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...