving his car after she had died.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/first-einfeld-episode-features-an-allfemale-cast/2007/12/10/1197135376011.html

As a former Judge, Einfield should have known better. In this he is exactly the same as Bernard Maldoff, who as an investment advisor should have known Ponzi schemes were illegal. We should treat them both with the same level of contempt.

The Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 provides in section 18X that if the Federal Court is sued the Commonwealth must pay. When a Judge sits without a jury he or she is acting administratively, so that proceedings against the Court and Judge, are underwritten by the Commonwealth. Since the States own the Courts in their territories, the revenue raised will go into State coffers. In Queensland S 42 and 43 Acts Interpretation Act 1954 means half goes to the prosecutor and half to the Crown, and it was very profitable to sue for these penalties.

Since 4 Hen 7 c 20 [1487] a penal action cannot be discharged by the order of a Judge. It can be discharged by payment of the money, or a jury trial and not otherwise. In most cases, when a jury trial is on offer as an alternative, the offender pleads guilty like Einfeld did, and would happily pay a penalty instead of enjoying Her Majesty’s hospitality at taxpayers expense.

I mean mate we would have to have the dumbest bunch of lawyers and law professors in the world to have allowed this system to fall into disuse. We would also have to have the dumbest bunch of Judges and Magistrates in the world to let themselves be fooled into sitting without juries.

It would pay to have a word with Cameron Dick. Every first offender should be offered a penalty instead of jail, and instead of paying his or her defence lawyers, pay half to the State and his good mate the prosecutor, and stay on the outside in paid employment. If he continued to offend he should probably do time, but the Magna Carta in Clause 14 gives the ultimate power to set the amount to be paid to a jury of locals. One of our posters said Cameron Dick is his local member.

I seriously suspect if Judges were given a choice to pay a fine or go to jail, they would give up some of their pension to do so. Einfeld included. My God how the money rolled in.

Peter the Believer, can you consider my earlier question, re' a legal action against the Court? It was titled to "P' the B'", on the previous page. Thanx in advance.

Not so Spikey please Spikey, I started the thread, and have bagged Johny short bottom here without end.
What has that little man got to do with this?, why are you defending this bloke?
He lied, yes he avoided other traffic fines this way, another poster highlights he has form for this type of stuff.
We all get bagged some times ,but you, well I do not become extremely rich on the public payroll while thieving from the rest of us.

Pericles: "And I'd be prepared to say what I have said to the man directly."

But when you met him you didn't, did you?

Belly: "why are you defending this bloke?"

For the third time, I say: "The man has been tried, convicted and sentenced - as appropriate." How is that to be read as defending him?

Why are posters so willing to misrepresent my position when it is perfectly clear and so unwilling to conceded that justice has prevailed? The full force of the law has been applied to someone who offended, as it should.

What I am asking is why is the attack pack so virulent? What is it that OLO posters are saying without having the guts to use the words?

I'm going to jump in for the last time
with my feelings on this subject - for
whatever it's worth (probably not much -
I'll wager). Anyway, here goes:

If you were to weigh up on the scales -
the achievements of Marcus Einfeld, for example:

1)As President of Human Rights Commission -
took a stand and spoke out against the
treatment of asylum seekers.

2)Took a stand and spoke out about child
poverty.

3)Managed to persuade his colleagues to
provide free legal advice and resources to
developing countries.

4)He worked towards improving the living conditions
of indigenous
people in the community of Toomelah, in northern NSW.
Housing, sewerage, roads, and water were all provided
thanks to Einfeld's efforts. Even a bridge was built
to allow locals to get out when the water was high.

And that's only some of Einfeld's achievements.
Balance them against a traffic ticket (for which
he's going to jail) - and how does it add up to you?
Are all these achievements to be wiped out by one
traffic ticket?

Now imagine yourself having to go before your maker
and account for the things you've done in your life.
Would your "checks and balances," be such a perfect
record that you're in a position to judge another's
failings?

I know my wouldn't be.

Foxy:"Are all these achievements to be wiped out by one
traffic ticket?"

There wasn't just "one traffic ticket", there was a history of dishonesty going back a long time. It appears his fellows in the Law knew of this habit but never said a thing. It all comes down to the fact that this fellow was prepared to accept the open kudos of a nation, whilst behaving in a manner that would have got a lesser light punished long ago, not to mention that over his career he swore several oaths to uphold the Law before taking up some of his offices. That he was a capable lawyer doesn't exonerate him of his failure, it increases his culpability.

spikey:"What is it that OLO posters are saying without having the guts to use the words?"

What are you suggesting, spikey, without having the guts to use the word? Anti-semitism? Hahahaha. I was wondering how long it would take. The Jewish Community has been conspicuously silent in his defence, now he's been convicted. It must be time to invoke the great conversation-stopper, eh?

The guy screwed up and got caught; his religion has nothing to do with it, other than that it may (among other factors) have played a part over the years in allowing him to get away with things he should have been punished for.

As for Howard, if anybody looks up my various utterances on that excresence on the arsehole of Australian politics, they'll find that my preferred name for him has been "Dishonest John" for years. I'd like to see him in the cell next to Einfeld, frankly.

Given that the guy was a Judge, do you think his crimes should be just swept under the carpet now he's been caught and convicted and that his reputation, which was based on integrity and fearless advocacy, should be untarnished? If so, would you feel the same way about other judges behaving badly?

Foxy, it wasn't a traffic ticket that was the problem. Einfeld is going to jail for attempting to pervert the course of justice. For attempting to undermine the legal systems of which he was a part. Had this been an isolated event, it may have been seen as an aberration, but it was not an isolated event.

Einfeld's good works still stand, but his actions will be forever tainted by his belief that he was above the law and his acting on that belief.

That's just petty, Spikey.

>>Pericles: "And I'd be prepared to say what I have said to the man directly." But when you met him you didn't, did you?<<

a) it was some years before all this hit the fan b) it was in a business context c) it is not considered polite, in most circles, to tell someone you have only known for a few hours that they are an arrogant bully.

It leaves a certain impression, though.

"What I am asking is why is the attack pack so virulent?"

Probably simply because many ordinary people who have in the past been on the wrong side of the law and who were hammered for doing something minor and could never say anything because they had no political voice, see his conviction as the trigger to blast the powers to be in general that have created/maintained/presided over that iniquitous situation in the past. It's just a spill-over of water over the dam wall. When a judge uses his privileged position to put himself above the law, and it becomes widely known, the fury of the public can reach fever pitch.

To some degree Einfeld is a lightning rod for general frustration and discontent and to some degree he is a fair target in my view.

Foxy,

His good deeds, if in fact that's what they are, will to some degree insulate him from the opprobrium coming his way. But that doesn't mean shouldn't get the return wave of what he himself has helped to create.

foxy:"I know my wouldn't be."

Nor, it appears, would Einfeld's.

There are lots of people who do good things who don't habitually behave dishonestly and very many of them aren't either lawyers or Judges.

I fail to see the logic behind your defence, Foxy.

My daughter, who's 12, is currently serving 2 weeks of lunchtime detentions for not only failing to do her homework, but failing to tell the truth when asked about it. She's also suffering a "grounding" at home for the same offences. IOW, this 12 year old girl is being punished for an initially trivial offence which she aggravated with dishonesty, She can legitimately claim to have "made a mistake", since this is her first experience of this type of behaviour. Einfeld, who is in very similar circumstances, is a 70 year old Judge and Human Rights Commissioner. By all accounts, he has done similar things while, at the same time, probably punishing people for similar things. He tried to perpetuate his lie in the face of evidence, thus he's not remotely contrite. He even said as much on Four Corners.

If anything, the DPP should be appealling the inadequacy of the sentence.

I understand what you're all saying.

And I suppose I am wrong.

However, I still find it difficult to blame
Marcus Einfeld. I admit I am biased. To me
the good he did in the overall scheme of things
outweighs the mistakes he made. I don't know
what prompted him to do what he did. Did he
really feel that he (like the American
Presidents - Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton) really feel
that he - Marcus Einfeld, was outside the law?
I don't know. I don't quite believe the media hype
that surrounds him.

There's so much greed and corruption in the seats
of power - but I still find it sad that a person
of the calibre of an Einfeld - should make the
mistakes that he apparently did. Sad for him, sad
for his family. He's going to pay for it - why can't
we leave it at that?

foxy:"I still find it sad that a person
of the calibre of an Einfeld - should make the
mistakes that he apparently did."

I couldn't agree more.

There is still the question of why he was allowed to get away with his petty dishonesties for so long. Now it seems that many people, including some journalists, were in the know years ago, yet still he went on.

Why were those people silent?

Antiseptic:

You're suggesting that I'm suggesting anti-semitism? "I was wondering how long it would take."

Bless my socks! Why was anti-semitism lurking in your mind? It wasn't in mine. I was thinking about the powerful enemies Einfeld made while supporting unpopular causes in human rights and Indigenous disadvantage. (Foxy nailed it.)

But since you've raised anti-semitism, I note your little qualifier: "his religion has nothing to do with it, other than that it may (among other factors) have played a part over the years in allowing him to get away with things he should have been punished for." You believe that Jews get away with illegal actions that non-Jews don't? Can you elaborate?

Pericles,
On Wednesday: "I confess to being a little biased, having met the man and having found him to be little more than a posturing, arrogant, self-important buffoon."

Today: "it is not considered polite...to tell someone you have only known for a few hours that they are an arrogant bully."

On the basis of a "few hours" in a meeting, you decided he was an "arrogant bully". The same few hours in which you decided he was a "self-important buffoon"?

You asked: "...given the fairly even balance of views here (including the golden-hearted Foxy) don't you think that your description of it as "a concerted vicious personal assault" is a little over the top?"

You are constructing an artificial 'for-or-against' model of debate. There are at least four positions here.

1. The largest group are those clearly attacking Einfeld - I characterise it as "a concerted vicious personal assault" and It's ironic to call me "a little over the top" (given your own language).

2. There's another smaller group arguing that his reputation should not be totally junked on the basis of the charges that have led him to prison.

3. Another small group are saying the matter has been blown out of all proportion.

4. My own position is not a defence of Einfeld (who is in prison for good reason) but to challenge the sink-the-boots-in pack mentality.

I think we understand each other, Spikey.

>>On the basis of a "few hours" in a meeting, you decided he was an "arrogant bully". The same few hours in which you decided he was a "self-important buffoon"?<<

Correct, on both counts.

>>There are at least four positions here.<<

At least.

>>My own position is not a defence of Einfeld (who is in prison for good reason) but to challenge the sink-the-boots-in pack mentality.<<

You perceive that my holding an opinion that the man is a posturing arrogant, self-important, bullying buffoon, is motivated by a sink-the-boots-in pack mentality.

I see my opinion as one that is totally independent of any pack whatsoever.

Maximilion asked:

P' the B', since you are far more informed than I, let me ask, would it be possible for a citizen, or group, or whatever, to start an action to remedy the situation as you describe it? It would appear the Court is failing in it's duty of care, or responsibility, or something, I don't have the legalese to cover what I'm trying to ask.

Sometimes I am a bit obscure. Every court in theory has the power to remedy the situation and there are numerous laws in place to allow it to happen. I say that when a court is asked to grant a remedy, every judge should do so, unless the judge gets authority from a higher authority to refuse.

However we have a problem with atheist courts. The atheist courts established after the Australia Act 1986 had their power to decide that Parliament had exceeded its authority and advise Her Majesty accordingly removed. Kable seems to be the High Court saying that this was illegal.

In 1640, the Imperial Parliament as the highest court declared all proceedings without reference to Almighty God void. This was evidence that the United Kingdom was Christian. When it refused to extend its Christian laws to the colonies in America, they went to war for their Christian rights. One of the reasons the United States has survived is its universal acceptance of jury trials in its Constitution. Even their money says In God we trust.

My battle since 1991 has been with the vesting of absolute power in one man or woman, without requiring an appeal to a higher power. In practice jury trial was an appeal to a higher power, the power of Almighty God and atheists believe there is no higher power than themselves. Christians do. Einfeld is Jewish. Jews hate juries. You should read the answers again

I thought I had answered yes.

spikey:"Why was anti-semitism lurking in your mind?"

This, which I read this morning:: http://www.smh.com.au/national/einfeld-show-hits-bum-note-20090326-9cgm.html "A furious synagogue president, Rosalind Fischl, emailed the congregation yesterday after members complained about footage of Einfeld singing with the synagogue choir was broadcast during Sarah Ferguson's report on Monday. The Diary understands they were upset about having the disgraced judge so publicly associated with their synagogue."

It made me think about why the Synagogue would want to be dissociated from Einfeld, when he's been a very active and prominent member.

spikey::"You believe that Jews get away with illegal actions that non-Jews don't?"

I believe that all sorts of things influence people to shield other people from the consequences of their actions. Commonality of religion is one very powerful such influence. Do you deny that there is a tendency among people to protect or assist those with whom we may feel we share some bond? The Synagogue mentioned above is top-heavy with the rich and powerful and has much to do with other synagogues that are just as stacked with talent. Do you think that it is beyond the realms of possibility that some of those people might have helped out a prominent fellow member who had made a "mistake"?

I attended a very prominent Anglican Church school in Brisbane. One of the reason people send their children to that school is the sense that one may form associations with the rich and powerful, or at least, those who will be one day. The expectation is that such association will provide benefits not available to others. There are similar examples everywhere

Dear Belly,

When I worked in the Sydney CBD, I was well placed to see the regular cerimonies occuring at The Cenotaph. When the parliamentary and military officials would arrive, the limos dropped them of at the bottom of Martin Place at George Street and then left, re-entering the traffic. There was one exception, though. The the Police Commissioner's car would illegally park in George Street, just a few steps back from Martin Place [otherwise would have been in a pedestian crossing] and sit and wait for the Police Officer, during the ceremonies.

Back in the days of Darryl and Ozzie, it would have made a pic, I think.

Peter the believer, sorry, I found your posts a little difficult to follow,(I'm no lawyer, or familiar with the Acts, or the language they're written in) I was only wondering if it was possible, not questioning your statements. What I had in mind was a civil(?) action to force the gov' to do the (morally)right thing, would it be possible, would it succeed?
Or would it even be binding on the slippery bugg(persons)?
If the answer was yes, how come it hasn't been done? The possibilities fascinate me!

Peter the Believer wrote:

"Jews hate juries."

Dear Peter the Believer,

What is your evidence for that statement?

Spikey not so Spikey please, I am unlikely to bag some one without reason.
Einfeld let me down, he let every one who followed his career down.
Most expect far more from such as he, to defend him because of his actions, the ones you like, but not judge him on these is cute.
You can not get away from the fact he now forever will be remembered for his faults not good deeds , only he is to blame for that.
In a forum such as this no crime is committed in holding such a discussion, or holding views different than our own.
Not to do so in case we offend some one, to hide our opinions is a crime against freedom of speech.

Talk about 6 deg of separation.The lawyer who defended Einfield I had been to school with for 10 yrs.There is a price for money and fame which many of us plebs fail to realise.I would not swap palaces for Einfield or his lawyer.

I have been asked for two answers. Firstly the evidence that Jews hate juries is contained in Julius Stone’s Book, Human Law and Human Justice, (1965) where he documents the history of Jewish Law, and the one mention of juries in it, is from Lord Devlin. He described the English jury as: a unique institution……to enable justice to go beyond even the point to which the law can be stretched.

We are governed by Jewish Law in Australia today. By the age of 14 a Jewish boy is supposed to know his Talmud. Many grow up to be lawyers, and have no compunction about imposing their will on their fellow man. They are Jews because they absolutely refuse to believe in Jesus Christ. They refuse to accept that in Genesis 49 Verse 10, God teaches that the law is vested in Judah. They refuse to accept that God promised a Ruler in Isaiah 9 verse 6, and that ruler was to be Jesus Christ. God confounded them because instead of sending a hateful vengeful leader, He sent a loving one. They wanted the Romans overturned, and instead the Romans offered Jesus citizenship.

A Christian cannot judge another Christian, but a Jew can. A Jewish man cannot accept any authority is higher than himself, and has a lot in common with atheists. That is Einfeld’s ultimate folly, and he has time to reflect. A Jew cannot deliver justice, only the institution distilled from the Gospels, called a jury can. In Exodus 32 the Jews invented a false God. They have persuaded Australia to create hundreds of them and called them Judges and Magistrates. No matter what religion they follow, they are all practicing Jewish law. Justice is a Royal prerogative, and the ultimate Royal is Almighty God.

You see Jewish law is tribal law and all about Rules. The twelve tribes of Israel were dominated by the tribe of Judah. When Jesus came he superseded Judah, and the English Coat of Arms, that used to adorn all Statute Law, had a little Lion of Judah on the top

Tribal law demands a Chief. Jews by training consider themselves superior, and when Abraham Gilbert Saffron made enough money to buy Norman Allen and Rob Askin, he also bought the Liberal Party and New South Wales. The Barristers he bought to defend him, have had no problems sitting as Judges without juries.

To some extent this answers Maximilion’s question. Why is the qui tam action not used all the time. The answer is because the Jewish lobby has destroyed the legal system. The English legal system, that Jews in the public service refuse to recognize, was completely destroyed in New South Wales in 1970, and Jewish Law, with a Judge instead of a court, an Old Testament institution was substituted.

The Jewish legal system encourages the likes of the drug trade. With Jewish government, a system adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, with an all powerful Pope, the Chief/Judge can be bribed. Money can talk. The Jewish legal system is oppressive to individualism, and demands conformity. As we see in Gaza it shows no mercy.

As a consequence on the Jewish Legal System, adopted illegally and without a referendum, most of us are carrying the criminal element in society, and paying an enormous amount of extra taxation. Much taxation is unjust, but the Jewish legal system does not allow it to be challenged. When Menzies abolished as of right juries in Bankruptcy jurisdiction in 1966, he introduced Jewish Law. The number of good businesses destroyed by the Australian Taxation Office using bankruptcy is beyond count.

One of that criminal element is serving time because his arrogance got him onto trouble. We may have to wait for the total collapse of the States under debt, before the Jewish Legal system largely abolished by Keating legislation, between 1993 and 1995, is finally removed. Jews worship the Law. Protestant Christians worship the Trinity.

The Trinity as a form of government has stood since 1297. Father/Justice, Son/jury, and Holy Spirit, acting through a collective conscience of 12 people sitting in every court at the right hand of the Father delivering JUSTICE; truly Royal

Dear Peter the Believer,

Thanks for telling me all that. I've been a Jew for 83 years but never knew we hated juries. Glad you told me all that. Thanks.

Dear Peter the Believer,

I would like to correct some of misinformation you have been spreading about Jews.

Jews do not worship the law. Jews worship God and follow the law to different degrees. The God that Jews worship is one God and not divided in parts. He is neither in humanoid form like the gods of the ancient Romans nor the humanoid god figure of the Christians in the form of Jesus.

Most Jews recognize that the Bible was written in a different time and a different society and some of the laws are no longer followed. Eg. Polygamy and slavery are permitted in the Bible and the New Testament. Both Christians and Jews recognize that we are no longer living in those times and practice neither polygamy nor slavery.

You wrote: “The Jewish legal system encourages the likes of the drug trade. With Jewish government, a system adopted by the Roman Catholic Church, with an all powerful Pope, the Chief/Judge can be bribed. Money can talk. The Jewish legal system is oppressive to individualism, and demands conformity.”

The above is not true. The Catholic Church has adopted the Roman system which has a single head in the emperor and has the same administrative system. A diocese was a Roman unit of government, and the pope is the single head of the Catholic Church.

Jews have no single entity who speaks for all like the pope nor do Jews demand conformity. Each congregation is independent and hires and fires its rabbi without having to consult any other authority. Rabbis have no sacerdotal functions like priests and are merely learned men.

The Hebrew word for bribery is shohad. It is prohibited in Deuteronomy 16:19. Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.

Bribery violates Jewish law.

In the Talmud views of the majority and the minority opinion are both recorded. As in a democracy the opinions of a minority may become that of a majority.

Peter the Believer, you just lost any support you may have got from me. I don't hold with racial stereotyping or prejudice, however it's couched, and to reduce the development of the democratic and legal system we live with to a religious war is patently ridiculous, in my opinion.
Oh, and as far as I recall, that lion was a symbol of the English feudal ruling class(denoting power and bravery), and they persecuted the Jews as readily as any other society at the time. Any group that holds themselves separate from, and superior to, the culture they live in is always going to set off man's innate xenophobia, which would seem to explain most of Jewish history, world-wide.

Pericles,

OK, your position is 'independent of any pack'. So what's your independent motivation for sinking the boot?

Antiseptic,

Anti-semitism was lurking in your mind because you read an article about synagogue members being upset about Einfeld being publicly associated with their synagogue? Hmmm.

"The Synagogue mentioned above is top-heavy with the rich and powerful and has much to do with other synagogues that are just as stacked with talent. Do you think that it is beyond the realms of possibility that some of those people might have helped out a prominent fellow member who had made a "mistake"?"

The 'realms of possibility' are a long way removed from relevant evidence whether it's the synagogue or your 'very prominent Anglican Church school in Brisbane' .

Should the public overlook Einfeld's misdemeanour in consideration of his good works? Normally yes, however, when confronted with the allegation that he had submitted additional false statutory declarations in the past, naming overseas drivers on receiving speeding and other traffic fines, he said these too were mistakes, never deliberate lies.

Clearly the gentleman is a recidivist liar. This is a trait of egomaniacs who believe they can lie with impunity, unhumbled by exposure and imbued with the conviction that they are above the law. What other "misdemeanours" has the judge committed, of which we are unaware?

Sadly the man is 68 years old and I believe, suffering prostate cancer, nevertheless, justice has been served.

spikey:"Anti-semitism was lurking in your mind because you read an article about synagogue members being upset about Einfeld being publicly associated with their synagogue?"

Anti-semitism wasn't "lurking" anywhere. The response of the Jewish community was fresh, however and I feel it is a little puzzling. Given that he has been such a prominent member of that community and will no doubt be welcomed back into it after he does his time and that the Synagogue is a purely Jewish organisation, beholden to no Gentile, what would their motive for distancing themselves? Are they concerned that his actions and such an association might fuel anti-semitic sentiment? Certainly muslim groups have moved rapidly in the past to act similarly when prominent members of their community have done stupid things, for similar reasons. The same applies to Christian denominations.

spikey:"The 'realms of possibility' are a long way removed from relevant evidence whether it's the synagogue or your 'very prominent Anglican Church school in Brisbane' ."

My original comment was:"his religion has nothing to do with it, other than that it may (among other factors) have played a part over the years in allowing him to get away with things he should have been punished for."

You'll note the use of the word "may". In case you don't have a dictionary handy, that implies that a possibility exists. My later comment made the basis for that possibility clear. Following so far?

If I had not used the qualifying "may", I would have been making an unequivocal assertion, which would have required corroboration.

Still, at least you've acknowledged that the possibility exists. That must have been hard for you.

Why are you so keen to see anti-semitism? Are you Jewish?

It was reported in the news last night that as soon as he got into prison, Einfeld asked for a personal psychiatrist and a masseuse and something else that I can't recall now.

I'd have thought that, with the other things he's said and done, Einfeld has a massive entitlement complex.

While putting myself at risk of being accused of sinking the boot in, I think the authorities should say a big NO to his request. They should do enough to ensure his basic human rights but no more. Just like any other prisoner. Maybe plenty of reflection time tinged with a little bit of pain is what Einfeld actually needs.

Should the taxpayer be footing the bill for his living well within the prison system?

Dear Rob,

I'm not trying to be contentious - but
could it possibly be that the man is
really stressed out and needs counseling?
Maybe he's just grabbing at straws?

He can ask, but it doesn't mean he's going
to get it does it?

As for the taxpayer's money funding his prison
requirements? Well, he would have paid a large
amount of taxes during his working life
wouldn't he? And, there's probably many people
in jail who never paid any taxes, and we're
supporting them.

Foxy,

I'd say he should get the service if and when he needs it as opposed to him just wanting it. I suppose there's some merit in him asking for it now when he's still able, rather than waiting until he's in such a bad state that he can't. Maybe that was in his thinking, I don't know.

OK, I agree with you to the extent that he's alerted the authorities to the possibility that he could have a problem in future.

I still think though that there are double standards within society. Those in a position to ask and influence get, while those that can't don't. That was the real point behind my opinion.

"Well, he would have paid a large amount of taxes during his working life wouldn't he? And, there's probably many people in jail who never paid any taxes, and we're supporting them."

One could just as easily argue that his persona opened a lot of career opportunities for him in his life that he wasn't really entitled to if it were based purely on merit. This counterbalances the idea that he paid a lot of taxes.

It's certainly a tough issue to do complete justice to.

Our system can be manipulated by one who knows all that he is entitled to under it. The average person does not know. I did not know I was entitled to a pension until several years after I was eligible for one. Probably Einfeld is entitled to everything he is asking for. He knows what one is entitled to under the system. The average Aussie is not informed. It minimises government expense if they remain uninformed.

Foxy, given his position and connections, I doubt he's paid much tax at all, that seems to be the way it works. Unfortunately he'll obviously have to stay in "protection", with all the rock-spiders and such, fitting company in my opinion. He will be sent somewhere cushy too, that's also a given, so he may well get his wishes fulfilled, so even in gaol he'll still benefit from the "one law for the wealthy" effect.
He will suffer nothing socially upon release, the wealthy will take his lying as normal behaviour, and will sympathise with him, look at Bondy and his ilk.
Don't look now, here comes the new Feudalism.

Antiseptic,

"Why are you so keen to see anti-semitism? Are you Jewish?" Two foul questions for the price of one. There wouldn't be a little projection going on here would there?

Why are you so keen on logical absurdity? Are you Martian?

Protagoras,

If you can get a simple matter like Einfeld's age wrong (he's 71 in September) perhaps you can get other things wrong too?

Those who are predicting a cushy, privileged life in prison - all sorts of presumptions are being converted into 'fact' here - have obviously never been incarcerated. A reminder: imprisonment is the punishment. You get sent to gaol as a punishment, not to be punished within. We did away with dry bread and water, thumbscrews, whipping and the rack long ago.

Now settle down. I know some of you would like to make him suffer to the fullest extent imaginable, but he has been deprived of his liberty, and all that that entails. That's why we send people to gaol.

We might even contemplate remorse, some hard thinking and eventual rehabilitation?

spikey:"Two foul questions for the price of one. "

Why would you regard it as "foul" to be asked if you're Jewish? I've already volunteered my own childhood religious affiliation.

FWIW, I couldn't care less what your religion is, but you seem strangely determined to make a fool of yourself over Einfeld. Mind you, you've been determined to do the same on lots of other subjects, so perhaps it's just a "you" thing...

Antiseptic,

"... I couldn't care less what your religion is..." Then why did you ask?

"...but you seem strangely determined to make a fool of yourself over Einfeld." Personal abuse is usually a sign of losing your grip on the argument.

"Mind you, you've been determined to do the same on lots of other subjects..." Oh dear! You must be feeling the pain. I'll leave you alone now.

Spikey

I derive my information from the same source as you do – the media. Clearly the information I gleaned was obsolete in that he was probably 68 when charged but let’s not gloss over Justice Einfeld’s “misdemeanours” where he lied under oath; signed false statutory declarations and forged signatures in order to escape petty fines. He was charged with 14 offences, three counts of perjury, six counts of perverting the course of justice, two counts of making a false instrument, two counts of using a false instrument and one count of hindering a police investigation then pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Justice Einfeld was happy to drag others into his web of deception. Without conscience he besmirched the good name of a deceased person; colluded with his victims to lie on his behalf and those who lied have been charged with perjury.

In addition, the media reported that he allegedly claimed a lost overcoat on expenses when he was head of the Human Rights Commission, having already lodged an insurance claim. Perhaps one should be mindful of the old adage: “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts?”

“Nought from the Greeks towards me hath sped well.
So now I find that ancient proverb true,
Foes' gifts are no gifts: profit bring they none.”

Your propensity to embellish the opinions of others is vacuous and no, I haven’t been to prison but I have had much to do with the legal fraternity. Einfeld is entitled to no more and no less than any other prisoner.

What is the point you are endeavouring to make?

spikey:"Personal abuse is usually a sign of losing your grip on the argument. "

You're the one that found it "foul" to be asked if you're Jewish, hon. Why do you find the thought of being Jewish "foul"?

As for personal abuse, my comment was a merely a musing on your motivations. If I'd wanted to be abusive, I'd have mentioned your abilities. I'm simply not that unkind.

I love the thrust and parry of the latest posts,
because they're so well matched.
It's educational and lively.

I wish I could be that adapt at this kind of
posting.

Read and Learn.

Thoroughly enjoyable, and not at all dull
and boring!

Onya - Spikey and Antiseptic!

Einfeld asked also that his cell door be left open.
I think we can take it that this is not done for anyone and personal help in the way he asked for is unlikely for others.
Bit weak in my view to bring the Jewish thing in,I have never found a Jew hater to have any views I agreed with.

I knew it couldn't be long in coming: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-mob-shows-no-mercy-20090328-9ew3.html?page=-1

I quote:"he is not the first Jew they have crucified."

and:"I had lunch with Marcus the day before he went away. I returned a copy of the Jewish Prayer Book he had absentmindedly left in my chambers some months earlier"

and:"Marcus, in his retirement, became a legal activist Jew who reached out."

there are others. Given that his primary claim to fame is his legal career, not his Judaism, what is the point of making so much of it? If so much is being made now, why would anyone think he'd not been the beneficiary of some assistance from Jewish colleagues to cover up earlier episodes of dishonesty from the man? Perhaps Mr Waterstreet (along with the many other prominent Jewish lawyers Einfeld mixed with) may know a little of that?

Frankly, the best thing the Jewish community could do for Einfeld is shut up and let him do his time, then welcome him back as the eminent member that he is. These efforts to whitewash him and paint the process that lead to his downfall as anti-semitic are counter-productive.

belly:"I have never found a Jew hater to have any views I agreed with."

You and me both, mate. OTOH, I've never met a Jew who wasn't prepared to play the anti-semitic card at the drop of a hat. As anyone who has read my posts will know, I have a strong aversion to being accused of things I am not.

Antiseptic ,no way in the world was I thinking of you in that post.
in fact I agree with every word in your post, and I am called racist for refusing to stay quite when our first Australians play the race card.
I remain baffled by the support for this man, yes he is 70 years old.
Yes he did much good, he was a hero to many, including me, but why do we constantly feel the need to defend some one who let us down?
2 years, 70 years old, a long hard sentence, but given by a man who knew him well, knew how bad this act was, surely just what we think justice is about?
send him to minimum security, let him have it a little better but get of your knees Australia, he is in the place many more should be.
or justice truly would be deaf blind and useless.

Antiseptic wrote:

belly:"I have never found a Jew hater to have any views I agreed with."

You and me both, mate. OTOH, I've never met a Jew who wasn't prepared to play the anti-semitic card at the drop of a hat.

Dear Belly and Antiseptic:

I have found Jew haters who have many views I agree with, and I am a Jew. People are complex and may be prejudiced in some areas and be remarkably prescient in other areas. Dostoyevskii was a keen observer of the human condition and was also a Jew hater. Voltaire had a brilliant mind, was for freedom of expression and was also a Jew hater.

OTOH, I know many Jews who do not play the anti-semitic card at the drop of a hat. That is often the product of insecurity.

In the discussion of Einfeld I have pleased to note that there has been little antisemitism displayed in the discussion of a corrupt and dishonest Jew.

Spikey: Those who are predicting a cushy, privileged life in prison - all sorts of presumptions are being converted into 'fact' here - have obviously never been incarcerated.

I havepredicted just that.
I’m not proud of it, but never hide the fact that, in my early-adult years I did do time, before kids glued my feet firmly to the planet. I was later employed for several years by the Salvos, helping ex-prisoners and others. I have also been a volunteer prison-visitor, acting in support of those who were suicidal inside, and have seen the conditions and methodology in several states, so I think I can claim some knowledge of the subject.
Bearing all this in mind, I declare:-
Einfeld WILL be assigned to a cushy institution.
He WILL be given special privileges.
He WILL be granted early-release, far above what a mere serf can hope for.

None of the above have anything to do with his race or religion, thank heaven, merely his money, status and connections. I also spent nearly 20 years as a chef, catering to many such as he, and have listened to uncountable conversations amongst them, “In vino veritas”, and can comfortably predict he will suffer no ostracism from his peers, though he will be expected to keep his head down for a while.
If any here think he will re-form his attitudes or habits, they are unfortunately mistaken, IMO, the level of arrogance displayed openly by this man cannot be shaken merely because he was brought to book for, to him, a minor offence. Once he is released and is back among the Aristocracy he will only sneer even harder at the “chattering masses”, us, purely as a defence-mechanism common to all.
To those who say..”He’s just a man”, to my mind that flies in the face of the bleedin’ obvious, his whole career as a judge has been spent at arms length from us, and being the face of Libertarian causes has only served to increase his sense of personal worth, he big-noting himself is no recommendation as an “ordinary man

This morning Charles Waterstreet a Sydney barrister has a plea in the SMH for mercy to be shown to Justice Einfeld. I agree with him wholeheartedly.

Justice Einfeld is a Jewish person, but while he is in Australia he should be entitled to every bit of protection our law extends to all of us. We have a written Constitution. As the late Lionel Murphy said, we cannot have inconsistent laws. The confinement of Justice Einfeld in a jail, is inconsistent with established laws, and while Almighty God works in strange ways, He is probably using Justice Einfeld to demonstrate both His mercy and His power.

By s 118 Constitution full faith and credit shall be given throughout the Commonwealth to the laws, the public acts and records, and the judicial proceedings of every State. In Victoria an Act from 1297, is part of the Public Acts of That State, and it is the Statute of Westminster the First [1297]. It says because elections ought to be free the King ( Almighty God) commandeth upon great forfeiture, that no man by force of arms, nor by malice, or menacing shall disturb any to make free election.

The key words in this Statute are malice and election. Malice in its legal sense means unlawfully, and election means free choice. Since Justice Einfeld was given no free choice to elect to pay a fine or go to jail, he has not been sentenced according to law. The fine is set by a Statute passed by the Parliament of the Commonwealth, for three years jail at $19,800 by the formula set out at S 4B Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) enacted in 1987 and amended the last time in 1992. It is still law.

Justice Einfeld is entitled to the protection of that section, as are numerous other prisoners, because S 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 makes this law binding on the courts, judges and people of every State notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State. That is where malice comes in; the word malicious is qualified to mean simply unlawful

"Since Justice Einfeld was given no free choice to elect to pay a fine or go to jail, he has not been sentenced according to law."

He did more than just not elect to pay the fine, he perjured himself as well after taking an oath as a Judge. He effectively brought his profession into disrepute as well as making the public more jaundiced about justice meted out by the law.

Now contrast that with a English commoner a few centuries ago, say, who illegally hunted on the Lord's estate in order to feed himself and his family, got caught and was then summarily thrown into jail. What's Einfeld done that's any different? Why shouldn't Einfeld be treated exactly the same?

Dear Belly,

In answer to your question - Why do people
defend a person like Marcus Einfeld?

Basically because the only people he's let
down is himself and his family.

Yes, it is disappointing
that he chose to lie about his traffic
violations. Why he did it - I don't know.
However - as I mentioned in another thread
I was raised with the ethos, "It's not who
we meet along life's highway that matters;
it is how we treat them..."

To the best of my knowledge Marcus Einfeld did
not treat anyone else shabbily.

The reasons for his actions remain a mystery
to me. We all can simply speculate - but the
real reasons - we'll never know. It simply
does not add up - why a person of his integrity,
would behave in the manner he did - over such
small fines, unless he was having a mental
breakdown of some sort.

Oh Foxy, you're such a sweetie!
I swear, you'd forgive Pol Pot, or find a reason not to blame him at least.
The way I see it, Einfeld has let the whole country down. He was given many privileges and kudos as a very senior justice of the court, and traded on that to advance whatever pet projects he adopted. He was remunerated handsomely, with a generous pension for life on top, all for his position as an upholder of our Laws and Ethos.
What he did was not just cop a ticket, he attempted (and conspired with others) to corrupt the entire system he was sworn to uphold and defend, and clearly has done so successfully before. He perverted everything he had stood for, been lauded for, paid for, and in the process brought it all into disrepute. In extremis, one might even see this as a form of sedition, or treason. Although, obviously, that's an exaggeration, it's in the same vein.
Bless you for your kind heart Foxy, but the man is a stain on our judicial system, and at the very least should have lost his pension. A proven corrupt police officer loses his pension. A soldier dismissed for not performing his duty loses his too. Why should Einfeld keep his? All those are "servants of the Crown", and not ordinary employees.

Foxy is a good person, kind and open hearted too.
but my freind here we differ, see I think with the evidence Marcus lied so easily and so often, was he always honest in his court rulings?
That question must be addressed, he lied without shame, often,
yes I hurt at the thought of 2 years at his age, even as I know Maximilian's post describes how much better he will do his time, and how much less than 2 years it will be.
I read the SMH story, I visit that page every day, others often too, but have zero respect for its authors opinion , consider the crime.
it was not telling one lie, it was far worse than that.

Maximillion,
"The way I see it, Einfeld has let the whole country down."

I just did a street survey. The first person I asked, "Has Marcus Einfeld let you down?", replied, "What team does he play for?" The next one said, "Dunno mate, was he the taxi driver who didn't show up last night?" They must live in another country.

Protagoras,
"I derive my information from the same source as you do – the media." Where did you derive the information that that's where I derive my information?

"Einfeld is entitled to no more and no less than any other prisoner." I agree.

Antiseptic,
"Why do you find the thought of being Jewish "foul"?" It might be a bit subtle for you, but what I actually said in response to your question: "Why are you so keen to see anti-semitism? Are you Jewish?" was this: "Two foul questions for the price of one."

You have deliberately distorted my response because you showed you were capable of getting it right in an earlier post when you wrote: "Why would you regard it as "foul" to be asked if you're Jewish? " That's quite different to being asked: ""Why do you find the thought of being Jewish "foul"?" (which of course I don't - and never would).

Isn't lying one of the offences you reviled so much in Marcus Einfeld?

"Given that his primary claim to fame is his legal career, not his Judaism, what is the point of making so much of it?" Forgive me if I'm wrong, hon, but weren't you person who introduced this issue on this thread?

Ummmm, forgive me Spikey, but I have to ask, were you trying to make a point there, or express an opinion? I'm confused by your post, it is rational, and to the point too, but it does confuse me, I just can't make out what you're saying?
Street polls are obviously meaningless in any real sense, it depends on who you happen to bump into, and where you are, and how many you ask, other factors too, and how you phrase your questions, so what were you saying?
The same would seem to apply to the rest of your responses.
No offence, but please elucidate, enlighten me?

Einfeld has done the whole country a favor, in that by jailing such a high profile prisoner, the flaws in the system are exposed by the media. In the terms of black and white law, he is entitled to be released this week.

In 1996, the High Court stated by a majority of four to two that the State was not entitled to dictate the outcome of a proceeding to a court. This came about because two Professors, Fairall and Rees, wrote an article criticizing the incarceration of a person called Kable, by an Act of Parliament.

What has happened in this country is shameful, but until someone like Einfeld gives a lawyer the opportunity to bring a matter to court, then the courts have no jurisdiction to simply correct Parliamentary mistakes. I have reproduced the S 14 Magna Carta elsewhere but a part of it bears repeating again. It bears repeating because it was part of Australian Law in 1900, and this copy was found in Halsbury’s Statutes of England printed in 1960.
Magna Carta 1297 Statute
Clause 14: A Freeman shall not be amerced (fined) for a small fault, but after the manner of the fault; and for a great fault after the greatness thereof, saving to him his contenement; And none of the said amerciaments shall be assessed, but by the oath of honest and lawful men of the vicinage.

Until incarcerated by a State Judge, Einfeld was a freeman. He may have his flaws, but then a Jewish man was in a mob howling for a woman caught in adultery to be stoned to death. He alone was left when He said, let him who is without fault cast the first stone. This passage from the Magna Carta reproduces the principle above cited.

We will see how many friends Einfeld has! Hard cases make good law. With a little good lawyer work, billions of dollars can be slashed from the prison budgets, because sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Einfeld has publicly exposed a flaw in a naked Emperor’s clothes

spikey:"That's quite different to being asked: ""Why do you find the thought of being Jewish "foul"?" (which of course I don't - and never would)."

Ah, so now we get a response. See what happens when you try to be a smartarse, especially when you're so obviously ill-equipped?

As I said, I don't give a toss what your religion is, and I'd not have bothered asking, except for the context of the conversation.

I asked you two questions, of which the first was the more important:"why are you so keen to see anti-semitism?" and the second:"are you Jewish?" was a mere corollary. They were prompted because you snidely tried to impute anti-semitic motives to me and others who have been criticising Einfeld.

My recommendation to you is that you respond to questions properly if you'd like to avoid misunderstandings. If you make snide non-sequiturs instead, expect to be treated as the lightweight you come across as.

Thanks for the chance to clear that up.

Peter the Believer wrote: He may have his flaws, but then a Jewish man was in a mob howling for a woman caught in adultery to be stoned to death. He alone was left when He said, let him who is without fault cast the first stone.

Dear Peter the Believer,

The He who said, “let him who is without fault cast the first stone” was also a Jewish man as much as any in the mob. You seem to forget that Jesus was not a Christian but a Jew. Ask yourself what you have against the religion of Jesus.

Suppose Marcus Einfeld was corrupt and dishonest all along but made the decision that to get ahead in life and gain respect, honour, power and wealth he would assume a virtue that he didn’t have. He would work for the rights of the downtrodden, give an exhibition of probity and in other ways assume a persona that was not consistent with his actual feelings. Suppose that at some point he was sickened by his own hypocrisy. However, he could not bring himself to make an open confession so he told stupid lies expecting eventually to be caught up. Using as an alibi that a woman who died three years ago was driving his car was such a stupid lie. Perhaps his lies were intentional clues that he was not the person he seemed to be, and he finally wished to be punished for his lengthy imposture.

Not for a second do I think that is how this came about, surely you do not?
Peter the believer I have trouble understanding your point.
Yes I know the importance of that old document but surely you can not think it matters now?
Einfeld has done no one including himself a favor.

Dear Max and Belly,

Thanks for yor kind words.

I'm not sure that I deserve them.

I simply feel that Marcus Einfeld
is a good man who made a few mistakes.
Perhaps it was a "power" thing (absolute
power corrupts ...). He did it because
he could. Or perhaps he believed that this
was such a small thing - not worth worrying
about and then it snowballed (like Watergate
in the US).

I still feel that were he not who he is -
this wouldn't have been front page news.
Anyway, I'll not argue any more.

You've all raised valid points - and I
respect your opinions.

I simply was a great admirer of the man - and
it is hard to believe that he's only human
afterall.

Maximillion,

I've got to keep reminding myself that irony is not always understood. It can fly over the heads of the literal-minded. But it seemed to me that a 'street poll' would be an appropriate response to your grandiose claim on behalf of the nation that Marcus Einfeld "has let the whole country down".

I should have been blunter. Einfled hadn't let me down and I don't ceded my right to you to say whether I feel let down - and I'm part of the nation. Please don't claim to speak for the whole nation without warrant.

Antiseptic,

" See what happens when you try to be a smartarse, especially when you're so obviously ill-equipped?"

As I said, on Saturday: "Personal abuse is usually a sign of losing your grip on the argument."

"... expect to be treated as the lightweight you come across as. Thanks for the chance to clear that up." Well I gave you the chance; why didn't you take it?

..." you snidely tried to impute anti-semitic motives to me and others who have been criticising Einfeld." I ask again since you didn't answer the first time, who was it who introduced anti-semitism into this thread?

"My recommendation to you is that you respond to questions properly if you'd like to avoid misunderstandings." So I have to answer your questions 'properly' but you can please yourself about my questions to you?

You see what I mean by the whiff of hypocrisy?

Spikey: Irony is a little difficult to carry off in the written word, perhaps you shouldn't try? I do have a somewhat literal turn of mind, but also appreciate irony, and sarcasm etc. Without the visual and aural clues though, it can certainly be easily misunderstood. That is why I tend to take posts literally, it's far safer than risking misinterpretation and the problems that causes.
As for your other statement, I wasn't claiming to speak for you or anyone else, merely expressing my personal opinion. If I'd said that the whole nation felt let down, then you'd be right, so you have misunderstood what I wrote. See what I mean? It's easy to do, isn't it?
Foxy, the point is, he IS who he is, and as such, is worthy of coverage and comment surely? He was certainly happy to use his status and position to court the media and bask in the attention when he did good, so must cop it sweet when it's not nice to him now, it goes with the territory. When you pick up a dollar, you get both sides of the coin, like it or not.

I strongly disagree with those who say Einfeld has not done everyone a favor. For one thing he has not been sentenced according to the law of Australia, but according to the law of a rebel State called New South Wales. Since the 21st October 2001, any arbitrary imprisonment of anyone, has been illegal. The Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) was declared a universal Australian Law, on the 16th October 2001, and any sentencing in violation of Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is now punishable by 17 years imprisonment. It is an offence against S 268.12 Crime against humanity; imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty.

Article 9 .1 says: Everyone, including Einfeld, has the right to liberty and security of the person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. The key word here is arbitrary. Those of you who are native English speakers with access to a Dictionary, will understand what arbitrary means. It means on the whim of one person., derived from opinion, capricious, unrestrained, despotic. Noah Webster the American states it means: uncertain, depending on an arbiters decision, given, adjudged, or done according to ones will or discretion, decided by an arbiter rather than by law. Imperious, tyrannical uncontrolled.

Any fellow OLO traveler, who has read John Grisham’s Innocent Man, and knows a bit of law, would have realized that in Oklahoma, where it is set, both sentencing and guilt were determined by the jury there. United States law derives from the same roots as the law in Australia.

There is another wicked individual running around the country paid for by the Commonwealth, trying to convince us that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is not already part of our law.

Justice Einfeld is entitled to the benefit of the Australian Constitution. He is entitled to the benefit of the laws of the Parliament of the Commonwealth. The Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) is such a law, and because he has been arbitrarily sentenced, he is entitled to be released immediately

spikey:"So I have to answer your questions 'properly' but you can please yourself about my questions to you?"

I've answered your questions to me, including the one you reiterated in your latest post. Now, how about those questions to you?

Squirm all you like, spikey, your intent was to imply some nasty motives to me and others for expressing our opinions about Einfeld. You got called on it and you don't much like it when people catch you out, do you?

Antiseptic,

"Squirm all you like, spikey, your intent was to imply some nasty motives to me and others for expressing our opinions about Einfeld. You got called on it and you don't much like it when people catch you out, do you?"

I'm not squirming at all. Yes, my intent was to imply some nasty motives. And I explained what I thought those nasty motives might have been - Marcus Einfled made some powerful enemies because of his outstanding leadership in human rights and Indigenous issues.

Claim what you like about my intent, the fact remains, you were the first to raise anti-semitism.

Antiseptic Friday 27 March: "What are you suggesting, spikey, without having the guts to use the word? Anti-semitism? Hahahaha. I was wondering how long it would take. The Jewish Community has been conspicuously silent in his defence, now he's been convicted. It must be time to invoke the great conversation-stopper, eh?"

Despite my absolute denial that that was my intent - and you ignored my explanation - you've kept the anti-semitic theme running.

I suggested once before that you were possibly engaged in projection. Is that what's going on in when you ask: "you don't much like it when people catch you out, do you?"

Dear Max,

Perhaps the reason Justice wears a blindfold
is not to judge men like Marcus Einfeld too
severely? Just a thought...

Seriously though, you're right of-course.

I just can't help liking the man, that's all.
To me he's a unique individual - warts and all.
I'd still like him as a judge, if I was on trial.
(But I wouldn't lend him my car).

I'll bet he wishes he had just paid the 70 bucks (the original fine). We should be able to hold the judiciary to higher standards than we expect of the wider community who are largely untrained in the law.

Nicky

Nicky2 bet he does but its far more than one fine, one lie.
He got two years if not a judge he may have got ten.
If not 70 years old the same.
If he sent some one you love to prison, for say 5 years, but the crime was lessor one to his , would it be ok?
you have a point, if only, if only he did not think he could use the law so badly.

What's really interesting about this is that he would have got away with this if not for the vigilance of the media.

I doubt that police would have checked his stat dec, as it came from a respected jurist and if it hadn't been a slow news day, perhaps the media would not have bothered either.

It begs the question of how many others have been doing the same sort of thing, with no scrutiny whatever?

Foxy, Justice wears a blindfold so as not to unfair or distracted in the determination of guilt. Sentencing is another affair entirely.

I'll give you a simple fr'instance.
A man enters a bank and robs it at gun-point.
Case 1- He's a career criminal with priors for the same offence.
Case 2- he's a desperate unemployed father of four hungry kids who's about to lose his house.
Case 3- He's an off-duty cop who thinks he can get away with it.

All are guilty before the Law, and convicted, but would you recommend they all get the same sentence?
Surely the cop, who is not only offending, but also breaking his oath to uphold the law, must be more harshly looked upon?
So it is with Einfeld, to my way of thinking anyway.
As for his Libertarian credentials, I wonder, did he actually do a great deal, or just appear to do so, a "front person", bringing media attention due to his status and position, not an actual "down and dirty" worker for the cause? Yes, appearing before the cameras and writing the odd nice speech or submission is still work, of a sort, but it would hardly make him an activist. More of an aged "Poster-kind".

Maximilion has got it absolutely right. His three crims scenario explains why Einfeld must be released from jail, as soon as one of his mates becomes a great lawyer, instead of a fear filled individual and makes the appropriate application to Einfeld’s former stamping ground the Federal Court of Australia.

The problem is that the law schools that turn out people like Einfeld, have them totally indoctrinated by the time they graduate. The law schools spend one or two semesters on Constitutional Law, and the rest of the time turning out technocrats, who just like computers do exactly what they are told by Parliament to do. These people are no less slaves than a computer. They have banded together into an exclusive club, or clubs, and they tell each other they are all lovely. They get really annoyed when one of their number gets caught out.

The tangled web of laws that now choke Australian society need a big dose of roundup; and if Einfeld has any mates at all they will put their noses in their books, and find a remedy. Gilbert and Sullivan had a song: To make the punishment fit the crime. It is an ill wind that blows nobody some good, and Einfeld in prison is an incentive to his mates on the outside looking in, to have him join them. The key to his prison cell is the Constitution.

The Constitution is not simply one document. It is the last or nearly last, together with the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 ( Cth) and Judiciary Act 1903 of a long line of Acts going back to 1275, that regulate and govern our governance. In a book once I saw that Jesus Christ was credited with an IQ in excess of 200, Mozart was 200, Kemal Attaturk was 200, and Einstein was about 180. Lawyers average 115 and most of us hover between 95 and 105. Engineers and Doctors are selected from the 130 plus category. It probably takes a little more intelligence than the average lawyer possesses to find the key to Einfeld’s cell

"What's really interesting about this is that he would have got away with this if not for the vigilance of the media."

And this probably wouldn't have happened to Einfeld at all if he hadn't made such a song and dance about a perjurer in his court back in 2001. The article by Jack Waterford below explains this as well as Einfeld's grandstanding in Aborignal affairs.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/columns/past-words-have-hollow-ring-as-einfeld-faces-justice-on-other-side/1349326.aspx?storypage=0

"It probably takes a little more intelligence than the average lawyer possesses to find the key to Einfeld’s cell"

Sounds like Divine justice operating there, Peter.

Einfeld is probably guilty as we all are of manifold sins. He has not been an angel and that is for sure. He once stated that if a litigant in the Court asked for a jury it was an insult to the Judge. This is almost a mantra chanted by the Judges of the Federal Court, and instead of saying Om Om Om, they have been saying No No No since the inception of the Court in 1976.

However the old saying that two wrongs do not make a right, is apt in this case. I am not sure where the rot really started. It may have been in the media who are constantly howling for vengeance, and are quite keen to show people expressing satisfaction at the incarceration of other individuals, but it probably really started back in the days of Syd Einfeld, the father of Justice Einfeld, when Labor was defeated and the Liberals repealed the common law.

Labor was defeated because the two Christian factions in the party were at loggerheads. The Roman Catholic faction was dead set against the Anglican faction, and the blood was so bad, that they chose a Greek Orthodox Chappie to be Chairman. The DLP and Australian Labor Party split resulted, and Labor won federally because Gough Whitlam, was able to paper over the religious divide.

In 1969, the Liberals passed the Imperial Acts Application Act 1969. In it they omitted Clause 14 Magna Carta. This was probably because it was already no longer being used in New South Wales. Abraham Gilbert Saffron was virtually the King of New South Wales, and he was probably the one who asked the State Parliament to act illegally. In 1970, the Liberals abolished about 44 Acts which they could not have done, if they had not left out the Australian Constitution in the Imperial Acts they declared law in 1969.

NSW has been undemocratically governed ever since. The Federal Court can fix this problem, by reference to the Constitution and if Justice Einfeld can get them to, he will earn his freedom

Great article, RobP. There are some here who'll still claim he was done wrong, but it seems increasingly clear to me that this dishonest and venal man only prospered because he was protected by his colleagues in the law.

The question of how many other senior jurists have and are still doing similar types of things is still to be answered.

One misprint in the Australian Constitution where judges was substituted for jurors in S 79 has led to Einfeld’s downfall.

Do we want to continue with a Monarchy or want to restore democracy? The Monarchy we have is represented by a Judge like Einfeld, sitting as a Monarch in his My Court. The democracy we used to have was represented by a Justice presiding over a court with twelve electors holding the real political power. You rightly question the integrity of senior jurists. Is it a mental illness?

Jurists have been out to lunch since 1900. Any jurist worth his salt would have realized the word judges in s 79 Constitution, meant jurors. The roots of the rot probably started when lawyers were admitted to the Parliament. For 498 years they were classified as Esquires, and as such excluded from the House of Commoners. That way they had to exercise political power, by challenging laws made by the Commoners, in the courts. They had the tools to do so, as a jury had the power to annul bad laws. This of course made some Judges very angry, but from 1670, and Bushel’s case, Judges were prohibited from chastising jurors.

Democracy was established in England, when by the Coronation Oath 1688 the King was required to uphold the gospels, and deliver law and justice in mercy, in all His judgments. Einfeld has had neither law nor justice in mercy, in the Judgment handed down against him. He is a jurist. As a Judge he was a despot. He has got what he delivered but it is still wrong.

Einfeld and all Federal Court Judges in Australia are aristocrats, and there is not one democrat amongst them. They all swear allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, and like Einfeld, immediately start offending. They offend S79 Constitution because the word judges there means commoners as jurors, not aristocrats and a big bad Judge. The judges who will restore democracy to Australia are the judges of fact required by S 79 Constitution. Einfeld should still have been offered a fine instead of jail.