“Lander’s Law” may be an example of why 3,300 South Australian voters may die before the March 2017 state election .

wreckage“ South Australia is cursed with politicians and powerful public servants who demonstrate a “Costa Concordia” attitude towards public safety. At the moment I calculate that there is a 0.3017% statistical probability (roughly a 1 in 300 chance ) that South Australia’s 1, 039, 025 voters  have a possibility of dying because of shoddy public safety standards.

[ Note: the short link URL for this posting is http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-jQ ]

Gee Ron, 1 in 300! Those are pretty long odds, so who cares? Since members of my family, my friends, my neighbors and myself have a 50-50 chance of being in that 3,300, I CARE! The problem for every South Australian citizen is that no-one has a guarantee that they will not be a statistic in 3 years-time, i.e. if you live in South Australia, your personal odds of being dead because of public safety stuff-ups are the same as mine, i.e. 50-50.

 There is an old saying that “The devil is in the detail” and my recommendation is that you now check the video, “South Australia’s Costa Concordia public safety problems”, which can be viewed on YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pDoJRtk9xc&feature=c4-overview&list=UUXMZsmDNjq71mKLPjx_toFQ


“Lander’s Law” may be an example of why 3,300 South Australian voters may die before the March 2017 state election .

bruce-lander_sm   Justice Bruce Lander QC

Once you have seen the above mentioned video, check out the letter below which was written by South Australia’s newly appointed head of the Independent Commission Against Corruption, Judge Bruce Lander.  At first glance his letter may seem to be  quite reasonable; however a closer scrutiny of “the devil in the detail” soon raises  questions  that South Australians need to seriously consider as soon as possible. It has a lot in common with the old 1980s TV series “Rafferty’s Rules” for Judge Lander appears to be playing by his own rules in deciding what is OK and what is not, i.e. it seems that “Lander’s Law” takes precedence over statute law when it comes to potentially lethal public safety issues.

Forget about minor details such as A Fair Hearing and the Procedural Fairness principles that a Federal Court judge, Steven Rares, reminded the nation’s judiciary that they need to be using when sitting in judgement on cases.

  1.  For a fair hearing, you must have the opportunity to speak up and argue the merits of your case or viewpoint. However, there was no hearing at which I could argue the public safety or public interest issues.
  2. The was absolutely no apparent regard for the clear and present dangers shown in the (silent) YOUTUBE videos.
  3. Judge Lander made no requests for the original UNEDITED videos to be presented for his scrutiny and impartial evaluation.
  4. In fact, there were no requests for any other evidence to be submitted.
  5. Witnesses to these events were not in short supply. However, Judge Lander did not need witnesses, especially those with first-hand experience of the dangers faced by road users in Elizabeth Vale. Perhaps this was because their testimony might have contradicted any  of Judge Lander’s carefully crafted judgements?
  6. There was a total disregard for what Justice Steven Rares described as “clear words” in legislation, especially the clear words in the Australian Road Rules that require “a clear view” of the road ahead or the ability to “drive safely”, when forced by a local council to drive on the wrong side of the road because timed parking zones have been set up in streets that are not fit for long-term parking use.
  7. Believe or not, in the 21st century, if councils do not paint white lines on residential access streets, it is still legal to set up parking zones that force drivers onto the wrong side of the road!
  8. This rule was established about 50 years ago when far fewer cars were on our roads but it is still in force today.
  9. Judge Lander never even listened to an audio recording of a conversation that provided insight into the actions and mindset of Playford Council and its senior management which was NOT focused on safety of residents
  10. Anyone who has seen Part 7  of Road safty or a Con Job  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRKvRgUV_Q8&feature=c4-overview&list=UUXMZsmDNjq71mKLPjx_toFQ  will  known that a conversation had been recorded. For some unexplained reason, Judge Lander was totally uninterested in listening to this recording, which like the 2day FM recording of the conversation with Jacintha Saldanha, was illegally recorded.
  11. Heck, even by breaking federal and sate telecommunications laws, I could not get Judge Lander to talk to me about these issues.
  12. You have to wonder, “Why was this so?” Could it be that Judge Lander was deliberately perverting the course of justice?

 “The devil is in the detail.”

In his letter, Judge Lander majored on the minor uncontested issues and studiously avoided “the devil in the detail” that provided insight into Playford council’s real intentions and motives.

  1. Nowhere in the letter is there a reference to the Minutes of Meeting for the council’s deliberations on September 12th 2013 when Playford Council “considered, finalized and approved” a parking trial aimed at sussing out timed parking zone “opportunities” within close proximity to the Lyell McEwin Hospital.
  2. $60 per parking fine per parking spot at 3 times per day, even for 50 spaces in the parking trial was potentially quite a money spinner in the long term – especially if council could get away with creating a 1,000 such parking spots “in close proximity to the LMHS.”
  3. It is manifestly apparent that Judge Lander had no intention of being required to have to consider any evidence that Playford Council and senior council officials were prepared to deliberately compromise public safely in the pursuit of the “opportunities” discussed by council members.

So exactly why did Judge Landers toss Rule of Law principles out the window and in doing so, violate my constitutional rights, my legal rights, and my most basic of human rights, i.e. the right to live? (In the above video, the margin between a head-on crash and a near miss was just 2 seconds!)

 To be honest, I do not know the answer to that question; I just know that his response has placed the lives of South Australian citizens in danger. At about 3.05Pm on the 25th February, 3 lives were in danger in yet another head-on near miss in Broughton Street and again at 10:45 AM on the 27th February 3 lives were at risk in another head-on near miss in Siddall Road. An hour ago I had a golden opportunity to smear a pedestrian between my car and a parked car!

[ 5 dead in 84 hours - that is the carnage on South Australia's road since I wrote the above comment. Lander's Law nearly made that 'scorecard 8 deaths! Cars kill, something that Judge Lander does not seem to comprehend too well.]

It may be that Judge Lander did not wish to ‘rock the boat’ with a decision that would prevent  local councils across the state from using new electronic “parking Inspector” technology to rake in millions of dollars in revenue by setting up timed parking zones in streets that were too narrow to be safely used for this purpose.

Electronic spy cameras at 24/7/365 'parking inspectors that can raise millions of dollars in parking fines, all without human intervention!

Electronic spy cameras at 24/7/365 ‘parking inspectors that can raise millions of dollars in parking fines, all without human intervention!

One thing is for certain, his apparent unwillingness to allow the most basic of procedural fairness principles, the right to heard, raises a lot of disturbing questions that need to be answered before more injustices occur:

  1.  Is Judge Lander, the head of the Anti-Corruption Commission, corrupt and making political decisions that will please his political masters instead of making legally valid decisions in accordance with Due Process of Law?
  2. This is a valid question to ask because 18 days BEFORE I filed my formal complaint, Lee Odenwalder, the local Member for Little Para, told a group of irate local residents that “the ICAC would not investigate.”  Lee Odenwalder’s confident statement was 100% spot on and the obvious question here is “Why was he so confident of no investigation of a clear and present danger to the public?”
  3. I am old, but Judge Landers is even older, having started practicing Law in 1969. Could it be that he has hit his ‘Use-by’ date and needs to hang up his wig and robe?
  4. Or could it be that as ‘the boss’ of the ICAC, Judge Lander is blinded by his own perceived magnificent and thinks that he can make up his own laws on the fly?
  5. The worst case scenario is that Judge Lander is merely doing what he did when he was sitting on the Bench. That is a really frightening thought isn’t it, given that some 40,000+ people each year argue their own case in court and they all rely upon the judge presiding in the case to be fair and impartial rather than capriciously doing their own version of Rafferty’s Rules! (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafferty%27s_Rules )

 Beyond Commonwealth vs. Keating.

Passengers on the Costa Concordia were abandoned when the ship started sinking. For decades, focusing upon budgets and elections, rather than public safety, the major political parties have concealed lethal dangers to the public. In this there is a clear parallel with the High Court’s Commonwealth vs. Keating “statutory fiction” decision on May 8th 2013.

 Rather than admit that the Liberal-National Coalition and the ALP had prosecuted and convicted some 15,000 impoverished welfare recipients for violating a law that did not exist, the Gillard Government (ALP) and the Liberal-National Coalition joined forces and retrospectively legislated to make these convictions valid. In voting for this retrospective legislation, the ALP and Coalition politicians in Australia’s federal parliament deliberately violated the constitutional, legal and basic human rights of 15,000 people.

 In the clash between public safety and political expediency, guess which one loses out?

Ponder this:

QANTAS is the only international airline that has NEVER HAD A PASSENGER FATALITY. There are many reason for this but one of the most crucial reasons is the primary back-up safety system, i.e. the CO-PILOT. If a QANTAS co-pilot believes that the captain has stuffed up, then he/she is expected to speak up and take action before an accident occurs. Because of this requirement to act in the interests of passengers, QANTAS is the world’s safest airline.

I too am speaking up in the interests of South Australia’s “passengers”, and if you are a South Ozzie who wants to stop  our political parties from doing a ‘Costa Concordia’ with South Australia and running our beautiful state onto the rocks, then you also need to speak up and demand that a Royal Commission into the failure of public safety in our state.

Keep in mind the fact that if you do nothing and you become a fatal statistic before the 2017 state election, you won’t be around to complain, so do it now before  it’s too late.

NOTE: The was a total absence of procedural fairness with both the Office of Public Integrity and Judge Lander “quarantining” themselves from:

  1. The plaintiff
  2. Other victims.
  3. Witnesses.
  4. Expert advice from the RAA.
  5. Other video evidence.
  6. Audio evidence.
  7. Documentary evidence.
  8. An on-site inspection of the problem.
  9. Australian Road rules that require a clear view of traffic coming in the opposite direction and the ability to proceed in complete safety.

In addition to all of the above, Judge Lander deflected attention away from Playford Council’s motives and the potentially lethal consequences of both the “improved road safety” and the logic behind the decision to hold the public meeting in a bituminized car park at 5PM on a hot December afternoon.

Judge Lander’s “other options” comment deflects attention away from why, of all the safe options that were available, Playford council opted for the car park despite the fact that in 2009, 92 people died from heat exhaustion in a two week period. Playford Council staff knew precisely what would happen when they chose that venue, i.e. only a few residents would attend a meeting held in those extreme circumstances.

Overall, Judge Lander’s letter reading like the opening statement being made to jury by a barrister who is defending a guilty client; it does not read like a fair and impartial assessment of a clear and present danger to the residents of Elizabeth Vale.

Page 1:LanderPage 2:Lander (2)

Page 3:Lander (3)Please note that “other options” included a web site that was not revealed to residents until December, i.e. 2 months after it was set up and that residents in other streets whose lives were affected by the trial were not notified.

The ultimate insult in Judge Lander’s letter is that NO ONE knew the venue had been switched to an air-conditioned room at the tennis club UNTIL THEY ARRIVED IN SCORCHING 36 Degree HEAT! Playford Council was bound and determined that as few people as possible would attend the meeting as possible. If Judge Lander had bothered to listen to the full recording of the (illegally) recorded phone conversation between a Playford Council official and my self, he probably would not have written his page 3 “other options” comments.

LyellMcEwin parking emailThe best response to Judge Lander’s “other options” comment is found in the official Timeline of Events.

After months of planning, on 12th September 2013 Playford Council “considered, finalized and approved” a parking trial plan that would force residents to drive on the wrong side of the road into on-coming traffic! This was not a voluntary action by residents but a carefully planned scheme by local government politicians and the council’s PROFESSIONAL support staff.

Playford Council’s planning included:

    1. Avoiding any prior public consultation with residents about  its plans to force residents top drive on the wrong side of the road!
    2. Setting up a feedback web site but not telling residents about this website until the “trial” was almost over.
    3. At least 6 local air-conditioned venues that were available to Playford Council were totally ignored in favour of an open car park in the heat of summer!

Does anyone really believe that Playford Council was leaving no stone unturned in ensuring that there was full disclosure and full community consultation?

  • The reality was that Playford Council knew, that with 8 tee-junctions, 2 right angle corners and 2 bends, the trial zone was did not meet the minimum requirement for clear views and the ability to proceed safely. Council’s solution to those problems was to avoid consultation and to do everything possible to minimize the possibility of a large public turnout.
  • The only way to avoid questions about the legality of Playford council’s action was to control the agenda from A to Z, and that included full control of the public consultation process so that awkward questions could be avoided.
  • Judge Lander’s response is a cop-out that needs to be independently scrutinized.

There needs to be a royal commission inquiry into both Playford Council’s actions and the manner in which the office of Public Integrity and Judge Lander handled these issues

Please not that journalists or TV reporters who asks for an MP3 copy of the Friday 13th phone conversation will be provided with one upon request.

Ronald Medlicott. (A Christian advocate for Justice in Australia.)



Posted in News and politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Roadway Russian Roulette: “A clear and present danger” that is approved by the South Australian ICAC

On the 17th February 2014, the South Australian Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) made an Ultra Vires decision (a decision that undermines Rule of Law) in relation to complaint 2013/00798. 


The ICAC, apparently ignored both the video evidence provided and and 2 statute law provisions when making his decision which allows Playford  Council to set up parking zones in narrow streets with the result that drivers must drive blindly on the wrong side of the road into oncoming traffic!  (I KID YOU NOT.) The ICAC decision so severely compromises PUBLIC SAFETY that his decision may undermine a tsunami of prosecutions that involve endangering life.

 [Note: The short link URL is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-jz  ]

1.6 seconds - the margin between life and death thanks to the fake "road safety" trial.

1.6 seconds – the margin between life and death thanks to the South Aussie ICAC’s decision.

If I had not somehow sensed the approach of this car and pulled up, we would have been sharing the same road space at the same time. Hairy to say the least, but an all too frequent problem that local residents are trying to survive.

The South Aussie ICAC’s decision can be directly compared with the first air crash to kill over 100 passengers and flight crew. This occurred in 1956 when 2 passenger liners collided over the Grand Canyon and all 128 people on board the planes were killed.

1956 plan3 crash

How did this plane crash apparently occur?

Incredible but true, air traffic controllers knew that the 2 planes, which were carefully complying with the flight rules of the time, were both going to be arriving at the same place at the same time.

  1. The planes were both flying at 21,000 feet,
  2. The were headed for the Painted Desert (radio) marker,
  3. They would arrive at 10.31 AM. 

Incredibly, the air traffic controllers were so focussed on making sure that the planes were following the flight rules, that they failed to notice that the planes would be in the same place at the same time! The result was inevitable and as a result, 128 people died when the planes collided.

By focussing on just one road rule and not the total package, the ICAC lost focus. It appears that the ICAC may have ignored the “kick butt” advice of Justice Steven Rares of the Federal Court, who in a speech made at the 2013 AGS Law Administrators Conference, laid out the “Kindergarten Law 101″ principles that had been ignored 15,000 times by magistrates and judges who had convicted welfare recipients for a crime that did not exist on the statute books! (Commonwealth vs. Keating – High Court, May 8th 2013) They had been so focussed on one of the laws needed to prosecute welfare recipients that they failed to notice that a pre-requisite law needed for the prosecution no longer existed due to changes made by the Howard Government in 1997.

 The welfare recipients had been convicted by judges who focused upon Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) which was ‘one-leg’ of the Crown prosecution case but failed to check the ’2nd leg’, i.e. the statutory obligation to report income to Centrelink. No such law existed, but Centrelink bureaucrats, politicians from all sides of the fence, prosecutors, judges, lawyers, juries, and the defendants, all thought that it did!

Centrelink 10 a day prosecutionsTalk about goal focussed! A $10 Million advertising campaign that threatened prosecution under a law that did not exist? (Who says the Wizard of OZ is fiction? Don’t you know that OZ is a real place run by real straw-headed ‘wizards’ called politicians?)


 The ICAC focussed upon a loophole in the Australian Road Rules (ARRs) that actually allows local councils to raise revenue by setting up timed parking lanes in roads that are too narrow if they do not have a white line down the centre of the road. (Again, I KID YOU NOT!)

By not painting a centreline, councils force motorists to drive on the wrong side of the road into on-coming traffic when council’s set up revenue raising timed parking zones or install kerbside parking metres.

  1. This system allows councils to raise revenue, simply by not painting centrelines on roads.
  2. Unbelievable, crazy, idiotic,but sadly, TRUE!

Head on text freeAnother head-on incident – this car also did not stop but swerved around me. If I had arrived 5 seconds earlier, we would have meet between the parked cars!

No clear view 2Can you spot the people who have just stepped out of their cars? Road glare, 2 tee junctions, parked cars, and a bend in the road – ALL in the one short section of road!

  1. How do the two pictures above fit in with the requirements for a clear view of the road ahead and the ability to proceed safely?
  2. The do not comply with these laws but the South Aussie ICAC appears to have totally ignored this when he watched the 7 videos that I had posted on the Internet and referred to in my complaint.
  3. The fact that these dangerous situations were apparently ignored raises the very serious question, DID HE LOOK AT THE 7 VIDEOS?
  4. If he did not do so, then WHY NOT?

Australia’s road Rules contain 2 clauses that are supposed to stop councils setting up these dangerous situations but for some unknown (but suspected) reason, he failed to consider them in the decision making process. Had he done so, he would have not been able to rubber-stamp Playford Council’s game of Russian Roulette. The rules to protect drivers are very clearly worded:

  1. The need for drivers to have “a clear view of approaching traffic”, and
  2. When forced to drive over the centreline, “drivers can do so safely.”

Sadly, the ICAC, (The Hon Bruce Lander QC), focussed upon the right of council’s to force road users to drive on the wrong side of the road and totally ignored the above 2 road laws.

Check out the video link below and note:

  1. the curves in the road;
  2. the 90 degree bends;
  3. the blind Tee junctions where, because of parked cars, drivers entering these streets cannot see you coming until they turn into the street!


With the road safety standards that you see in the video, is it any wonder that more than 64,000 people have died on Australian roads in the last 30 years?

WARNING: In the first few second of the video, a fatal truck crash is shown in slow motion. 

Ronald Medlicott ( A Christian advocate for justice in Australia.)


Posted in News and politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Roadway Russian Roulette: “A Clear and Present Danger” to public safety that is officially being ignored.

Driving on the wrong side of the road because of parked cars.

October 2013 Driving on the wrong side of the road because of parked cars.

Being forced to drive on the wrong side of the road is a serious public safety issue for it poses a clear and present danger, i.e. the very obvious potentially lethal risk of colliding with a car coming in the opposite direction. However, if you live in South Australia you need to be aware that despite 94 road fatalities in 2011 and 103 road fatalities in 2012, the fact that road users are being deliberately forced to drive on the wrong side of the road is not an issue of concern whatsoever to South Australian authorities as the two documents shown after the photographs below clearly reveals.

[NOTE: The short link for this URL is  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-jb  ]

1.6 seconds - the margin between life and death thanks to the fake "road safety" trial.

1.6 seconds – the margin between life and death thanks to the fake “road safety” trial.

The picture above was taken on 2nd January 2014.  Just 2 weeks earlier on December 19th 2013, I faced a similar situation with a speeding car that did not stop. About a week early on December 12th, I had also faced this head-on collision situation. In the example above, had I not spotted this car as it turned from Siddall road into Broughton Road, we could have met head on a combined speed of 70-80 KPH! Nasty, very, very nasty indeed.

4 into 3 will not go. There is no way that 2 cars can pass each in this narrow space and yet that is what was/is expected of drivers

4 into 3 will not go. There is no way that 2 cars can pass each in this narrow space and yet that is what was/is expected of drivers. At 2.32PM on December 19th, I was passing through this bottleneck when I spotted the roof of a car moving rapidly towards me. By flooring the accelerator, I just made it to the side road with a fraction of a second to spare. CLOSE? YOU BET IT WAS!

The bottleneck above has been the norm’ since October 8th 2013 when the so-called “road safety trial” came into force at 8AM on October 8th 2013. In all, Playford Council has ignored a total of 7 videos that have highlighted the dangers faced by road users as a result of their “trial”. The problem was/is that the council is not the only organization that has deliberately and wilfully ignored these clearly evident dangers.

Centrelink driving because of parked cars.

Centreline driving has been the only option  because of the parked cars.

PLEASE: Check out the following remarkable evidence of official indifference to the risks caused by Playford Council’s potentially lethal ‘road safety’ trial:

Coroner does nix“…the powers of the Coroner are only enacted when a death occurs.” How’s that for an official response? Until such time as there is a fatal accident, the Coroner will do nothing to prevent any fatalities!

  1. This response is at odds with the democratic issue of “Public Safety.”In fact it may be at odds with a law that deals with ‘A reckless indifference to human life that results in a fatality’, i.e. Manslaughter due to criminal negligence.
  2. Logically, one of the key the purpose of inquests is to identify systemic issues or problems that may prove fatal to members of the public.
  3. “Our legal system currently allows every court in this country, from a local court magistrate to the High Court, when exercising federal jurisdiction, to declare a law made by any parliament or under delegated legislation or any executive conduct to be constitutionally invalid.” (Justice Steven Rares – AGS Law Administrators Conference, June 2013)

Given that judges from the High Court, the Federal Court and the 6 state and the 2 territory Supreme Courts attended this conference along with representatives from the Federal Government and Australia’s 8 state or territory  Attorney-General’s Departments, quite clearly, if Justice Rares was in error in making the above statement, then it is highly likely that many of his legal peers would have pointed this out.

  1. The fact that Australia’s leading judges and law makers accepted this statement at face value is impressively solid validation of its legal accuracy.
  2. Surely, if ANY court can challenge federal legislation, then the coroner’s court can challenge local government by-laws or decisions that wilfully endanger lives by violating federal and/or state road laws?
I'm still waiting for an investigation to get under way.

I first emailed a complaint on 7th December and then backed this up with an on-line complaint on 18th December. At the time of posting this blog (11th January 2014) I’m still waiting for an investigation to get under way.

Here again there is a total lack of urgency about road users being forced to drive head-on into on-coming traffic that may not be visible due to bends in the road and parked cars.

  1. Actions speak much louder than words: When it comes to the issue of a clear and present danger to the public, the very obvious message to road users and the general public is that South Australian officials are not concerned about Playford Council’s potentially lethal actions.

Why is there this attitude of indifference to the risks?

  • The answer to that question may be found in the following photo.
This is a nation wide problem with untold million of dollars in illegally gained revenue on the line.

This page wide advertisement comes from the summer 2013-2014 edition of the South Australian Royal Automobile Association’s magazine. (See page 58 for the full 3/4 page advertisement.)

Across Australia, local council’s raise revenue by establishing timed parking zones in streets that are below code with the result that road users must either ‘Centreline’ drive or else drive completely on the wrong side of the road as in the first photo in this posting.

Facts do not cease to exist just because local council’s and law enforcement authorities chose to ignore them. In Australia, national road rules and state/territory road laws require drivers to drive on the left hand side of the road. Driving on the centreline or on the right hand side of the road therefore violations several road rules:

  1. Rule 129 – Keep to the left.
  2. Rule 131 – Do not drive on the centreline of the road
  3. Rule 132 – Do not drive on the right hand side of the road.

By deliberately violating these road rules in order to raise revenue, local council’s also violate Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) which deals with Acts of Commission and/or Acts of Omission for the purpose of obtaining a financial advantage that a person or organization is not entitled to receive, i.e.by establishing parking zones in ‘below code’ streets for the purpose of  raising revenue from parking fees and parking fines.

  • Code specs 002007Establishing parking zones that force drivers onto the wrong side of the road is a deliberate act of reckless endangerment. In some states, e.g South Australia, any fatalities caused by this illegal activity would therefore legally be Felony Murders. An interesting question therefore is how many  deaths classified by the SA Coroner’s Court since 1995 as “road accident” fatalities or “death by misadventure” are in fact Felony Murders that were caused by Local Government Authorities, i.e. local councils, that were more concerned with raising revenue than with public safety?
  • Playford Council’s attempt to set up timed parking zones has stalled because of community opposition. However, the council has kept its options open by ignoring community demands for the establishment of residential parking permit zones. Is the council is hoping to re-try establishing these zones once move house or if I am killed in a car accident?

Permit zoneThis residential parking permit zone is little more than 100 metres east of the “road safety” trial zone. It is the safest option for residents but offers the least revenue for the council.

FULL CIRCLE: After 3 months of a psuedo “road safety trial” that has had road users in 4 residential access streets dodging cars coming in the opposite direction, what do we now have as of 6PM on the 10th January 2014?

Treves reality checkYES – this is the photo at the top of this posting. The reality is that Treves Street and Siddall Road residents will still be driving on the wrong side of the road into on-coming traffic. The only significant change for these residents is that they now know that this is an illegal act on the part of Playford Council.

For a while, Broughton Road and Lindon Street will again be free of cars parked on both sides of the road. The medium to long term problem is that as demand on the Lyell McEwin Hospital’s limited car parking spaces increases, the overflow will spill over into all of the streets that surround the hospital.

OPERATION CROSSROADS: AT 6PM there was a TV news report about the high number of drivers caught by South Australian police during the Christmas-New year road safety blitz known as “Operation Crossroads.” A staggering  204 drivers tested for drugs returned positive drug tests whilst more than 100 were driving under the influence of alcohol!!!

  1. Is it any wonder that road users in the Playford Council “road safety” trial area sometimes encountered drivers who would not stop when faced with a potential collision?
  2. One of my neighbors reported seeing one car mount the footpath in order to avoid a collision!
  3. Having faced 3 potentially fatal situations in 3 weeks, and having recorded hours of centreline driving, I am not surprised by that report.


With more than 4 deaths per day in Australia, it is a gross understatement to say that forcing road users to drive on the wrong side of the road into on-coming traffic (that may not be visible until the last moment before a collision, is “A Clear and Present Danger.”


Late last week I heard a media report that police had arrested and charged a man for endangering the public. Quite clearly, such activity is a crime and the question that all road users in Australia must ask is this;

“Given that an average of 4 people per day die on Australian roads, why are South Australian authorities ignoring such a potentially lethal clear and present danger?”

NONFEASANCE – A failure to take action when action is required.

A fair question to ask is the question as to whether or not the failure of South Australian authorities to take action to prevent an accident in the “road safety trial” zone constitutes Nonfeasance? The reality is that at anytime a serious or fatal accident could have occurred. The current reality is that with road users in Treves street and Siddall Road still being forced to drive on the wrong side of the road, a fatal accident could still occur at any time, day or night.

Doing nothing until a fatality occurs or until it is administratively convenient to do so is simply not an option. At what point does Nonfeasance become Criminal Negligence? That is a question that responsible authorities should now be asking themselves.

INTERNATIONAL TOURISTS: If you value your life, it may be wise to visit a country where law enforcement authorities crack down on driving on the wrong side of the road, i.e. think carefully before you decide to visit my home state of South Australia.

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for justice in Australia.


Posted in News and politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The City of Playford has a new form of Russian Roulette: Part 2 – documentary evidence.

Electronic spy cameras at 24/7/365 'parking inspectors that can raise millions of dollars in parking fines, all without human intervention!

Electronic spy cameras at 24/7/365 ‘parking inspectors that can raise millions of dollars in parking fines, all without human intervention!

Playford Council in South Australia has made a grab for the millions of dollars in revenue that can be had from installing automated electronic “Parking Inspector” spy-cam technology in the residential streets that surround a massively upgraded regional hospital that is woefully short on affordable parking space for staff, patients and visitors.

[Note: the short-link for this URL is    http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-iQ   ]

As the documents below reveal quite clearly, Playford Council deliberately lied to the residents in Treves Street and Siddall Road, Elizabeth Vale about the true purpose of a ‘parking trial’ that was supposedly about improving road safety and reducing parking congestion in these two streets which are immediately adjacent to the hospital’s main entrance.

The 1st letter dated September 23rd: Note the title of the parking trial and the logic used in the 2nd paragraph to justify the trial.

The 1st letter was a case of "tell and do" with council avoiding any prior consultation. It is also a series of lies starting with the title of the trial which hid what Council was really doing.

The 1st letter was a case of “tell and do” with council avoiding any prior consultation. It is also a series of lies starting with the title of the trial which hid what Council was really doing.

Despite repeated requests for “Full and Frank Disclosure” Playford Council has failed to make available the truth about its actions and motives in this letter.

Document #2 – My statutory declaration. The dangers identified were ignored as was the “below code – not fit purpose” empirical evidence provided in a video that was made available to Playford Council when the statutory declaration was delivered on 1st October 2013.

Despite the dangers detailed in this declaration, a Sworn Statement made under Oath, exactly 1 week later the council started its so-called road safety trial.

Despite the dangers detailed in this declaration, a Sworn Statement made under Oath, exactly 1 week later the council started its so-called road safety trial.

Document #3 – The Lord Mayor’s response. An employee at the hospital, note Mayor Docherty’s reference to the hospital “precinct.” Clearly, although he is the mayor of the City of Playford, he apparently seems to thing that his employer, the Lyell McEwin Health Service (referred to as the LMHS) is the ruling authority in the suburb of Elizabeth Vale. So, who does he represent; ratepayers or his employer who stands to gain an all-day parking monopoly in this “precinct”?

Who does the mayor represent; the ratepayers who elected him or his employer?

Who does the mayor represent; the ratepayers who elected him or his employer?

How serious a conflict of Interest is involved in the mayor’s above response and just how much does his apparentlyly failure to heed the dangers pointed out in the statutory declaration constitute Malfeasant Abuse of Public Office?

Document #4 – “The LMHS  adjoining parking – Timeline of Events.

This document says far more than is apparent at 1st glance. Check out points such as the months of investigation into “timed parking opportunities, within close proximity to LMHS”.

LyellMcEwin parking emailThat statement highlights the REAL PURPOSE of the so-called parking trial, i.e. the revenue to raised from parking fees and parking fines which, in Elizabeth Vale alone, could be as much as $5 – 10 MILLION. Ominously, if council could get the scheme working in Elizabeth Vale, the cash flow from using electronic parking spy-cams throughout the City of Playford would be mind-boggling to say the least!

Note the statement in the above document dated 23rd September – “Letter hand delivered to MP Odenwalder’s office.” On 30th November at what was meant to be a 20 minute token ‘whistle-stop meet and greet’, the local MP for the electorate of Little Par, Lee Odenwalder, effectively “ambushed” by a group of irate residents who do not the recklessly dangerous manner in they have been placed as a direct consequence of the phoney parking trial.

Lee Odenwalder's "20 minute 'meet and greet'.

Lee Odenwalder’s “20 minute ‘meet and greet’.

To say that Mr Odenwalder did not cover himself in glory at this meeting is a gross understatement. However, perhaps the most significant issue to come out of this “ambush” was Mr Odenwalder’s repeated statements that he knew absolutely nothing about the letter mentioned in the timeline of events. He was MOST EMPHATIC that neither he nor his staff knew anything about the alleged letter.

  1. Who is telling lies?
  2. Either Playford Council lied by falsely inserting the “Letter hand delivered to MP…” statement in an attempt to deceive readers into believing that the Weatherall Government, of which Lee Odenwalder is a member, knew about the so-called parking ‘trial’ and approved of it, or;
  3. Lee Odenwalder was deliberately lying to the angry group of voters that had ambushed him.
  4. A 3rd option is that Mr Odenwalder’s office staff had lied to Mr Odenwalder about their knowledge of the letter.

Regardless of who lied, residents and road users are in danger as the photos in the previous blog clearly reveal for they are being illegally forced to either ‘centreline drive’ or drive completely on the wrong side of the road!

Document #6 – A new name for the trial, a partial admission that the issue is hospital parking but still no admission that the real game is the millions of dollars to raked up in parking fees and fines if residents can be persuaded to drive on the wrong side of the road and risk potentially fatal collisions with on-coming traffic. Add to this a ‘public meeting’ to which most stakeholders are NOT invited, being held at a  time when few can attend at venue that is dangerously unsafe for young children or senior citizens.

Were is the best place to hold a public safety meeting. How about a a bitumenized , shade-free car park during the heat of a hot summer's day!

Were is the best place to hold a public safety meeting. How about a a bitumenized , shade-free car park during the heat of a hot summer’s day!

Where has this public safety issue meeting been scheduled to be  held by the City Of Playford’s bureaucrats? In a car park at 5PM on a summer’s day!

What is so dangerous about this venue?

Check out the following info’ on Adelaide’s climate in December and the weather forecast for the time of the proposed meeting.

Weather in DecemberThanks to the Noel Coward song “Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the mid-day sun”, we all know that going out into the heat of the day can be a dangerous act of madness. As the picture above reveals, yesterday, the Bureau of Meteorology expected the TEMPERATURE to peak at 5PM. Mind you, most people who live in Adelaide do not need the weather bureau to tell them that; they know that at 5PM in mid-December, it is likely to be hot!

Just how hot is December in Adelaide likely to be?

  1. “The month of December is characterized by gradually rising daily high temperatures, with daily highs around 26°C throughout the month, exceeding 33°C or dropping below 19°C only one day in ten.”
  2. “On December 16, a representative day, the sky is clear or mostly clear 38% of the time, partly cloudy17% of the time, and mostly cloudy or overcast 29% of the time. “
  3. Source: http://weatherspark.com/averages/34070/12/Adelaide-South-Australia


  1. For December this is usually between 7 (High) and 10 (Extremely High) and the extended forecast for December 17th is 10.
  2. Source:    http://www.timeanddate.com/weather/australia/adelaide/ext


> 77% is Extremely high and this is normal in December and yes, the extended forecast December 17th is for > 77%.

  1. “The relative humidity typically ranges from 32% (comfortable) to 77% (humid) over the course of a typical December, rarely dropping below 13% (very dry), or exceeding 91% (very humid).”
  2. “The air is driest around December 31, at which time the relative humidity drops below 43%(comfortable) three days out of four; it is most humid around December 11, rising above 72%(humid) three days out of four.”
  3. Source:The previously mentioned WeatherSpark reference listed above, http://weatherspark.com/averages/34070/12/Adelaide-South-Australia.

SHADE Temperature vs. SUN Temperature?

The forecast temperature for the 17th is 31oC which is classified as “Warm”. However, the car park has no shade and so what counts is the temperature that people of all ages and health conditions who are being deliberately exposed to full sun, must endure if they attend this meeting.

Source of the Bureau of Meteorology information below was:


  1.  Thermal comfort, i.e. the difference between sun temperature and shade temperature on the Adelaide Plains: 
  2. Edinburgh Airport at 11:30 am on 10th December 2013 
  3. WBGT (Sun)                       WBGT (Shade)   
  4. oC     18.1oC                          11.2oC                        

At the time these temperatures were taken on an unusually cool day, it was therefore 61% hotter in the sun than in the shade.  Such variation is well known, which is why good parents and people of common sense try to avoid exposure to direct sunlight during the heat of the day!

  1. With a forecast of 31oC, this translates to a DIRECT SUNLIGHT-exposed temperature of 49.9oC (31 oC  x 161%  =  49.9 oC) which is an extreme temperature for anyone, let alone babies, young children or aged people who are 65+.
  2. In fact, anyone who may have serious health issues due to exposure to extreme temperatures that are highly dangerous!
  3. The Sports Medicine Association, one of Australia’s leading group of experts on Heat Exhaustion make the following comment:
  4. The guidelines are not binding but SMA reminds all parties that they must act responsibly. We encourage a commonsense approach and consideration of the comfort and well-being of all individuals including participants and officials… Modification or cancellation of events, training or withdrawal from participation may be appropriate even in circumstances falling outside these circumstances.
  5. Source:HOT WEATHER GUIDELINES for sporting clubs and physically active. (page 1)
  6. Keep in mind that weather bureau monitoring equipment is usually situated over a grassy surface, not black bitumen which absorbs and radiated enormous amounts of heat.

It appears that in an attempt to discourage people from attending the meeting to discuss public safety issues related to the so-called ‘trial’, which has now morphed into a ‘pilot’, a term that has nothing to do with flying planes, Playford Council has ignored its own air-conditioned theatre which seat hundreds and chosen a venue that places the young, the old and the frail or vulnerable in a highly dangerous environment. Since anyone with a shred of common sense will not rock to a meeting in such a dangerous environment, Playford Council appears to be setting itself up to claim that there is no substantial objection to what they are doing and that therefore it is okay to implement the “timed parking zones” in Elizabeth Vale.

In effect, this is taking “Cooking the books” to extremes by literally using solar power to cook anyone who is opposed to council’s plans.


 The need for Playford Council  to lie to ratepayers and residents becomes evident when you look at residential access road specifications.

Many of the residential; access streets in Elizabeth Vale, indeed throughout the City of Playford, are only 7.3 metres (24 Feet) wide.

Residential streets are too narrow for 2 lanes of traffic and a "timed parking zone."

Residential streets are too narrow for 2 lanes of traffic and a “timed parking zone.”

Compare that width with the minimum standards set out in the Australian design code below.


Centrelink driving because of parked cars.

Centrelink driving because of parked cars.

Driving on the wrong side of the road because of parked cars.

Driving on the wrong side of the road because of parked cars.

Garbage truck squeezeTreves Street is a dangerous place these days.

If the newly established South Australian Independent Commission Against Corruption , i.e the ICAC, refuses to investigate this issue than it will only serve to demonstrate the extent to which Australia’s justice system is becoming. If the ICAC is really “Independent”, then it must investigate this serious public safety corruption issue.

YOUTUBE VIDEOS. Below are links to 5 of the 6 videos of the problem so far presented to Playford Council that have all been ignored:

Published 4th December 2013


 Published 20 November 2013


 Published 11 November 2013


 Published 1st November 2013


 Published September 28th


One video, the 2nd to be provided to Playford Council in October 2013 is not posted on YouTube as the upload of this file crashed, possibly because my video was either too big or my lousy phone line was too slow.


In both the October email to me and the letter from Playford Council dated 3rd December 2013 you will notice that the URL for council’s parking trial feedback site is listed at:


That URL provides insight into the real purpose of the so-called “parking trial” was really all about.

  1. If you check out my 4th November posting, you will find that link is listed twice by me.
  2. Talk to residents or LMHS staff who park in Broughton Road or Lindon Street and you will discover that I was distributing flyers and pamphlets with that URL in October and November, and yet the 1st official mention of this URL to  the residents in Treves Street and Siddall Road, a very restricted audience of stakeholders, was not until Playford Council’s 3rd December letter was delivered to residents on 5th December.


Ronald Medlicott – A Christian activist for Justice in Australia.

Posted in News and politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The City of Playford has a new form of Russian Roulette that uses roads and cars instead of revolvers and bullets.

Check this out! The City of Playford in South Australia has developed a new form of Russian Roulette that uses roads and cars instead of revolvers and bullets.

[ The URL shortlink is http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-hV  ]

THE ‘mushroom tunnel syndrome’ LETTER FROM PLAYFORD COUNCIL.

In paragraph 2 of the letter below, the residents of two streets in the suburb of Elizabeth Vale are told that a 3 hour parking “trial” will improve road safety and reduce congestion. However, when you check out the copy of the email that follows this letter, it is clearly apparent that the “trial” is really a Pilot Project”, i.e. it is in reality a test run for introducing a timed parking zone around a major hospital that will over time net both the council and the hospital millions of dollars. Paragraph 2 in the council deceitful letter states:

“As part of the City of Playford’s ongoing commitment to road safety, Council will initiate a three-month trial timed parking within the streets of Treves Street and Siddall Road. These restrictions are being introduced to reduce congestion, improve safety and alleviate the parking congestion issues experienced by residents.”

This is utter garbage, for as you will see in the email header that follows, it is all about sneaking in the introduction of timed parking zones in the residential access streets that are on the northern side of the Lyell McEwin Hospital by conning the residents into accepting this form of parking in streets that are way below safety standards for this purpose. Forget about “road safety” and “reducing congestion” and instead think in terms of ‘parking fines revenue raising’.


Any consultation process that involves decisions includes “the need to know” which means that there is also “a right to know”.  For example as both the “Subject” line of this email and the “timed parking possibilities” statements made between July 10th and early September make quite clear, “safety” and reducing (traffic) congestion are not the real issues; the real issue is all about more timed parking spaces in 2 streets that are totally inadequate for this purpose!Email from Rob V

DELIBERATE MISDIRECTION by majoring on minor issues in order to avoid the real issues is a violation of Procedural Fairness, which includes the right to know ALL of the relevant facts needed for making valid decisions. So check out the ‘contractors and tradespeople’ mentioned in the opening paragraph.

This is a textbook example of instant misdirection by raising minor, largely irrelevant matter to deflect attention away from the real issues. Sure, some of these people are contractors and ‘tradies’, but the majority are full or part-time hospital workers, e.g. nurses and receptionists, etc.


CL west on Brghtn  (ABOVE: The Broughton Road centreline driving’ gun barrel effect of car parking in a road that, at 7.3. metres, is far below code for kerbside parking.)

Hard decisions require hard data and the council is not providing any useful data upon which to formulate any objective, empirical decisions. For example, how many hospital workers have been regularly parking their cars in Treves Street and Siddall Road during the last year?

The answer, 10 in Treves street and 40 in Siddall Road = 50 cars x 5 days = 250 cars per week. Since they have been forced to move, where did they? Literally, just around the corner into Broughton Road (see picture above) where they can legally park on both sides of the 7.3 metre wide road!

  1. How many hospital patients and visitors are expected to park in these 2 streets between 8AM and 6PM? 50×4 = 200 x 5 days = 1,000 which is a 400% increase in traffic congestion and a 400% increase in the chance of a “centreline” or a “drive on the right’ head-on collision.)
  2. What percentage of this 1,000 cars per week does the council expect to fine for exceeding the 3 hour limit?
  3. Exactly just how much does the council expect to raise from parking fines in these 2 streets in the next 5 years at $60 per fine?
  4. How many accidents have occurred in these 2 streets in the last 5 years that have been reported to the police?
  5. What is the council’s Risk Assessment Projection (RAP Sheet) for the next 5 years once 3 hour timed parking is introduced?

What increase in traffic flow is expected as people seek out vacated parking  spots in these streets? (If parking space “seekers” are similar in number to the number of cars that park in these 2 streets, it will mean that some 2,000 cars will flow through streets between 8AM and 6PM Monday to Friday, I.E. over 100,000 cars per year with most of them ‘centreline’ driving in opposite directions! How many people in these 2 streets are aware of this nasty implication?

  1. Since the “No Parking” signs were installed, how many people have been fined for parking in these “No Parking” zones? ($68 per fine!) This photo was taken at 9AM on Friday 4th October and the illegally parked car was still there at 1.30PM. (Note: frustrated motorists once pulled out these No Parking signs so that they could be close to the hospital,the background buildings, and hid them out of sight in the gutter!)9 o clock on 4th
  2. What is council’s trend line projection for this behaviour to continue?
  3. What is the minimum road width  required to 2 traffic lanes and 2 parking lanes in suburban Residential Access Roads?
  4. What is the minimum road width  required to 2 traffic lanes and 1 parking lane in suburban Residential Access Roads?


According to a report in last week’s local newspaper, Mayor Docherty claims that by 2043 the city’s population will have increased by 100,000, a figure that implies that in the next 5 years the population of Playford will increase from 80,000 to 96,000, i.e. a 20% increase on the current population level. This implies a 20% increase in the number of people using the hospital and a 20% increase in the demand for parking spaces.

SO WHAT ABOUT NEXT MONTH? In a few weeks time, paediatric patients will be switched from Modbury Hospital  to the Lyell McEwin. At the same time the Northern Adelaide Cancer Clinic will come on-line with patients from the north-western suburbs being sent from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital from treatment at the Lyell McEwin.

  1. How many extra car parks will be required to meet new staffing loads?
  2. How many extra car parking spaces will be required for patients, visitors, etc for the new regional cancer clinic? 
  3. What overload parking pressures will be placed on the residential access roads that surrounds the hospital?
  4. Are these roads “Fit for Purpose” when it comes to accommodating  the ever increasing demand for more car seeking parking spaces?
  5. Will these roads be able to accommodate a 20% increase in traffic, i.e. will Treves Street and Siddall Road cope with a throughput of 125,000+ cars each year?
  6. What data does the council have to suggest that both the residents and the roads can cope with this massive increase in traffic?

NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE – A legal reality that the Playford Council has apparently deliberately chosen to both ignore and to conceal on more than one occasion in Elizabeth Vale. Note the P-plate driver driving down the right-hand side of the road because it is not possible to comply with Australian road rules and drive on the left-hand side of the road! (It is also necessary to keep wide of the parked cars in case someone opens a car door.)Treves reality check

Check the “Subject” line of the email from a representative of Playford Council: It is all about a 3 hour parking Pilot Project that involves the Lyell McEwin Hospital, not the safety of the residents or any reduction in road congestion! (We are still forced to drive on the wrong side of the road into on-coming traffic! So much for residents ‘safety’.)Email from Rob V

NOTE: The Playford Council’s internet feedback web address for the 3-hour Treves Street/Siddall Road 3 hour parking “trial”. It is:


That URL address yet is another important indicator that the issue is not about improving safety in Treves Street or Siddall Road but is all about creating more parking spaces for the Lyell McEwin Hospital, regardless of the dangers to residents and other users of these streets such as the hospital’s Out-patients who will, thanks to SA Government economic rationalization ‘initiatives’, be coming from as far afield as Modbury and Woodville or Arndale.

One of the major legal and safety problems is that the streets are far too narrow for both high density kerbside parking and 2 traffic lanes, i.e. they are 7.3 metres wide and a minimum of 11 metres in width is required.

24 feet(24 Feet)- Broughton road measurement shown above.)  Many of the residential access roads are just  7.3 metres in width, a measurement that is way below code for what is happening in Treves street, Siddall Road and Broughton Road.

Here is the Code of Practice for the width of Residential Access Roads:

Code specs 002007What happens when a local council deliberately ignores minimum safety standards and places increased parking fines revenue ahead of the safety of the residents and the public?  As the photos posted below clearly show, residents and other users of these roads have to drive either on the centreline  of the road or on the wrong side of the road, i.e. they have to drive on the right-hand side of the road into on-coming traffic! (Unlike the USA and Europe, in Australia we drive on the left, not the right side of the road.)

  • Does any local government authority, or indeed any state government authority, have the power to force road users to violate the Australian Road Rules that require motorists to drive LEFT of the CENTRELINE?
  • In one word; NO!
  • So, how do you explain what is happening in these pictures?

CL west on BrghtnThis narrow space carries two-way traffic!

CL 3 BrghtnSun glare can be an additional hazard as can cars suddenly turning left into Broughton Road from Haydown Road can be an unseen hazard in this potentially lethal ‘centreline-driving’ choke point.

Garbage truck dangerUnable to get through a choke point in Treves Street, and unaware of my car just behind it, the garbage pickup truck, perhaps not this one, reversed back and ‘chased’ me around the corner. If I had missed getting my (manual drive) car into gear, my wife and I could have been crushed by 10 tonnes of garbage!Garbage truck squeezeIn this picture, the truck did manage to squeeze through. Note that car parking on the left hand side of the road are parking in an 8AM – 5PM no parking zone and this picture was taken at about 1.30PM.

Allowing any kerbside parking at all in streets that are so far below code is clearly a very dangerous form of Russian Roulette with other people’s lives. The City of Playford is fooling around with public safety and consequently, what the council is doing is Gross Criminal Negligence, plain and simple.

Haydown 22 feetThis cul-de-sac on Haydown Road is directly opposite the hospital and is just 0.6 of a metre (2 feet) narrower than Treves Street, Siddall Road and Broughton Road.

22 feetNow here is the sick joke on us mug residents – this section of Haydown Road is signposted NO PARKING on both sides of the road!

0001 npsThis sign in the Haydown Road cul-de-sac is diagonally opposite the Oldham Road – Haydown Road T-junction. There are several of these signs in this cul-de-sac and the lesson to be learnt by all residents living in the 7.3 metre wide access roads is that these signs should also be lining every “below code” road in the suburb of Elizabeth Vale.

The reality is that in far too many instances, the 7.3 metre wide Residential Access Roads are already being illegally used  by Playford Council as revenue raising, timed parking zones. Nice for the council, but potentially lethal for the residents!

This cynical revenue raising at the expense of public safety is easily explained by the comments that a federal  court judge, Steven Rares, made a the June  2013 AGS Law Administrators Conference:

  1. People do not know their rights, and as consequence;
  2. Politicians enact (By-)laws and regulations that erode people’s rights. (which is why, according to Justice Rares,)
  3. One of the 4 core functions of the Courts is to ensure “Procedural Fairness”, e.g. when the public deals with governments and government agencies. At the time Justice Rares was essentially trying to explain to the judicial world exactly how it was that 15,000 people had been tried and convicted of a crime that did not exist – nice one huh?)
  4. Why is Procedural Fairness such a critical function? In part it is because all too often politicians and bureaucrats violate this basic but crucial legal principle.
  • In the case of the Treves Street/Siddall Road “trial” Procedural Fairness has been violated because it is manifestly obvious that the council deliberately misled residents and the community about the purpose of the trial, i.e. it is about more car parking spaces, not improved safety and reduced road congestion.
  • At the same time, the council failed to provide “need-to-know/right to know” information, i.e. that these two streets are way ‘below code’ and are far too narrow for the safe provision of 2 lanes of traffic and a revenue raising car parking lane.
  • Siddall Thread needlePlayford Council also failed to inform residents that it has no legal authority to force them to either ‘centreline drive’ or drive on the wrong side of the road in violation of the Australian Road Rules. (See above – ‘threading the needle centreline driving’ in Treves Street and Siddall Road, and now in Broughton Road is literally “the only way to go” but it is of necessity and not by choice.)
  • Playford Council also failed to inform residents of this option in a street just a little over 100 metres away from Treves street.
  • Permit zoneResidential Permit Parking for Rollison Road, just across the road from the hospital’s old front entrance on Haydown Road, but not for the other residential access streets “within close proximity” (600 metres) of the hospital.
  • What Gives? Exactly what deceit is the council engaging in?

Instead of “Before the Fact” community engagement, as the official ‘Record of Events’ makes quite clear, Playford Council made a decision to go ahead with the 3 hour parking “trial” without any community consultation. Now that you know some of the basic facts, you know why it was railroaded through without any “Before the Fact” community consultation.

  • Mayor Glenn Docherty’s so called “community engagement” has been characterized by  such core features as:
  • After the fact non-engagement, Mushroom Tunnel Syndrome i,e, the withholding of vital need-to-know information and;
  • a firm commitment to keep the community at arms length by failing to meet to with any residents who are opposed to the dangerous and illegal revenue raising scheme.

I repeat, the proposed plan to make the 3 hour parking scheme permanent in these streets is exceeding dangerous and completely illegal.

All residents of Elizabeth Vale need to realize that Playford Council has no legal right to misuse is lawful authority for the purpose of playing Russian Roulette with our welfare and safety.

  1. Please: Click on the council’s feedback web link and ask for the hard data of usage, revenue and safety issues.
  2. Say NO to kerbside parking in any of the roads in the City of Playford that are below code and instead DEMAND a safer kerbside parking scheme, e.g. the Residential Parking Permit scheme that is used by the Norwood, Payneham & St Peters Council.
  3. This means NO PARKING in residential access roads without a residential parking permit.
  4. LMHS EMPLOYEES: Consistent with anti-monopoly laws, you should DEMAND the re-opening of the old Mark Road car park and the extension of this car park  south to Coglin Road so that both staff and the public can have a FREE (but weather-exposed) car parking option to choose from instead of just having the 1 option of the mega-bucks a year hospital owned multi-level car park.
  5. The feedback link is:



Then you should check out the video at:


Please also note that Playford Council is deliberately giving the  owner/operator of the on-site  multi-level car park, a total MONOPOLY on day long car parking in the hospital “precinct”. This is a clear violation of Australian competition and consumer principles and you should not only oppose the introduction of 3 hour timed parking zones on the council’s feedback website, you should also protest loudly to your union about this blatant misuse of authority by Playford Council. (Check out the YouTube video link below.)

Ronald Medlicott. (A Christian advocate for justice.)


1.     Is it really “community engagement” and consultation if the mayor and the ward representatives not only will not meet with me to discuss these issues with me, but perhaps also find an excuse not to hold the monthly council meeting so that the facts of the issue continue to remain ‘under-the-carpet” and off the official Minutes of the Meeting?

  • Who controls the agenda controls the outcome, and the ultimate form of control is to cancel the meeting so that no official discussions can take place and be recorded!

2.     Is the official Timeline of Events really accurate if correspondence to Mayor Docherty and the Ward 5 representatives that includes a 4-page letter, a statutory declaration, and a 15 minute video on a DVD, is omitted from this record?

Any co-operative scheme involving the council and either an SA Government MP or the LMHS administration would raise the issue of misuse of lawful authority to gain a financial advantage, i.e. it would be a violation of Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) and any SA enabled legislation that runs in conjunction with, or parallel to, that law.

  1. Section 135.2 deals with acts of commission or act of omission that result in a person, group, or organization(s) ‘obtaining a financial advantage’ that they are not (fairly) entitled to receive.
  2. The misuse of lawful authority to set up timed parking spaces in streets that are too narrow for this purpose is potentially a legal precedent time-bomb that like the recent Commonwealth vs. Keating High Court decision and the infamous but valid Raymond Akhtar Ali human rights decision in the Queensland Civil & Administrative Tribunal, could have national ramifications.
  3. Across the nation, councils could be forced to either remove timed parking zones from streets that are too narrow, or alternately, in the face of strong opposition from residents, turn the streets into one-way streets.

For the mass media, the morality of dealing with this issue is very simple.

  • In November 2012, Kym Williams gave a speech at the Melbourne press Club in which he made it quite clear that “freedom of the press” was vital if politicians were to be held accountable for their actions.
  • In February 2013, both he and Kerry Stokes successfully opposed Senator Conroy’s proposed “draconian” media control laws at a Senate hearing by claiming that total “freedom of the press” was essential in order to (you guessed it) ‘hold politicians accountable for their actions’.
  • Consequently, the onus is now upon the mass media to make good on these oft repeated statements and put Playford Council’s devious little parking scheme under the spotlight BEFORE someone is injured or killed.
  • After all, it should be obvious to even the most junior and inexperienced journalists that Playford Council does not have the lawful authority to force people to violated either the Australian Road Rules or the SA Road traffic Act (19961) by forcing drivers to ‘centreline-drive’ down the ‘gun-barrels’ into on-coming cars in Treves Street, Siddall Road, Broughton Road, or any other residential access road that becomes dangerously clogged up with parked cars.

3.     In a similar manner, being forced to drive on the right hand side of the road into on-coming traffic is both illegal and foreseeably dangerous, and yet for  several years now, that is precisely what Playford council has conned the residents of Treves Street and Siddall Road into doing.

4.     Having successfully gotten away with this, Phase 2 appears to be the “improved road safety” scam of 3-hour timed parking which will triple or quadruple the number of cars through these and surrounding streets.

In the run up to the 2014 state election, which would be more damaging to Labor’s 4th term re-election chances?

  • A public inquiry into the clearly quite  bogus ‘improved road safety’ parking “trial” that is really the Lyell McEwin 3 hour parking Pilot Project?
  • A resident, especially a child, being killed in Treves Street by an LMHS out-patient or visitor looking for a free parking spot?
Posted in News and politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Beyond the High Court’s “statutory fiction” decision: Politicians are still apparently rorting the system and the Federal Police are still apprently refusing to investigate.

Over a period of decades, federal politicians like Tony Abbott and other members of the Federal Parliament may have ripped off several million dollars from the Parliamentary “Entitlements Fund. However, consistent to the last, the Federal Police still refuse to investigate this alleged rorting by the band of rooters who hide out in the underground rats nest known as the Australian Federal Parliament.Tony Abbott _Section 135

(Source: The Advertiser, page 7, Wednesday October 9 2013)

[Note: The short-link for this URL is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-hK  ]

The information contained appears to clearly indicate that Tony Abbott and other members of of the Federal Parliament may have violated Section 135.3 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) by “obtaining a financial advantage that they were not entitled to receive.” 

What’s the big deal about that? The answer is that Section 135.2 is the criminal code most frequently used by Centrelink (or more accurately the CDPP) to prosecute welfare recipients at the rate of 10 or more people PER DAY for wrongly claiming welfare allowances. The legal term for such gross double standards is “MANIFEST OSTENSIBLE BIAS and the implication for the continued refusal of the Federal Police to investigate politicians who may have violated this law is that the other 30,000 or so prosecutions of welfare recipients by Centrelink.

Below is a letter that I am posting to the SA Chief Administrator of the Department of Finance in South Australia which I hope will be kicked upstairs to Canberra for consideration:

Dear Sir/Ms,

 Re: Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) and the manifestly obvious difference in its application by the Department of Human Services and the Department of Finance and the implications inherent in Justice Moynihan’s findings in Leck vs. Morris; Keating vs. Morris which were handed down in the Queensland Supreme Court on 1st September 2005

 On May 8th 2013 the High Court turfed-out “After the fact” legislation that was intended to ‘validate’ the prosecution and conviction of some 15,000 welfare recipients who had been prosecuted for a crime that did not exist in statute law. The High Court’s contempt for this retrospective legislation is best summed up with the comment that the legislation was “statutory fiction.” As a direct consequence of the Commonwealth vs. Keating decision, most, if not all, of the 15,000 convictions may be overturned. One of the flow-on issues raised by this decision raises the very serious question as to what other “statutory fiction” injustices have occurred that have been detrimental to welfare recipients?

The answer to that question is found in the marked difference in the ways in which the Department of Human Services and the Department of Finance deal with Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995).

 The Department of Human Services approach:

This best explained with the following Centrelink advertisement which first appeared in newspapers late in 2005 and which was also advertised on television.Centrelink 10 a day prosecutions

  1. The demand for welfare recipients to tell Centrelink about any changes in financial circumstances was “statutory fiction” because there was no legislation in place that actually required welfare recipients to do this.
  2. Note that in this $10 Million advertising campaign, Centrelink brags about prosecuting people at the rate of 10 people every day! Since about 1 in 3 was not based upon any underlying statute, that is one heck of a legal liability for taxpayers.
  3. A core question then is just how valid are the other 30,000 prosecutions and convictions?

Thanks in part to the constant failure of the Department of Finance to refer possible rorting of parliamentary entitlements by federal politicians to the police, and a “Manifest Ostensible Bias” decision handed down in the Queensland Supreme Court on 1st September 2005, it is highly likely that the legal basis for the other 30,000 convictions being overturned on appeal exists.S_Mail 6-10-13 Abbott pg 10

The case in question that I refer to is Leck vs. Morris; Keating vs. Morris, a case that no only enabled the plaintiffs to avoid being held accountable in the courts for their alleged failure to provide adequate oversight of Dr Jayant Patel’s allegedly lethal surgical activities but may have also played a crucial role in enabling Dr Patel to also escape many of the legal consequences of those activities!

  1. For decades, the approach taken by the Department of Finance when federal politicians brazenly exploit or rort the Parliamentary Entitlements Fund has been to simply demand that the politicians repay the monies that they have wrongly claimed.
  2. This is in marked contrast to the Department of Social Security and its successor, the Department of Human Services, which took the view that when welfare recipients wrongly claimed an allowance of welfare entitlement, that these people should be prosecuted.

A close scrutiny of specific examples reveals some incredibly gross injustices.

Compare the prosecution of 15,000 welfare recipients for failing to report changes in their financial circumstances to Centrelink, i.e. the core issue in the Commonwealth vs. Keating case with a case that I refer to as “Travelgate.”

Falsely claiming a travel allowance for someone who was not her spouse was one mistake. Sacking a whistle blower who knew about this fraud was another. Implicating the Prime Minister in this fraud was real whopper of a mistake, so yes, she certainly made some errors!

Falsely claiming a travel allowance for someone who was not her spouse was one mistake. Sacking a whistle blower who knew about this fraud was another. Implicating the Prime Minister in this fraud was real whopper of a mistake, so yes, she certainly made some errors!

  1. “We all make errors” said Trish Draper, the Member for Makin in May 2004 after it was revealed by a TV station that she had falsely claimed a travel allowance for a person who was not her defacto spouse.
  2. The Department of Finance did not refer this blatant fraud to the Australian Federal Police, perhaps because the AFP would have refused to investigate because of the (political) “gravity/sensitivity” of the matter.

The “gravity/sensitivity” comment is not a sarcastic remark but is taken verbatim from 2 Federal Police responses to my requests that politicians who may have rorted the Parliamentary Entitlements Fund and thus had violated the provisions of Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) by wilfully obtaining a financial advantage that they were not entitled to receive.

Please, check out the documents posted at http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-3v 1-07-12

Although these documents are the subject of what I believe is an (unlawful) Senate “confidential” classification, I continue to such ‘stuff’ on the web for the purpose of educating my readers about their legal rights, which, if Justice Steven Rares is to believed, are eroded by politicians who exploit the fact that most Australians do not know such basic rights as their constitutional rights.

I strongly recommend that if you read the above mentioned web posting, that you also read the following postings”.

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-3K           2-07-12 Still more senate classified stuff.

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-3K          16-07-12   More ‘don’t copy, don’t distribute’ stuff.

The ‘Catch-22’ for the Senate is that to cite me for Contempt of Parliament is to draw world-wide attention to the issues that they prefer to have swept under the carpet.

Comparing the approach used by the Department of Human Services with the Department of Finance when it comes to “errors’ such as that made by Trish Draper is very like comparing apples with oranges. It appears almost as though 2 totally different laws were in play, i.e. a Section 135.2 for welfare recipients and a totally different section 135.2 for federal politicians!

A comparative analysis reveals some very disturbing facts.

Politicians and the rules for “entitlements.”

  1. “Parliamentary Entitlements Regulations 1997 – Statutory Rules No. 318, 1997 as amended” is a 45 page document with a total of 8,112 words.
  2. The 226 members of the Federal Parliament who are expected to comply with this legislation are highly educated professional people lawyers, accountants, doctors, former union leaders and business professionals, etcetera.

Welfare Recipients and the rules under the Social Security Act.

  1. Compare this with the “Social Security Act 1991” which comes in 5 volumes totalling a massive 2,671 pages and a thoroughly mind boggling 684,817 words. The Social Security Act is literally 84 times larger and far more complex than the Statutory Rules for parliamentary entitlements!
  2. In 2006 the Australia Bureau of Statistics released a report[1] that revealed that 46% of Australians are “functionally illiterate” with the largest identifiable group being in the ranks of the nations unemployed, i.e. welfare recipients.
  3. In 1999 the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aging released a report[2] that indicated that the highest levels of mental health problems were amongst the ranks of Australia’s unemployed, i.e. amongst the ranks of the nation’s welfare recipients.

The situation is that whilst the highly educated politicians who make the nation’s laws only have to apologize and say “I made a error”, they are not investigated and not prosecuted for failing to understand 8,112 words of obligation whilst functionally illiterate welfare who may have serious mental health issues are prosecuted at the rate of 10 a day for failing to understand 684,817 words of obligation!

“Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.”

The view expressed by Centrelink officials and prosecutors from the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has for years been that whether or not welfare recipients intended to break the law, and whether or not they knew that they had broken the law, at the end of the day, “ignorance of the law is no excuse.”

With the Howard Government spending some $10 million of taxpayer’s money pushing the “10 people prosecuted a day” message in the 2005-06 financial year, the crucial question now is why is that this statement does NOT apply to federal politicians, e.g. Tony Abbott or the former prime minister Julia Gillard, or to any of the politicians identified in Auditor-General’ Report #3 that was tabled in the Federal Parliament in September 2009.

Paragraph 5 of the Australian Constitution states:

 This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen’s ships of war …

Either the Department of Finance complies with this constitutional provision in the same manner that the Department of Human Services complies with this legislation or else some 30,000 convictions are at risk of being overturned on appeal on the basis of “Manifest Ostensible Bias.”

  1. Politicians are literally “agents” who act on behalf of their “principals”, i.e. voters, and as such politicians have no greater powers or privileges under the constitution than the members of the public whom they serve.
  2. In the same manner, Public Servants are also “servants’ or “agents” who act on behalf of their “principals”, i.e. the public, and as such they no power to over-rule the constitutional provision that “all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State.”
  3. At the June 2013 AGS Law Administrators Conference, Justice Rares presented a paper that contained the following statement:

“The Courts presume that legislative provisions will be construed as effecting no more than is strictly required by clear words or as a matter of necessary implication in respect of “important common law rights”, such as:

  • the right to personal liberty;
  • trial by jury;
  • taking property without compensation;
  • procedural fairness;”
  1. When it comes to “clear words”, the constitutional imperative that “all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State” is a very clearly worded statement. There is no ambiguity in this statement at all for a great deal of effort went into the wording of this constitutional provision for the express purpose of ensuring that Australia’s (criminal) justice system was totally impartial.
  2. A question that needs to be seriously considered and answered is why do Department of Finance officials believe that they do not have to comply with the constitutional imperative that the law is binding upon everyone, including federal politicians who may have either unwittingly or deliberately violated Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995)?
  3. The legal and constitutional reality is that whether impoverished, functionally illiterate welfare recipients or prime ministers violate Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, both are equally accountable before the Law, in precisely the same manner.
  4. If they are not held accountable in precisely the same manner, then there is no Equality Before the Law.

The latest excuse offered by the Australian Federal Police for not investigating a number of possible violations of Section 135.2 by Prime Minister Tony Abbott and other federal politicians is that the Department of Finance has not asked them to investigate! That excuse is perhaps most aptly defined by the 4-letter acronym C.R.A.P., i.e. Completely Ridiculous And Pretentious. It turns a blind eye to the fact that for almost 10 years, as many as 10 Federal Police officers have been assisting Centrelink to investigate and charge welfare recipients at the rate of 10 people per day.

The Federal Police do not need the permission of the Department of Finance to investigate possible violations of Section 135.2 by federal politicians for, by Act of Parliament, it is the responsibility of the Australian Federal Police to investigate violations of federal laws.

The AFP was not set up 34 years to only investigate crimes if senior public servants gave them permission to so and yet, if the Federal Police are to be believed, that is the state of play at this time. As stated 3 paragraphs above, that is C.R.A.P.

As a matter of the utmost urgency, the Department of Finance leadership needs to issue a public statement that if the Australian Federal Police believes that Section 135.2 has been violated by federal politicians, or if they receive complaints from the public in regard to alleged rorting by politicians, then regardless of the parliamentary position or public status of these politicians, the Federal Police are under both a statute law obligation and a constitutional obligation to impartially investigate these allegations in the same manner that they assist Centrelink’s investigators to investigate the thousands of anonymous calls received by Centrelink on its fraud reporting hotline each month.

To refuse to issue such a public statement, or to refer previous indiscretions or “errors” made by federal politicians that are not beyond any statute of limitations that may apply to Section 135.2, is to open the door to 30,000 “Manifest Ostensible Bias” appeals by welfare recipients who have been convicted of violating Section 135.2. Perhaps of even greater significance, as I distribute the ‘do not copy, do not distribute’ documents that are the subject of Senate suppression tactics to lawyers representing clients accused of other crimes, it is highly possible that just as Commonwealth vs. Keating is a decision that impacts another 15,000 prosecutions, a win by one person on the grounds of Ostensible Bias may well flow-on to thousands of other serious criminal law cases that at the moment are in the pipeline.

In May 2002, Senate Vanstone made headlines across the nation with her strident claim that the Howard Government would “crack down on rorters.”[3] However, whilst welfare recipients have been persecuted/prosecuted at the rate of 10 people a day since that time, many for a non-existent crime, to the best of my knowledge, the Department of Finance has never prosecuted 1one politician even though millions of dollars in over-payments have been made as a result of wrongful claims. If I am wrong about that last statement and politicians have been prosecuted for allegedly rorting parliamentary entitlements, please send me a list of names, dates and amounts involved.

Enclosed with this letter is a copy of a letter that I initially sent to the Australian Federal Police in June 2013. After two months without any response, I sent a copy of this letter to the South Australian branch of the Australian Federal Police. I am still waiting for a response.

Complaint 2012 – 109928 was a multiple issues complaint lodged with the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. One of the issues lodged was the refusal of the Federal Police to investigate the Trish Draper “Travelgate” issue and the possibility that the Howard Government had misused its lawful authority to defraud welfare recipients of legitimate welfare entitlements, i.e. the Howard Government had, by Acts of Commission, violated Section 135.2 and gained a (massive) financial advantage that it was not legally entitled to receive by illegally applying breaching quotas thinly disguised as “Performance Indicator Targets.”

 In a blatant defiance of both the constitution and statute law, the Federal Police refused to investigate. As the letter posted on the first mentioned web page clearly reveals, the police indicated that even if crimes had been committed they would not investigate because of an implied case load and the (political) “gravity/sensitivity” of this issue which is made even more complex by the fact that if this fraudulent activity had resulted in any fatalities in New South Wales or South Australia, then they would be Felony Murders.

Tony Abbott may indisputably be the Prime Minister of Australia. However, because of the repeated refusals of the Federal Police to uphold either the constitution or statute law, the Honourable Tony Abbott may also be a far less than honourable rooter  of parliamentary entitlements. If the “Performance Indicator Targets”, first reported by Cheryl Kernot in a press release dated 27th June 2000 and confirmed by Centrelink staff who gave testimony to the Independent Pearce Inquiry, resulted in any fatalities as a consequence, then Tony Abbott may well be in violation of the above mentioned felony murder laws. Facts do not cease to exist just because they are ignored. The way in which the Department of Finance deals with wrongful claims by highly educated politicians MUST be in precisely the same manner as which the Department of Human Services daily deals with impoverished, functionally illiterate welfare recipients who may have wrongfully claimed an allowance or benefit to which they are not entitled, i.e. the Department of Finance must impartially “crack down on rorters’ in precisely the same manner as has been happening to tens of thousands of welfare recipients.

After you read Federal Agent Pearce’s response to my request for the Federal Police to investigate the rooting reported by the Auditor-General in Report #3, have a listen to the interview with the former Finance Minister, Senator Wong.

 This interview was broadcast on the ABC’s AM program on the morning of May 12th 2012 and is of interest because she totally demolishes some of the logic used by Agent Peace, i.e. the idea that because the issue had been debated in the Federal Parliament, the Federal Police did not need to take any action.

The reality is that the C.R.A.P. justice that has protected politicians whilst dumping on welfare recipients is beginning to break down. When that happens, the situation is likely to “blow” with all the suddenness of Krakatoa and those public servants who have abused their positions of authority to obstruct justice or to pervert the course of justice may well suddenly find themselves accounting for their actions in a court of law.

Yours truly,

 Ronald Medlicott. GDA, Dip T, Cert FLM.

References listed in this posting:

Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (1999) National Health Priority Areas Report: Mental health 1998 . AIHW Cat. No. PHE 13. HEALTH and AIHW, Canberra.

 [3]  Hansard May 30th 2002. Refer to the 9:56 am speech by Wayne Swan, which is found in Hansard on page 2,717 re Senator Vanstone’s “crack down on rorters” remark and the mass media’s response.

Posted in News and politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Beyond the High Court’s “statutory fiction” decision: From the sublime to the ridiculous – Quentin Bryce knew what she was doing when she signed that “statutory fiction” into Law in 2011.

Quentin Bryce“There is only one step from the sublime to the ridiculous” said Napoleon Bonaparte and Australia’s Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, certainly proved the truth of that statement. Ms Bryce knew precisely what she was doing when in 2011 she signed the documents that made the “statutory fiction” part of Australia’s federal laws.

[Note: the short-link URL for this posting is  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-hA   ]

Quentin Bryce was one of the first women accepted to the Queensland Bar. In 1968, she became the first woman to be a faculty member of the law school where she had studied, and in 1978 she joined the new National Women’s Advisory Council. This was followed by appointment to a number of positions, including the first Director of the Queensland Women’s Information Service, the Queensland Director of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, and the Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner in 1988. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_Bryce

  1. With that impeccably great professional background and experience, it is totally inconceivable that Quentin Bryce did not know that she was violating the constitutional, legal and human rights of 15,000 people who had been convicted of crime that did not exist!
  2. Why she did so is a perplexing mystery that Ms Bryce needs to explain ASAP.

Below is a letter sent to Quentin Bryce in September 2009 which dealt with the AFP’s repeated refusals to investigate political corruption such as  “Travelgate”, the “Quotagate” fraud/murders, and the $4.64 Million Perksgate Rort. What the 2009 response and the more recent 1st February 2013 responses to these issues may both do is to further implicate Ms Bryce in the unlawful official cover-up of these crimes, which violate Section 135.2 of the Criminal Code Act (1995) and numerous state and territory laws which deal with either Felony Murder or Manslaughter due to Criminal Negligence.

Section 135.2 is the law used to prosecute welfare recipients at the rate of 10 of day for allegedly not reporting income to Centrelink at a time when there was no legal obligation to so because Howard Government politicians, e.g. Amanda Vanstone, Jocelyn Newman and Tony Abbott, had failed to make sure that such a law existed when they shut down the CES and the DSS!

  1. The letter may also  be legally significant because it further links Ms Bryce to the abusive and illegal exploitation of welfare recipients.
  2. It also highlights the role and mindset of Ms Bryce and officials at Government House in ignoring the gross violations of human rights that welfare recipients must endure in Australia.
  3. To all intents and purposes, Government House is “a cathedral of malign intent” inhabited by recklessly indifferent people who who believe themselves to be exempt from the standards of accountability that apply to ‘ordinary’ people like you and I.
  4. in the 1st February 2013, ms Bryce’s official secretary tried to distance ms Bryce from the legal and human rights violating consequences of her actions with the statement that “…the Governor-general cannot be involved.”
  5. The beauty of the High Court’s “statutory fiction” decision is that it is empirical evidence that Ms Bryce, no matter how distinguished and commendable her career may have been, in the role of governor-General has switched  to“the dark side of the Force” when it comes to welfare issues and ensuring that politicians and bureaucrats are treated in the same manner as anyone else.

Perhaps the most significant implication of Ms Bryce’s failure to uphold the Law and the Constitution in September 2009 is that today, while I write this blog, Ms Bryce is swearing in members of the former Howard Government who were involved in the “Quotagate” murders!

  1. If Ms Bryce had done her job in 2009, or even in January 2013, it is highly likely that some of the people elected into government on September 7th would have either been convicted of the “Quotagate” crimes or be facing criminal charges in relation to those crimes.
  2. In effect, by doing nothing, Ms Bryce and/or her staff, effectively were “Accessories after the Fact” to what will eventually be classified as the largest case of mass murder since the deliberate, ruthless 18th and 19th centuries efforts to wipe out Australia’s indigenous population.
  3. Although I estimate that the Breaching triggered death toll may be in the vicinity of 12,000 fatalities, the actual size of the death toll does not really matter for whether there is just 1 murder or 12,000 murders, MURDER IS MURDER, and those responsible must be held accountable, regardless of their social or political status.

To repeat myself, as Napoleon Bonaparte said, “There is only one step from the sublime to the ridiculous”  and the events of today in Canberra are truly ridiculous beyond words; especially given that Ms Bryce was quite prepared to have 15,000 welfare recipients unconstitutionally turned into ‘after the fact’ criminals whilst deliberately ignoring the organized crime within the Federal Parliament! (Otherwise referred in some of my postings as The Canberra Killers Club.)

The 2009 letter to Quentin Bryce:

23 September 2009

To: Her Excellency Quentin Bryce AC

Governor –General of the Commonwealth of Australia

Government House

Dunrossil Drive


Your Excellency,

Re: An Absence of Justice.

Enclosed with this covering letter are a letter to the Federal Police Commissioner, Tony Negus, and a discussion paper that I am circulating to academics, lawyers and welfare recipients. I believe that it is in the national interest that you give consideration to the content of these documents and take whatever action you deem is appropriate to ensure that the Constitutional obligations outlined in the discussion paper are fully upheld.

In making that request, I am fully aware that the Constitution is quite explicit that the Law is “Binding …on the people”. Federal politicians are thus not exempt from prosecution for rorting of their “entitlements”. I am also aware that is not the responsibility of the Prime Minister to exonerate or exempt from prosecution any politicians who may have rorted their “entitlements”. Mr. Rudd’s responsibility is clearly set out in the Oath of Office that he took when he became the Prime Minister.

Neither the Prime Minister, nor the Queen’s representative in Australia should be seen to be ignoring Crown Law. To do so would be to plunge our nation’s criminal justice system back 900 years to the age before the signing of the Magna Carta. It could also precipitate a constitutional crisis.

“How terrible are you, teachers of the Law and Pharisees! You hypocrites! You clean the outside of your cup and plate while the inside is full of what you have gotten by violence and selfishness. Blind Pharisee! Clean up what is inside the cup first, and then the outside will be clean too!”

Matthew 23: 25-26. Good News Study Bible.

The words of Jesus Christ very accurately describe the current situation. The Federal Police are diligently assisting Centrelink to achieve and maintain the expensively advertised “10 prosecutions a day” whilst deliberately turning a blind eye to political corruption. Napoleon Bonaparte once said that “There is only one step from the sublime to the ridiculous”. 2

I would add that it is only one more step from the ridiculous to the farcical.

That the Federal Police should twice turn a blind eye to the endemic corruption in Federal Parliament is truly farcical. Investigating and prosecuting welfare recipients whilst ignored federal politicians who engage in the same activities is a 21st Century example of “cleaning the outside of the cup”.

Each and every one of the 50,000 welfare recipient prosecutions that have occurred over the last 25 years, individually and jointly, provides the baseline legal benchmark for how “Perksgate” must be handled by “the system”. If this rorting is not subjected to Due Process of Law then, as E. Arharidis so eloquently put it in the (now classified as confidential) letter to the editor, “…the system stinks”.

Please note that the discussion paper, An Absence of Justice, the letter to Tony Negus, and this covering letter are all “open” documents. This means that they are already “In the Cloud” on overseas web servers and are also “In the wild” which means that people who have copies can do what they deem is most appropriate. It could only take just one of Centrelink’s “10 prosecutions a day” to push the criminal justice system into chaos. If just one person accused, or already convicted, of rorting decides to seek Exculpation and wins, then there will mostly likely be a tsunami of “me too” appeals for Exculpation. Since I had asked the Federal Police in 2004 to investigate a broad range of issues, even persons accused or convicted of murder or of plotting acts of terrorism may then be able to apply for Exculpation. If nothing else were to be achieved, mass exculpation would certainly solve the pressing problem of our nation’s currently overcrowded prisons.

You should also be aware that if possible, the refusal by the Federal Police in July 2004, to investigate alleged rorting by a Federal MP will be contested in court as will the secret “confidential” classification of Submission 287 to the 2005 Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry and its companion undated Parliamentary Privilege suppression order which you will find on page 26 of the discussion paper.

To be honest, those two decisions by the legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee are not a defeat but rather are an excellent opportunity to take up Michael Kirby’s challenge to hold Federal Parliament accountable for its actions. Whilst Michael Kirby’s “Rolls Royce Justice” is a substantial barrier that needs to be overcome, I have every confidence that I shall eventually do so.

Leg-Con’s actions are also an opportunity to take up the Micah Challenge, to “See that Justice is done”. (micahchallenge.org.au). I am a Christian and my actions in speaking up to highlight the different standards of justice meted out to welfare recipients and politicians is a compelling religious obligation. That means that until Justice prevails, I shall continue to pursue these issues.

Yours faithfully

Ronald Medlicott (Concerned Australian Citizen)

TODAY – Wednesday 18th September 2013:- I have just posted off the following text to the office of Quentin Bryce:


I have posted a commentary, “Beyond the High Court’s “statutory fiction” decision: From the sublime to the ridiculous – Quentin Bryce knew what she was doing when she signed that “statutory fiction” into Law in 2011″ at http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-hA

It is my contention that her Secretary’s letter to m,e dated 1st February 2013 is empirical evidence of an attempt by Ms Bryce and/or her staff to distance her from the 2004, 2009, 2011 and 2012 refusals of the Australian Federal Police to investigate the problem of endemic corruption within the Federal Parliament. It is also my contention that the High Court’s May 8th decision in Commonwealth vs. Keating is empirical evidence that Ms Bryce was recklessly indifferent to the plight of welfare recipients to the extent that when she KNOWINGLY signed off on the “statutory fiction’” legislation, she was indifferent to the constitutional, legal and human rights violations that she was permitting against 15,000 welfare recipients.

“Facts do not cease to exist (just) because they are ignored” (Aldous Huxley)

The documentary evidence that the Howard Government illegally defrauded welfare recipients is substantial, i.e. the Howard Government violated section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act by misusing lawful authority to enforce “Performance Indicator Targets’ that resulted in the government, by Act of Commission, receiving a financial advantage that it was not entitled to receive.

Under Felony Murder laws in NSW and SA, any deaths caused by this fraudulent activity are literally “Felony Murders” whilst in Victoria they are Manslaughter due to Criminal Negligence. Just as Kelli Keating fought back against the statutory fiction legislation, many others facing prosecution are liable to use the AFP’s repeated refusals to investigate the Quotagate murders as grounds for a “Manifest Ostensible Bias” (MOB) defence. That Ms Bryce herself chose to ignore the AFP’s refusal to uphold the law because of the “gravity/sensitivity” of the allegations only adds to the ostensible bias issue as does the appointment of Tony Abbott to the position of Prime Minister.

Regardless of the former and current political sensitivity, para’ 5 of the constitution is quite clear in that the law ids binding on the people, i.e. no exceptions for prime ministers and others who may hold high office. that the AFP has for 9 years ignored this opens the door wide for people to use a ‘MOB’ defence in court.

Readers should not the last point about a MOB defence in court. Because of the continued refusal of the Federal Police to investigate Quotagate, Travelgate, Perksgate and the recent attempted Votegate fraud, the door is wide open for virtually anyone charged with any crime to mount a “manifest ostensible bias” defence using Leck Vs. Morris; Keating vs. Morris as a binding legal precedent. Before you decide that this means nothing to you, think about this:

  1. If your home is robbed and the culprits are caught, they can get off with a ‘MOB’ defence.
  2. If you are assaulted or raped and the culprits are caught, they can get off with a ‘MOB’ defence.
  3. If you are murdered and the culprits are caught, they can get off with a ‘MOB’ defence.

Garbage Ron!

If you think that, a re-think is in order. Dr Jayant Patel allegedly killed 87 of his patients and another 106 alleged required major corrective surgery and yet Dr Patel won his appeal in the High Court in August 2012 and in march of this year won his re-trial for 3 of these deaths. the September 1st 2005 Leck Vs. Morris; Keating vs. Morris “manifest ostensible bias” decision has had massive ramifications that are as yet largely untested because most lawyers defending their clients do not about the repeated refusals of the Federal Police to investigate the about mentioned issues.

Remember – 15,000 welfare recipients were prosecuted for a crime that did not exist because bureaucrats, federal police officers, Centrelink investigators, Crown prosecutors, judges and even the defence lawyers, all did not know that the law under which prosecutions were being made had lapsed due to an oversight by the Howard Government!

  1. Once criminal trial lawyers get their hands on certified copies of the ‘we do not investigate politicians’ documents that are now in ‘cold storage’, the legal system could be plunged into chaos.
  2. How does a prosecutor justify a prosecution given the stubborn refusal of the Federal Police to uphold the law and act to protect politicians who may have literally gotten away with mass murder?

Anyone care to answer that question for me?

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for Justice in Australia.

Posted in News and politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment