“The evidence presented refutes your argument of 'good friend's innocent free loan'.”

Examinator, I can’t see that it does. Again, the jury needed to prove or indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that there was ill-intent. Even if the arrangement looked dodgy, and the theory of nothing’s for nothing seemed most likely, it was NOT ENOUGH! The jury needed more than that to safely convict Nuttall.

“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.”

I can’t see this being the case either. Talbot and Shand would surely have known that if Nuttall went down, they’d be dragged through the courts and the media and have their names well and truly muddied. Or worse, they’d be convicted of being accessories and have their careers ruined.

Why exactly the onus of guilt is entirely on Nuttall and not on them to any extent, I’m not sure. But it doesn’t make a lot of sense. So again I’ve got to conclude that Talbot and Shand thought that the deal was safe. And that means not only above board but safely above the grey zone of any legal doubt.

It just makes no sense at all that any of this would have happened if those involved thought that there was a risk of it being unlawful or even of it being doubtfully lawful to the extent of being subjected to public and legal scrutiny.

There was after all no clear attempt to in any way hide or disguise the gifts/loans. Nuttall’s failure to declare these pecuniary interests is not condemning. See comments in my last post.

And another thing, what’s this rubbish about 36 counts? There is one alleged offence here, or perhaps two at most, given that he received money from two people. The 36 charges, of receiving 36 lots of 8333$ or whatever the case was, is just silly.

When Brett Walker, the prominent Sydney barrister was trying to get David Ettridge and Pauline Hanson out of jail, in Queensland, I sent him an email suggesting a High Court Writ of Habeas Corpus, would secure their immediate release. At the next hearing both were released, and the same Judge sent Gordon Nuttall away. The argument in the Pauline Hanson case I wanted Brett Walker to run was that s 28 Crimes Act 1914 ( Cth) overruled the charges against Pauline Hanson, because what she was doing was political and protected by superior Commonwealth law.

By S 109 Constitution, coupled with S 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 Section 268:10 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth), overrules every inconsistent Queensland Law, and Gordon Nuttall is entitled to its protection. He may be guilty but his sentencing Judge is guilty of a far worse crime. That crime is called enslavement. It carries a twenty five year jail term, or a fine of one hundred and sixty five thousand dollars, and enslavement is the effect of giving a State ownership over a person.

The Parliament of the Commonwealth has banned slavery. Gordon Nuttall is now a slave, and treated as a slave. Slavery was banned in 1297, for Englishmen. In later years all slavery was banned, but the urge to make slaves continues. Further Section 268:12 Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) makes disobedience to Statute Law in the form of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as enacted by the Parliament of the Commonwealth a serious crime. The sentencing Judge has broken that law too, and the penalty for that is seventeen years in prison. That attracts a penalty of $112,000. Can’t you just smell the end of homelessness. A Judge led end to homelessness.

Judges should realize that working for a State Government is like being a SP Bookmaker. Its profitable but the end of an era is at hand. How long must Gordon Nuttall rot in jail, before he realizes the keys to his prison cell are waiting for him in the Federal Supreme Court

To clarify the last point I made in my last post:

The first charge was for receiving 60 000$ from Shand. Charges 2 to 35 were for receiving 34 payments of 8333$ and charge 36 was for receiving 16 666$, all from Talbot.

.
More interesting comments PTB:

“He may be guilty but his sentencing Judge is guilty of a far worse crime. That crime is called enslavement.”

I’m not sure that you could call a jail term enslavement. But I do have dire issues with some of Chief Judge Patsy Wolfe’s statements in her sentencing spiel:

“Now I make this clear. You are not convicted by the jury of breaching any of those ethical or ministerial standards “, which she had previously outlined.

What?? Yes he was convicted of just that……surely!!

“In the background of the law it is irrelevant whether you intended when you received that money to show favour to any other person. Indeed it is irrelevant as to whether you did show favour or forebear to show disfavour”

Bloody hell! So by her reckoning he’d be as guilty as sin and deservEd of the maximum sentence even if there was absolutely no ill-intent!!

“You were not convicted of official corruption, you were convicted of receipt of a secret commission”

Excuse me, how can you have one without the other??

I’m now thinking that Ms Wolfe is a bit off the planet!!

PTB, I back you up in imploring Nuttall to take his case to the Federal Supreme Court.

"Why exactly the onus of guilt is entirely on Nuttall and not on them to any extent, I’m not sure."

Did they make payments to anyone else? Were the payments the largesse of friendship or for something else? Did Talbot and Shand feel that non-payment would bring them disadvantage? Put them on trial and you will find out. Somehow I dont think it will happen.

Apparently their trials are pending Fester. So we’ll hopefully find out!

Interesting, Ludwig. I would be very surprised if there were a trial, but if it happens it could open a can of worms.