Every now and again a political killing has to take place to convince the people we have a fair system. The political killing of Queensland democracy took place in 1991, when Wayne Goss decided that the Supreme Court in Queensland was going to be better managed by lawyers as Judges, than having to call a jury together, as was the norm before then. The courts envisaged in Ch III Constitution, yes the Australian Constitution, not the abomination created in 2001, to try to make legitimate changes in 1991 that are clearly illegitimate, were originally defined as incorporeal political entities.

The courts of the Constitution are political places where politics meets the people. The Courts of Queensland are the organs of an oppressive state, manned by State appointed and approved lawyers, whose education does not include the roots of the law, Christianity. If Gordon Nuttal was not a Labor Politician, in a State without a judicial system that works, he would never have been tempted to go on the take.

Paul Keating’s Government realized there was a problem with the States way back in 1993. He was part of a government that introduced the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to permanently guarantee civil and political rights in 1986, and strengthened its applications in 1995, when he made it a crime carrying seventeen years imprisonment, in s 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth). Gordon Nuttall should call upon the Australian Constitution for his defence at the sentencing hearing. In Victoria, in their Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 ( Vic), set out in full is the Statute of Westminster the First. 1275.

Its words are: And because elections ought to be free the King commandeth upon great forfeiture that no man by force of arms, nor by malice or menacing shall disturb any to make free election. Gordon Nuttal should be given a free election to pay a fine, or go to prison. The fine should be set by a jury, not the Parliament, for the King, stated here represents Almighty God, not an elected group of tyrants

Ludwig,
The evidence presented refutes your argument of 'good friend's innocent free loan'.
At best the businessmen would have taken the view that the risk was not theirs. And the 'openness'(legal/accounting) was merely to protect their tails.
What you neglect here is that despite all the 'allegedly' openness he failed to declare them on the register, His duty because of his position as a minister of the crown. His failure to do so makes it apparent he knew that such 'loans' would create a conflict of interests. In his position the fact that he actively showed flagrant disregard for the law and thereby indicating his willingness to give consideration for consideration taken. Particularly if it involved personal advancement. Thereby satisfying the onus test.
The basic moral point is the more power you accumulate the greater the onus on the responsibility you owe

Interesting case Ludwig. We could run a long list of various MPs of on both sides of politics who have been caught with their hands in the till.

More evidence that we really need to review the whole concept of political donations.

There is no point in a gift register for politicians if they don't actually record anything in it.

As for the idea we are to believe that someone in a position of influence was given a gift of that size without the expectation of a favour - I can only think of that famous phrase from The Castle "Tell him he's dreaming".

shadow minister please bloke, just this once take me on.
Prove me an idiot.
Do it mate please or admit you lied in another thread.
Time and again I have asked you.
do so again now.
tell me please what contract, you now the one you quoted in the thread about utegate, what government contract did the Ute man get.
Shut me up, prove me wrong tell the world I am a fool.
or withdraw the untrue claim, tell us it was a mistake, not manufactured lie, not another Abbot or such fantasy.
Your reality bloke is not mine your bitter hatred of my party is joyful fuel for me, it wins not one uncommitted vote back to your side not one.
Joy in the understanding you represent the deep hole your party is wallowing in, self destructive bogged down in.
Not to even look for a way out of till after at least one train wreck election result for you.
joy pure joy, my thanks and deepest regards.

“Every now and again a political killing has to take place to convince the people we have a fair system.”

Interesting comment PTB.

Yes, to convince people that we’ve got a fair system when in fact we’ve got a rotten-to-the-core donations regime and a resultant political bias towards the wishes of big business that seriously compromises the duty of government to make impartial decisions for the good of the whole community and consequently fundamentally corrupts democracy.

A political killing? I think that this is exactly what is happening here with Nuttall.

The guilty verdict is highly dodgy IMO. But now that it’s done, every man and his dog is jumping on the bandwagon and absolutely lambasting him as one of the worst snout-in-the-trough-pollies we’ve ever seen. If he appeals, he’ll have to run against very strong political and public opinion…which has largely arisen after the trial and because of the verdict.

It makes me wonder about the veracity of some of the previous convictions of this sort.

Pelican, you wrote;

“There is no point in a gift register for politicians if they don't actually record anything in it.”

Why didn’t Nuttall declare the 360 000$ monetary gift or loan on the parliamentary pecuniary interest register? Because he thought he didn’t have to. And it certainly isn’t clear as to whether he did have to or not.

Queensland Premier Bligh recently failed to declare a significant item that had strong political-business undertones. She didn’t think she had to declare that. The story stayed in the media for about three days. She seems to have got away with it scot-free. http://www.smh.com.au/national/corruption-trial-hears-bligh-defend-sydney-holiday-20090630-d3tj.html

The pecuniary register seems to be very grey indeed, in terms of what needs to be declared.

Engineer hung with his own petard. Poor bloody Gordon Nuttall is a victim of his own political shenagins, and it is time he repented and realized that we do have a Constitution in Australia and Queensland is not a Socialist Republic along the lines of the Soviet Union. He has an opportunity now to get the High Court to return to its Constitutional position as head of the judicial system, by seeking a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

The High Court as Head of the Judicial System, has a duty to ensure that all State systems comply with the Great Commission. The Great Commission was the commandment of Jesus Christ that His word be spread far and wide, and the English Parliament enacted the Word of God, as the Magna Carta in 1297. In 1275, the same Parliament enacted the Word of God, to extend the law of mercy to every criminal, so that a fine could be offered to all first time offenders, and they be given a chance to come to the Lord for mercy and forgiveness.

Gordon Nuttall is entitled to that chance because he is an Australian. It is his birthright. It is written down in the Imperial Acts Application Act 1980 ( Vic) and even if its is not part of what is perceived to be Queensland Law, Queensland is still part of Australia, and the Constitution is still part of Queensland law, even if Queensland barristers say otherwise.

Gordon Nuttall and every first time convict, has the right to free election. That means he can elect for a fine or imprisonment. The fine must be fixed by a jury, not a Parliament, and section 268:10 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) makes a sentencing Judge a criminal.

The Writ of Habeas Corpus is a form of Judicial Review, and if Gordon Nuttall wants to get out of jail, and at the same time make amends for eighteen years of bad government, he should pick up his Holy Bible and take note of the words in Matthew 7 verse 7. Ask and ye shall receive