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?