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.