QUOTAGATE and BREACHGATE: The Howard Government’s “irrelevant” deaths.

 If you have just seen the BURN NOTICE video at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGVeRSFKsI0

then you should read this publication which contains documents and news reports that provide a look at Australia’s appallingly deadly human rights violations. (If you have not seen the BURN NOTICE video, do so right now.)

With a probable death toll of over 2,600 victims,Quotagate is Australia’s worst case of systemic fraud and mass murder. The scale of this senseless slaughter can be seen when compared 2 other acts of ruthless terrorism:

Flight MF 17              “9/11”                “Quotagate.”

      298                         2,977*                     2,631*

( *Estimated death toll figure as the exact number is unknown.)

[ NOTE: The short link URL for this posting is:   http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-l6   ]

The Quotagate fatalities are  (still) unreported to the Federal Parliament by senior public servants, e.g. Centrelink’s management team. They are also:

  1. Secretly classified as “confidential” by the Howard Government’s Leg-Con Committee. (Anti-Terrorism Bill#2 legislation – November 2005)
  2. NOTE: To view and/or print each document separately, double click a document and it will open in a new page. Use the <=  to then click back to this posting.)
  3. Officially "Not yet available" this submission is secretly classified as confidential in order to hide breaching fraud and fatalities.

    Officially “Not yet available” this submission is secretly classified as confidential in order to hide breaching fraud and fatalities.

  4. 3 months after being secretly classified as “confidential”, the Quotagate and “Breach-gate” deaths were dismissed by the Howard Government’s Work Choices Committee as “irrelevant”.
  5. Given that the deaths violated numerous federal, state and/or territory laws, is it any surprise that those people most responsible for thousands of preventable fatalities desperately wanted to fob me off and to  “regard this matter as closed”?
  6. EWRE irelevant doc

    Another "don't copy, don't distribute" Senate gag intended to prevent the general public from finding out about the death toll caused by the Howard Government's illegal Breaching performance Indicator target Quotas.

    Another “don’t copy, don’t distribute” Senate gag intended to prevent the general public from finding out about the death toll caused by the Howard Government’s illegal Breaching performance Indicator target Quotas.

  7. Term of Reference #3 for the ECA Committee’s inquiry into the Roofgate Disaster was a muck raking “Any other matters.” This backfired on the Coalition because it opened the door to the secretly classified death toll from the Howard Government’s illegal enforcement of unconstitutional breaching quotas! in order to maintain the secrecy about the Quotagate killings, the ECA Inquiry rejected my submission and kindly provided me with yet another, ‘don’t copy, don’t distribute’ Senate suppression order.

Each of the above Australian Senate committees was misusing its lawful authority to conceal the death toll caused by the unconstitutional breaching penalties, a death toll that may exceed 15,000 in number over a period of almost 30 years.

  1. MALFEASANCE: They all abused their lawful authority to cover up the Howard Government’s illegal use of breaching quotas and the death toll caused by that outrageous criminal abuse of lawful authority.
  2. The death toll was also totally ignored by the “Alphabet Warriors”, e.g. the AFP, ACC, ACMA, ASIO  and other agencies with law enforcement powers. All had constitutional and statutory obligations to take action to prevent further lose of life by conducting criminal investigations into the Quotagate and Breach-gate fatalities.
  3. It’s only dole bludgers so who give a stuff about how many die! Was that their amoral, sociopathic logic?)AFP refusal to investigate Perksgate email
  4. The AFP was working in partnership WITH Centrelink to catch welfare fraudsters but refused to investigate fraud BY Centrelink . I believe that's what is known as nemo iudex in causa sua, i.e. protecting your own patch.

    The AFP was working in partnership WITH Centrelink to catch welfare fraudsters but refused to investigate fraud BY Centrelink . I believe that’s what is known as nemo iudex in causa sua, i.e. protecting your own patch.

    Letter from the  Ombudsman's Office re High Court challenge to Centrelink breaching.11-05-10 ACC refusalEvery agency contacted has had a seemingly valid excuse, at least to themselves, for ignoring the unconstitutional, ruthless, human rights violation of welfare recipients. The reality is that no democratically elected government in Australia has the legal right to engage in activities that deliberately endanger or kill vulnerable, at-risk Aussie Battlers!

  5. Ignored by the mass media as being too unimportant to report. In point of fact, News Ltd newspapers have actively encouraged the vilification of the poor and totally disregarded the fact that Breaching legislation and Work for the Dole laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL!AAAAA15 Penberty article“The first bludger uprising” the world has ever seen? This is UTTER GARBAGE! Riots by the poor and down trodden minorities have been a major problem for governments throughout recorded history. The Rome Colosseum was built mainly as a means to distract Rome’s poor whom the rich feared would riot. The French and American Revolutions were also about those on the receiving end of injustice and greed fighting for a fair go. I am sure that most Australians also know why the Eureka Stockade revolt occurred, i.e.the Victorian Government  exploited gold miners who then (literally) fought for a fair go!

 The editor of the Sunday Mail newspaper in Adelaide, David Penberthy’s concept of “humanitarian ” is to sink the boot into the victims of political policies that leave impoverished people in appallingly desperate straits.

How does he justify the fact that he has never once pointed out to his readers the unconstitutional, human rights violating laws that have resulted in the deaths of so many welfare recipients? The answer is that he does not justify his biased, partisan actions because they cannot be justified. 27-714 Work 4 Dole 4 all(2)It does not matter what warm and fuzzy rationalizations are used by Tony  Abbott and his Government to justify the Work for the Dole policy, for it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Paragraph 51 (xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution specifically prohibits the Federal Parliament from making laws that link welfare payments to the payment of welfare benefits. The constitution clearly states that it is the responsibility of the Federal Parliament to make laws for:

The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances:

NOTE 2 KEY POINTS:

(a) “THE PROVISION OF…” Check any diction and you will find that “provision” is a word that means “to PROVIDE”. Welfare penalties that turn of the dole are unconstitutional because the obligation upon the Federal Parliamnet is to PROVIDE welfare benefits to the needy. Breaching and ‘compliance failure’ penalties are about violating this constitutional obligation for the express purpose of DEPRIVING welfare recipients of this constitutional entitlement.

(b) THE PHRASE IN BRACKETS:- (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription). Yes, the brackets are actually in the constitution! This is a significant constitutional constraint  that was placed in the constitution by Australians in 1946 in the hope that it would bring an end to the ruthless exploitation of the nation’s unemployed by political parties and unscrupulous employers. Work for the Dole is about being forced to work for $6 an hour when Australia’s minimum wage, (today) is just over $17 per hour.

There is no sick pay, holiday pay, long service leave or severance pay entitlements, just a slave wage that is a bit higher than Gina Rinehart’s infamous believe that that “workers are happy to work for $2 a day!

Anyone who supports the unconstitutional, exploitative $6 a day Work for the Dole wage is obviously also prepared to work for the same wage?

Pigs ribs they are! most people would scream blue murder at being FORCED to work for $6 an hour; so how come so many of these same people think that Work for the Dole is a good idea? Can anyone visualize either David Penberthy or the News Ltd national political editor, Samantha Maiden, working for $6 an hour?

  • 100,000 unconstitutionally have dole cut off.

    100,000 unconstitutionally have dole cut off.

Note the statement in the 3rd paragraph that “breaches include failing to attend Work for the Dole appointments.” The sick reality is that Work for the Dole ‘compliance failures’ are used as an excuse to deprive people of a welfare allowance. What you actually have are not 2, but 3 deliberate violations of the constitutional rights of the unemployed.

  • The 3rd violation of constitutional rights comes from paragraph 75 (iii) of the Australian Constitution which states that the Jurisdiction of the High Court includes:
  • “75. In all matters–  (iii) In which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party:”
  • Breaching  (now called “Compliance Failure Penalties”) is about accusing welfare recipients of breach of Contract, which is constitutionally a matter for the courts, and unfairly and unconstitutionally having PUBLIC SERVANTS with no legal qualifications make a decision that very conveniently puts a BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR into the Federal Government’s coffers.
  • Quite clearly the was, and still is, a massive financial incentive for political parties to ignore the humanitarian impact of the unconstitutional legislation, which brings us to  the infamy of the QUOTAGATE FRAUD.

THE QUOTAGATE FRAUD.

The media release below provides insight into the Quotagate Fraud, i.e. the Howard Government’s illegal abuse of the unconstitutional Breaching laws. by enforcing the “Performance Indicator Targets” the Howard Government was able to “ramp up the volume” on the number of welfare recipients who were illegally deprived of a welfare allowance.

Centrelink staff risked their jobs to expose this fraud, but the mass media AND the labour Party both moved quickly to bury this political scandal.

Centrelink staff risked their jobs to expose this fraud, but the mass media AND the labour Party both moved quickly to bury this political scandal.

As you can see from the extract below from a Centrelink annual report, the “balanced scorecard” of so-called savings was staggering, almost a billion dollars a year was raised by deliberately defrauding welfare recipients.

 

DSS and Centrelink annual reports are big on "Scorecard" savings but are also TOTALLY DEVOID of any reports about the humanitarian consequences caused by those savings. The absence of this data from these reports to parliament makes it quite clear that the bureaucrats responsible for these reports, KNEW what they were hiding from the parliament and the public.

DSS and Centrelink annual reports are big on “Scorecard” savings but are also TOTALLY DEVOID of any reports about the humanitarian consequences caused by those savings. The absence of this data from these reports to parliament makes it quite clear that the bureaucrats responsible for these reports, KNEW what they were hiding from the parliament and the public.

What is missing from this “balanced scorecard” of so-called “Savings” was the even more staggering death toll that Centrelink, and the Howard Government, hid by the simple process set out below:

 

In just one simple statement, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill explains how post-breaching fatalities have been kept from the public for decades, i.e. they did not bother to "collect" this data.

In just one simple statement, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill explains how post-breaching fatalities have been kept from the public for decades, i.e. they did not bother to “collect” this data.

The Independent Pearce Inquiry was set up by welfare agencies after they were overwhelmed by a tsunami of desperate welfare recipients seeking a means of surviving the Howard Government’s illegal misuse of th unconstitutional breaching legislation.

 

Centrelinh whistle blowers testified at the Independent Pearce Inquiry in to the impact of ther Howard Government's breaching tsunami that they were ebing forced to meet breaching quotas. Since the quotas were illegal, Senator Vanstone denied there use but the statistics tell the true story, i.e. 346,078 breaches in FY 2000-01.

Centrelink whistle blowers testified at the Independent Pearce Inquiry in to the impact of the Howard Government’s breaching tsunami that they were being forced to meet breaching quotas. Since the quotas were illegal, Senator Vanstone denied there use but the statistics tell the true story, i.e. 346,078 breaches in FY 2000-01.

“I’ve been on the number of breach decisions.”   Lets just have a quick look at that statement by Senator Amanda Vanstone:

  1. “Breaching” was, and still is, an unconstitutional activity.
  2. “…advised by Centrelink management that were no explicit or implicit targets “.  REMEMBER, this is the same management team that had for 20 years never bothered to “collect” and report the death toll caused by the unconstitutional breaching legislation.
  3. Between 1st July 2000 and 30th June 2002, more than 600,00 times, impoverished welfare recipients were denied their constitutional rights and Centrelink (on behalf of the Federal Government) raked in a mind bogglingly massive $1,623,400,000

BREACHING was literally: “The targeted, deliberate removal of the only means of support from emotionally fragile and/or financially impoverished people who had no other means of support in meeting their most basic costs of living.”

When you stop hundreds of thousands of vulnerable, impoverished people from meeting their most basic costs of living FOR 3 MONTHS, is it really any great surprise that you have a death toll measured in the thousands?

Is it also any great surprise that those responsible for this massive, deliberately created, death toll would leave no stone unturned in deliberately concealing and denying any knowledge of this death toll?

JUSTICE DENIED HAS MAJOR LEGAL IMPLICATIONS!

The QUOTAGATE Gang.
Who’s Who?
Gang leader:        John Howard.
Bag-man:              Peter Costello
‘Hit’ team:            Tony Abbott
                                 Jocelyn Newman
                                 Amanda Vanstone.
The victims:        750,000 impoverished welfare recipients.

The Breach-gate Gang: Their actions do speak louder than their words.

  1. Virtually every member of the Australian Federal Parliament for the last 30 years!
  2. In 2011, the voted for the retrospective legislation that the High Court kicked on May 8th 2013 citing it as “statutory fiction.”
  3. Almost a year ago, at 10.30 AM on the 31st August 2013, I spoke with Senator Xenophon and asked him about both the High Court’s “statutory fiction” decision and why he had done nothing about exposing the secret confident classification of the Quotagate fatalities. I am still waiting for him to take action!

    Senator Xenophon under guard before being classified as a terrorist and being  deported by Malaysia.

    Senator Xenophon under guard before being classified as a terrorist and being deported by Malaysia.

  4. No matter how ‘concerned’ and ‘caring’ our federal politicians may sound, their actions with the “Jail-gate “statutory fiction’ cover-up clearly reveals that when push comes to shove, violating the legal, constitutional and fundamental human rights of Australia’s disadvantaged is as easy as breathing!

The Breach-gate Fatalities.

The precise number is currently unknown but there are perhaps as many as 15,000 suicides from breaching with a similar or even larger number of deaths from other causes.

Justice Moynihan’s Manifest Ostensible Bias decision.

Ignoring the appalling human impact of Quotagate is not an option because “Equality before the Law” is both constitutional responsibility that you and I must uphold and a basic human right for the victims of these crimes. If politicians can make up rules that exempt themselves from our system of justice, then there is no justice!

If the Quotagate gang are not held accountable in a court of law for their unlawful actions, i.e. the breaching quota fraud, the human rights violations and the flow-on fatalities, then anyone convicted of causing an unlawful death could argue “Procedural Unfairness due to Manifest Ostensible Bias”.

Does anyone really want our nation’s jails emptied of violent killers? Ignoring the lethal consequences of Quotagate could become an Ostensible Bias battering ram, i.e. the legal grounds for Exculpation, that smash open the gates of every prison in the nation!

  1. Although 87 of Queensland’s ‘Dr Death’ patients died and another 106 allegedly required major corective surgery, today Dr. Patel is a free man. Jayant_patelWhat worked for him could also work for those responsible for the Snowtown ‘Bodies in the Bank’ murders or the Truro Murders.
  2. If Peter Cowan and Gerard Baden-Clay are to remain accountable for their alleged crimes, then those people responsible for the alleged QUOTAGATE triggered deaths of welfare recipients, i.e. the QUOTAGATE GANG, must also be held equally accountable in a court of law.
  3. The reality is that if we turn a blind eye to the Quotagate and Breach-gate fatalities, then we are turning a blind eye to the Australian Constitution which, in paragraph 5,  clearly states that “the law is binding on the people.”
  4. The Federal Police excuse about not investigating Quotagate, Travelgate or Perksgate because of “government protocols’ is simply legal DIARRHOEA that just makes a total joke out of our nation’s criminal justice system!

Do we really want a criminal justice court system that has no option but to open every cell door of every jail in the nation, simply because the “Alphabet Warriors’ and self-serving public servants have put their own agendas ahead of either upholding the Law or doing their job properly?

No police office or any other person with law enforcement or investigative powers has the right to refuse to uphold the constitution and the law. When I say “no person” I include the highest office in the land. Quentin BryceIn September 2009, Quentin Bryce knew about Quotagate and kept her mouth shut instead of using her position as the Head of State to demand an inquiry into this fraud and its associated death toll. just weeks later, as a direct consequence of her silence, the Roofgate Disaster claimed its first victims.

The Queen's Vice-Regal representative in Australia does not wish to accept responsibility for the Australian Government laws that regulate the mass media. Laws that failed to protect Jacintha Saldanha from an illegally recorded phone call.

The Queen’s Vice-Regal representative in Australia does not wish to accept responsibility for the Australian Government laws that regulate the mass media. Laws that failed to protect Jacintha Saldanha from an illegally recorded phone call.

Fast forward 3 years and Quentin Bryce was still trying to avoid responsibity for her actions. Just 3 months and 1 week after this letter was written, the High Court turfed the “statutory fiction” diarrhoea retro legislation that she had had signed into law.

Make no mistake! Idiots do not become the Governor-General. Quentin Bryce was a highly qualified and experienced lawyer and she therefore knew precisely what she was doing when she decided to say and do nothing about the Quotagate and Breach-gate fatalities.

The death of Matthew Fuller was an unexpected consequence of Quentin Bryce’s decision to stay silent. Unfortunately, it was to simply be be the first of many more deaths!Sunday Mail Matt Fuller fatality report

If we put power, position, wealth or prestige ahead of constitutional law, then we have no law. It is as simple as that.

Canberra Killers Club

If we refuse to hold these people accountable for the Quotagate and Breach-gate fatalities, the lesson from the proposed Work for the Dole scheme is that the rate at which human rights abuses and their contempt for the people of Australia will only get worse.

THEY MUST BE HELD AS ACCOUNTABLE BEFORE THE LAW AS THE WELFARE RECIPIENTS THAT THEY HAVE PROSECUTED.

Centrelink 10 a day prosecutions             10 people prosecuted every day; many for a law that did not exist!

In FY 2005-06, the Howard Government spent S10 MILLION of taxpayers money promoting this advertisement. At the same time John Howard and his team of cabinet Ministers were defrauding welfare recipients and concealing the fatalities triggered by this fraud.

QUESTIONS THAT NEED ANSWERS.

  1. Why have the Federal Police repeatedly refused to investigate Quotagate, Travelgate, Perksgate and the Breach-gate crimes? Was it because of a secret ‘dirty deal’ with the Howard Government?
  2. Why has ASIO stayed silent for the last 8 years? Was ASIO hoping to do a similar dirty deal but was delayed by the Kevin 07 election win and has had to wait for a Coalition win before ‘asking’ (Blackmailing?) the Abbott Government to give ASIO the power to secretly hack into our home computers?
  3. Why has so many other government agencies adopted a hands-off policy when issues involving alleged corruption by federal politicians pop up?

The ACMA does not investigate alleged offenders       Rochelle Zurnamer. Manager, the ACMA Broadcasting Investigations Unit. Correspondence 1st November 2011 (re ACMA Report 2780.) Since when did the ACMA have the power to REFUSE to investigate politicians?

THE RARES WARNING!

Justice Steven Rares speaking at the AGS Law Administrators Conference Canberra. June 2013. (LEGALITY, RIGHTS AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, Paragraph 30.)

The principal means by which liberty can be eroded today in Australia is by a law enacted by the Parliament or by its delegated legislative power or by a State or Territory law.

Look – Listen – Believe – Think – Act.

  1. ACT – Start by sharing this web link and the YouTube video link below with your friends.
  2. Link this web page to your Facebook page.
  3. Ask your friends to also share the links on their Facebook pages.
    Do you have a TWITTER account? Then spread the word.
  4. Act now – Demand an investigate of Quotagate and the Breach-gate fatalities before more people die.The link below is a Facebook page about a young HOMELESS couple who died last Friday whilst trying to keep warm by burning a small butane gas heater in their car.
  5. WHY WERE THEY HOMELESS?
  6. WHERE THEY JUST THE LATEST VICTIMS OF THE CANBERRA KILLERS CLUB’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL WELFARE PENALTIES?
  7. https://www.facebook.com/notes/andrew-heslop-social-entrepreneur-commentator-community-advocate/the-hidden-tragedy-of-homelessness/807292845967767

As I stated earlier in this publication, at least half, possibly more of the breaching triggered fatalities are NOT SUICIDES. Homelessness kills just as effectively as a gun, a knife, jumping of a cliff or slamming a car into a tree at high speed.

We have to restore sanity in our system of government because the only other option is the madness of a self-centred ‘dog-eat dog’ society in which the strong like Gina Rinehart and powerful commercial interests exploit the weak for everything that they can get.

Instead of a giving the poor a “fair go”, somehow, as a society, we have allowed those we elected to run the country  to turn the poor into “fair game.”

Aussie Diggers did not fight and die so that corrupt politicians and greedy corporations could exploit our nation’s poor as cheap labour. the fought and died so that their children and grand-children might have a life of dignity and respect if they fell into hard times.

We need to far more than rock up at an ANZAC parade on the 25th April each year. daily we must honour our Diggers by ensuring that what they fought and died for lives on so that our children may reap the reward of their sacrifice.000 William Whitford Cropped picture(Least we Forget – Bill Whitford joined up when he was just 17 years old. )

Sadly, like the victims of the “9/11″ terrorist attack, the Bali bombings, and the destruction of Flight MH 17, through no fault of their own, far too many of our fellow Australians have become “dead meat.”

Why is Quotagate the worse case of fraud of mass murder in our nation’s history? Because, like the Stolen Generations’  and the appalling, decades long, sexual abuse of children of in foster care, it is a massive humanitarian disaster that we allowed to happen because we chose not to know about it or to care about it.

We murdered our nation’s real Aussie Battlers with our indifference!

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for Justice in Australia.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The QUOTAGATE Saga continues. Systemic Jury Pool Tampering in the Adelaide Courts; the ‘bumping-off’ of Juror #157.

On May 2nd 2014, just 4 hours after being sworn-in as a Juror in the Adelaide Court jury pool, Juror #157 was ‘bumped-off’ by Sheriff Stokes in what may have been yet another deliberate attempt to conceal QUOTAGATE, the worst case of politically driven systemic fraud and mass murder in Australia’s history.

The logic used by the Sheriff of South Australia, Mark Stokes, through his deputy Matthew, for ‘bumping-off’ Juror #157 from the jury pool was that the WordPress publication posted by this juror at http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-ka (i.e. the last posting in Ronald’s space,) had allegedly violated the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act because it contained the statement “A juror’s verdict: The Hanger Royal Commission is more biased than the Morris Commission was and needs to be shut down”.

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

  1. According to Sheriff Stokes, allegedly revealing that the author was a Juror in the Adelaide Courts jury pool was unlawful and was consequently he had legal grounds for expelling Juror #157 from the jury pool.
  2. Interesting, a quick check on the Internet revealed that it is not unusual for people to reveal that they are jurors and therefore the crucial question is, what was Sheriff Stokes’ real motive in ‘bumping-off’ Juror #157?

KANGAROO COURT JUSTICE.

If Juror #157 had violated the law, then Sheriff Stokes’ legal responsibility was to uphold the Law according to both the Australian Constitution and Due Process of Law (see my comments below), i.e. he should have referred this allegedly unlawful activity to the cops for investigation but he didn’t do this.

  1. In theory, jurors who are accused of violating the law are subject to precisely the same Due Process of Law as anyone else.
  2. However, in practice ,Sheriff Stokes used the Kangaroo Court method of dispensing justice, i.e. You’re guilty because I say you are.
  3. Sheriff Stokes literally took the law into his own hands by ignoring Procedural Fairness, etc and “convicted” Juror 157 of this alleged crime.
  4. The arbitrary sentence then imposed was expulsion from the Adelaide Courts jury pool.
  5. Had Juror 157 been reported to the police, the inalienable legal right of the Presumption of Innocence that Juror #157 was entitled too would probably have allowed Juror #157 to continue to fulfill his duties in the jury pool until such time as the matter was put before a judge for a determination, i.e. in about 6 months time!

The primary purpose of the Justice System is to protect the innocent.

  • IN THEORY, The primary purpose of the Justice System is to protect the innocent because anyone can accuse you of a crime and the function of the Justice System is to ensure that innocent people are not wrongly penalized.
  • In this instance, the basic legal principles of Transparency, Procedural Fairness, Due Process of Law and The Presumption of Innocence were conspicuously absence in the sacking of Juror 157 and in their place was what appears to be a blatant attempt to obstruct and pervert the course of justice by replacing these principles with arbitrary decision making.
  • For insight into these principles mean, check out what a former South Australian lawyer turned federal politician has to say about their importance in our supposedly democratic society.

Senator Penny Wong and “Due Process of Law”.

Senator Penny Wong unwittingly totaled Federal Agent Pearce's excuses for not investigating Perksgate.

Senator Penny Wong unwittingly also totaled Federal Agent Pearce’s pathetic excuses for not investigating Perksgate.

Sheriff Stokes’ action in getting rid of Juror 157 makes a total farce out of Senator Penny Wong’s very passionately spoken comments on the ABC’s AM program about the importance of ensuring Procedural Fairness and Due Process of Law which is, constitutionally, the responsibility of the courts, not Kangaroo Court sheriffs. Senator Penny Wong’s interview provides a valid basis for evaluating Sheriff Stokes’ decision not to have Juror #157 investigated for allegedly violating the South Australian Criminal Caw Consolidation Act.

The source of the interview below is an ABC Radio AM segment which was broadcast at about 7.10am (EST) on 11-05-12: (The ABC’s online file is bst_20120511-0710.mp3)

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/am-with-peter-cave/4004806

 (Senator Wong:)

“… there are allegations made against members of parliament, made against individuals in our community … and the appropriate way to deal with those is to allow the courts to deal with them. Now, I’ve spoken about this for a long time, including on the ABC. When I’m asked about a number of things which are in the public arena, for example in the Fair Work Australia Report, I’ve said, if those allegations are correct, they are manifestly inappropriate. Manifestly! But politicians are not judge and jury when it comes to these matters, and there’s a very good reason for that. Because we have a system that is about the separation of powers and is about proper process when it comes to these and Anthony (Albanese) was making that point.” (Note: My underlining of the text.)

 (ABC Presenter: “Are the gloves now off?”)

(Senator Wong:)

“Well, we have said, very clearly, we believe that the Parliament should respect the processes of our courts; the processes which exist for very sound reasons. Regrettably, that’s not the way the Opposition, on this issue, are approaching it.”

  1. So why did Sheriff Stokes become …“judge and jury” and expel me from the jury pool in a process that was neither transparent nor respected the processes that Senator Wong spoke about when she was defending Craig Thomson?
  2. Could it be that like the Hanger Royal Commission, the last thing that Sheriff Stokes wanted was to have me discussing my relevant “life experiences” about QUOTAGATE?
  3. These days, QUOTAGATE is about the Howard Government’s secret classification of the “confidential”, unreported Performance Indicator Targets (PIT) fatalities that preceded the 4 ‘Roofgate’ deaths?
  4. The QUOTAGATE fatalities include the deaths that Centrelink’s Assistant Secretary, Neil Skill, admitted had never been “collected” and therefore had never been reported in either annual reports or quarterly public accountability reports to the Federal Parliament.
  5. The QUOTAGATE fatalities are currently secretly classified as both “not relevant” and “confidential” by the Federal Parliament.
  6. That comes as no  surprise, for they, like the deaths of Matthew Fuller, Marcus Wilson, Reuben Barnes and Mitchell Sweeney, all unlawful killings caused by federal politicians who put financial considerations ahead of public safety.
  7. With a 1 in 4 chance that other jurors had previously been, or currently are, welfare recipients, the idea of my discussing the refusal of the Federal Police (and SAPOL) to investigate these (allegedly) unlawful deaths with other jury pool members may well have been far beyond what Sheriff Stokes was politically prepared to tolerate in his jury pool?

TAKE NOTE The official refusals by the Federal Police to investigate Quotagate, and other frauds, on the spurious grounds that they were/are public knowledge and therefore did not need to be investigated, throws the door wide open to anyone accused of major fraud, misrepresentation, public endangerment, manslaughter or even murder, e.g. those convicted of the “Bodies in the Barrels” murders, possibly being able to seek to have their charges/convictions annulled on the legal grounds of Manifest Ostensible Bias!

 Manifest Ostensible Bias. Leck vs Morris; Keating vs Morris. 1st September 2005.

For a jurors in a murder trial, the deaths that the Federal Police refused to investigate, citing such spurious excuses as “gravity/sensitivity”, and “current “case load” , et cetera may constitute legal grounds for citing Manifest Ostensible Bias and thus may be compulsory grounds for acquitting the defendant(s) because of a legal precedent in the Queensland Supreme Court: Justice Moynihan, Leck vs Morris; Keating vs Morris. (The findings were handed down on 1st September 2005.)

This a decision has as yet untapped ramifications, especially once accused persons facing serious criminal charges get their hands on copies of the (currently classified as confidential) AFP refusals to investigate numerous alleged criminal activities within the Federal Parliament such as Travelgate, Perksgate and Quotagate.

  • The really good news for these peoples is that all but one of my email communications to/from the Hanger Royal Commission are, at the present time, still unclassified.

The Hanger Royal Commission may also be deliberately obstructing justice.

  1. It is my ‘ordinary, reasonable person’ opinion, the primary role currently being played by the Hanger Royal Commission is the concealment of the Quotagate fatalities and other DSS and Centrelink triggered fatalities.
  2. The Hanger Commission is flatly refusing to consider these fatalities, many of which may be major crimes, and therefore I believe that this Commission of Inquiry needs to be the focal point of an intensive investigation to determine why .
  3. Surely, if the deaths of 4 ceiling insulation installers was enough to finally have the ceiling insulation installation program (Roofgate) re-coded from “Green” to “Yellow”, then a valid question to ask is just how many deaths of unemployed people, publicly vilified by the Howard Government as “Rorters” and “Dole Bludgers”, were necessary before the practice formally known as “Breaching” should have been ‘Red Carded”?
  4. This statement comes for a 1998 federal mental health report: “Suicide is a leading cause of death in Australia, resulting in a total of 2,393 deaths (1,931 males, 462 females) in 1996. Since 1990, suicides have exceeded road injury deaths and have been the leading cause of death due to injury in Australia.”
  5. About a third of these deaths involved unemployed welfare recipients and yet there has been no investigation as to why the nations most vulnerable people, i.e. he unemployed, make up the largest identifiable group of people who are committing suicide.
  6. How may of the unemployed people died as a direct consequence of the Howard government’s illegal QUOTAGATE policies?
  7. That is a question that both John Howard and Tony Abbott now both need to answer.
  8. Unfortunately that is also a question that the Hanger Royal Commission, which was set up by Tony Abbott, flatly refuses to consider.
  9. Why is this so?

ABOVE THE LAW?

Accused persons may also find useful the fact that Liberal-National Coalition controlled Senate committees have secretly classified these fatalities as “confidential” and have also issued, under Parliamentary Privilege powers, ‘don’t copy, don’t distribute’ suppression orders. To steal a phrase from the high Court’s findings in ACCC vs TPG (HCA 54 [2013]), the “dominant message” in the actions of these Liberal-National Coalition dominated Senate committees is that Liberal-National Coalition politicians appear to believe themselves to be above and beyond the Law because they make the Law, and therefore the Quotagate fatalities can  be placed ‘off-limits’ to both the public and the nation’s Criminal Justice system.

So much for Senator Wong’s statement that “the Parliament should respect the processes of our courts.”

The problem with Justice Moynihan’s ‘Manifest Ostensible Bias Decision is that is a legal precedent that has far ranging implications  when it comes to Procedural fairness, as the (3) recent court cases involving Dr Patel  clearly reveals.

Jayant_patel

Dr Jayant Patel.

Despite the fact that (allegedly) 87 people are dead and (allegedly) another 106 people required major corrective surgery as a result of Dr Patel, based upon the evidence presented, in the March 2013 re-trial, the jury had no option but to bring in an unpopular but legally valid “Not Guilty” verdict:

  1. Justice Moynihan’s Ostensible Bias decision has also shut down the Morris Commission of Inquiry and turned 50 days of testimony to that inquiry hearings into ‘poisoned fruit’ that (literally) had to be shredded.
  2. It would be 5 years before Dr Patel was finally brought to trial and Justice Moynihan’s decision appears to have made possible useful legal grounds that may have aided Dr Patel in having his original March 2010 convictions overturned in by the High Court in October 2012.
  3. At his subsequent retrial on 1 count of Manslaughter in 2013, the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions may have been ‘straight-jacked’ (constrained) by both Justice Moynihan’s 2005 decision and the subsequent High Court appeal decision.

Although Dr Patel could be charged with having lied his way into the job of Director of Surgery at the Bundaberg Base Hospital, if that is a crime, it should be noted that recently the ALP ran a national advertisng campaign claiming that Tony Abbott had lied his way into the Prime Minister’s job with  “non-core promises.” Consequently Dr Patel could argue that he had no case to answer on the grounds of Manifest Ostensible Bias! How’s that for irony?

Poniatowska and Procedural Fairness – Incredible but TRUE!.

I believe that all readers of this posting, especially people who may have been summoned to jury duty, need to understand that Procedural Fairness principles may supersede or totally over-ride any evidence presented during a trial. There is probably no better case history precedent to support this belief that everyone, especially Jurors, need to know about and consider is the High Court’s Poniatowska Decision (HCA 43 [2011]).

  • Totally unbelievable but also totally true; 15,000 impoverished welfare recipients prosecuted and convicted for a crime that did not exist!
  • In the cases where a jury presided, not once did the prosecutor, the judge, or where present, the defence counsel, inform the jury of this basic fact.
  • Can you image the following scenario?
  • At the end of each of the trial before a jury, the presiding judge sums up the facts of case for the jury and then, just the jury rises to go to the jury room to determine the merits of the case, the judge says, “Oh, by the way, there is no actual law that the defendant has broken but you need not worry about that. If you find the defendant guilty, I’ll put him/her in the slammer for the next 3 years.”
  • In reality, no judge ever said that to any jury.
  • Instead, some 15,000 times,magistrates at Arraignment Hearing referred people to trial where judges and/or juries actually convicted impoverished welfare recipients and put some of them in the slammer for being so as stupid as to get caught for violating a law that did not exist!
  • ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE, TOTALLY UNBELIEVABLE but TRUE!

Unfortunately, thanks to Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott and the other 224 members of the Australian Federal Parliament, an even greater injustice was  occurred they tried to ‘fix’ this monstrous legal blunder.

 “STATUTORY FICTION”: The Keating Decision (HCA 20, May 8th 2013).

Totally topping the Poniatowska Decision for Gross Injustice was the High Court’s Keating Decision (HCA 20 [2013]). In a deliberate attempt to undermine the Poniatowska Decision, the 226 members of the Federal Parliament violated the constitutional, legal and fundamental human rights of 15,000 welfare recipients with retrospective legislation that was  intended to validate all of the above mentioned unlawful criminal convictions.

  •  Quite rightly, the High Court dismissed this gross violation of Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, citing it as “statutory fiction.”
  • Unfortunately for Australia’s impoverished welfare recipients, the High Court pulled its punch with the statutory fiction comment and did not cite the Federal Parliament for “Crimes against Humanity.”
  • Had the High Court done so,  it is quite possible that today Australia’s Prime Minister might well have been Clive Palmer and not the current human rights violating incumbent, Tony Abbott.
  • The Essence of Truth is Proof; when it comes to the above mentioned court decisions, there is a lot of proof in plain sight – just GOOGLE these court decisions.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL – PARAGRAPHS 75 (c)

The official secrecy and the bureaucratic stonewalling that conceals unreported lethal impact of the Breaching penalties legislation that was in place for decades is necessary, at  least for federal politicians. A quick read of Paragraph 75 (c) of the Australian Constitution will reveal that Breach of Contract is a matter for the courts, not the string of governments (and syncopate bureaucrats) that for decades have financially benefited from this legislation with literally billions of dollars in so-called “Savings.”

  • You should test everything that I post, especially references to the Australian Constitution.
  • Please, check out paragraph 51 (xxiii) (a) of the constitution and you will also find out that Civil Conscription, i.e. Work for the Dole, is prohibited.

RARES AND THE 2013 AGS LAW ADMINISTRATORS CONFERENCE.

Check out the statements below which were contained in a paper presented by a Federal Court judge, i.e. Justice Steven Rares, at the June 2013 AGS Law Administrators Conference.

http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/publications/judges-speeches/justice-rares/rares-j-20130620

 STATEMENT #1 “The principal means by which liberty can be eroded today in Australia is by a law enacted by the Parliament or by its delegated legislative power or by a State or Territory law. The Constitution confers specific legislative powers on the Parliament, generally divided into subject matters. Many of those powers are found in section 51.”

STATEMENT #2 “…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.”

Re: “Many of those powers are found in section 51.”

Too right they are:- check out paragraph 51 (xxiii) (a) of the constitution.

  1. The Dole is a constitutional right;
  2. but Work for the Dole is unconstitutional.
  3. So why is Work for the Dole a major plank in the Abbott Government’s current FY 2014-15 federal budget?
  4. Readers might like to ask their federal MPs and senators why this is so.

SYSTEMIC JURY TAMPERING ISSUES:

[Readers please note: This section looks at the systemic ways in which juries can be rendered so ineffective as to constitute systemic jury pool tampering. It is lengthy, informative, but possibly quite boring in some parts - you have been warned!]

CURRENT COMPETENCY – JURORS and the National Training Agenda .

Current Competency is the core principle of the national training agenda. Whether the issue is a TAFE level 1 Certificate in Computer Studies or a research PhD, the key point of the assessment process is Current Competency. In a trial, Jurors have to make many complex judgements, and if one or more members of the jury have concerns about the validity of legislation, then it their responsibility to query the issue with the judge. If the judge agrees with the juror(s) viewpoint, as Justice Rares has pointed out, the judge can rule that a (federal) law is legally invalid. (The High Court has the final say in the matter.)

  1.  However, if the jury briefing process that I undertook on May 2nd 2014 in the Adelaide Courts jury pool room is a typical example of how these sessions are conducted, they represent a ‘1-Finger-Salute’ to the concept of Current Competency.
  2. At the moment, to qualify as a juror you just need to be on the electoral role, alive, and living within 150kms of the courts. No other qualifications appear to be required.
  3. In the light of Poniatowska and the Keating decisions, jury pool members need a far higher degree of competency that the system currently allows them to have.
  4. By withholding from potential jurors details of the full scope of their responsibility, e.g. the responsibility to confirm the validity of both the charges against the accused and the legal merit of that legislation, the jury pool induction process is seriously flawed.
  5. I believe that a good analogy is to liken this process to teaching young people to drive cars in an off-road facility and then letting them drive on the road without telling mentioning any road rules, e.g. Keep Left.
  6. To withhold such core principles from jurors is to pervert the system, i.e. it is systemic jury pool tampering. In the 21st century, potential Jurors needs far more information than the system is providing and this failure to make full disclosure of all appropriate information, perhaps using modern technology, e.g. DVD tutorials, is now causing systemic problems.

 “The Tyrannosaurus in the jury pool room.

In a commentary posted on the Internet in 2010, Assistant Professor Lorana Bartels, (School of Law and Justice Canberra) stated that 21st century problems caused by the Social Media are “an elephant in the room” for the nation’s Justice system.

http://theconversation.com/jurors-and-social-media-is-there-a-solution-15921

As both a technology studies teacher with over 30 years of years of computing experience, (which includes a post-graduate research thesis on the role of micro-computer technology in farm business management), and as an ex-Juror with a massive 4 hours of intensive observational experience in the Adelaide Courts jury pool room, I fully agree with Professor Bartels comments. (Did I just damn Professor Bartels with faint praise?)

 In the light of my May 2nd 2014 “Life Experience” (which is the primary criteria for my assumed ‘competency’ as a Juror), I would go one step beyond Professor Bartels “elephants in the room” comment by making the definitive statement that systemic jury pool tampering is a far more dangerous issue than many of problems posed by the social media for I believe that jury pool tampering is “a Tyrannosaurus Rex in the jury pool room.

 Was I booted out of the jury pool because I had allegedly broken the law, or was I booted out because of the “boat-rocking” documents and comments that I had published on my web site in the last 2 years? If the real reason was the highly sensitive content of those web pages, then the sheriff was deliberately abusing his authority by excluding my ‘life experience’ from both the jury pool and the jury room, i.e. he would have been jury pool tampering.

 Teacher warnedAs the “Teacher warned for speaking out” news article makes quite clear, this would not be my first life experience of being deliberately suppressed by SA Government officials.

The core function of a Sworn Juror (note the proper noun usage) is precisely the same as that as a person who has been sworn in as a Member of the Judiciary, i.e. a Judge, for both are charged with the same responsibility. Each must impartially assess the fairness of the legal process and then impartially evaluate the evidence presented in a case in order to determine, beyond a reasonable doubt, if an accused person is guilty of the alleged violations of criminal law(s).

 (A)  The Oath that both jurors and judges take, places upon them a common obligation to uphold the Law and to be impartial and honest when evaluating the evidence presented in court. Consequently, although the position of Juror is a temporary on-call position, to all intents and purposes, Sworn Jurors are temporarily “Officers of the Court” until officially relieved of their post.

 Therefore the expulsion of a Sworn Juror from their official duties is a very serious matter that should not be subject to the capricious or arbitrary, possibly unlawful, discretion of the Sheriff and/or members of his staff.

“A medium affects the society in which it plays a role.” So do the actions of those holding a position of power. Consequently in the Court System, the process of removing a person from jury duty be TOTALLY TRANSPARENT and in accordance with Due Process of Law.

To do less is to leave all officials involved vulnerable to allegations of corruption. (Has anybody heard of Marshall McLuhan’s saying, “The medium is the message?”)

 SUSPICION: “Speculation with foundation.”

One legal definition of Suspicion is “Speculation with foundation”. When there is any Speculation with foundation that a judge or a juror has broken the law, then scrupulous attention must be paid to the principle of “Procedural Fairness.” Any violation of Procedural Fairness processes would provide the accused person with an opportunity to have the charges dismissed or to have a conviction overturned.

TRANSPARENCY: “Due Process of Law.”

The High Court’s Patel Decision in October 2012. (QLD DPP vs Patel) which overturned Dr Patel’s 2010 convictions emphasizes the requirement for both Transparency and strict adherence to “Due Process of Law” which, from my layman’s viewpoint, should work something like this:

There is a “Suspicion” (based upon reasonable foundation, i.e. evidence,) that the law has been broken by a legal entity, i.e. a particular person, a group of people, or by a corporate body.

  1. There is an official investigation in which evidence is gathered, recorded, reviewed and stored in accordance with “The Rules of Evidence.
  2. The investigation is conducted by a licenced/authorized investigator, e.g. a police officer, or a duly constituted Commission of Inquiry such as a Royal Commission or an Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC.)
  3. The Alleged Offender, i.e. “The Suspect”, (again note the use of proper nouns) is served with a warrant of arrest, i.e. arrested by a police officer, and charged with allegedly violating specific sections of statute laws.
  4. The proper nouns Alleged Offender and The Suspect are not just fancy word semantics but are legally correct terms because under Australia’s system of Justice, a person is Presumed to be innocent of any of the charges until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt in a Court of Law.
  5. Once charged, the suspect is Arraigned before a magistrate who determines if there is sufficient evidence for the charges to be put before a judge or a jury.
  6. If the magistrate determines that the evidence should be put to a higher court, i.e. the District Court or the Supreme Court, then the Alleged Offender, i.e. the Suspect, is held over for trial where the charges are put before a judge or a jury in a public hearing.
  7. At the start of the trial the Alleged Offender has the right to hear charges against him/her and to rebut them by challenging the evidence and any witness statements that are made under Oath.
  8. Until a Verdict is rendered at the end of the trial by the presiding jury, or by the presiding jury, the Alleged Offender is at all times Presumed to be innocent of the charges.
  9. IF, I repeat, IF a verdict of “Guilty” is rendered by the presiding judge, or by the presiding jury as may be the case, then the Alleged Offender is now a Convicted Offender.
  10. At this point in the process, a new set of processes come into play, i.e. Sentencing Hearings, the purpose of which is to determine an appropriate penalty that is consistent with the requirements of Statute Law, and Fairness to both the convicted person and any persons directly harmed by the convicted persons actions.
  11. After the Sentencing Hearings, have concluded the presiding judge at the trail then imposes sentence, i.e. the judge issues an appropriate penalty.

 It is important to note that the convicted person may appeal both the conviction and/or the penalty imposed. Even if an accused person if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a judge or by a jury, appeals to the Appellate Court or to a higher court, e.g. the Australian High Court, may see the convictions over-turned as per the previously mentioned case of Dr Patel.

That case highlights the importance of Procedural Fairness for 87 of Dr Patel’s patients are dead and another 106 allegedly required corrective surgery to repair the injuries allegedly caused by Dr Patel’s surgical activities. The “dominant message” of the Patel case is that no matter how guilty a person may be, or how serious the crime, if Procedural Fairness is screwed up anywhere in the prosecution process, the accused effectively gets a “Get out Jail” card. (More on this point later.)

 As  stated above (repeatedly), on May 2nd 2014, Sheriff Stokes tossed Procedural Fairness and Due Process of Law out the window so to speak by skipping steps 3  to 12 above when accusing Juror #157 of violating the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

By offering to not take the matter further, Sheriff Stokes was tacitly involving Juror #157 in a criminal conspiracy to violate the law.

 Thank you, Sheriff Stokes, but no thank you!

  1. Having read some of my postings covering the period 1st July 2012 to 1st May 2014, Sheriff Stokes would have be well aware of my suspicion that Tony Abbott may have been a key player in the unreported Performance Indicator Targets triggered fatalities that may have occurred in South Australia at the turn of the century.
  2. Any such fatalities would be Felony Murders under Section 16 of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act. (Crown vs Finch, SA Supreme Court 2006)
  3. For me to ignore my own alleged violation of this legislation whilst continuing to point the finger at Tony Abbott for not revealing the Breaching Quota fatalities would be grossly hypocritical on my part!

 In point of fact, if I were to be charged with violating the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act, I would attempt to defend myself on numerous grounds including Exigent Circumstances, i.e. the proposed unconstitutional Work for the Dole legislation. In addition I would also argue my defence on the grounds of Manifest Ostensible Bias, i.e. why prosecute me and ignore the possibility that Tony Abbott may have triggered a number of fatalities that may be covered by the Felony Murder provisions in Section 16 of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act?

 More on “The Elephants in the (jury pool) room.

There are a number of other very serious Elephants in the (jury pool) room issues that are also swept under the carpet in South Australia when it comes to the mission-critical issue of swearing in a pool of 200 or so jurors every month whose services may be required in the 10 courtrooms of the South Australian Supreme Court and the Adelaide District Court.

  1.  The 4- hour Juror in-servicing and swearing-in session that I attended on May 2nd 2014 was so outdated as to possibly constitute systemic jury tampering.
  2. In 1215 when the Magna Carta was signed, lynch mobs effectively received official sanction in the form of “juries of peers.”
  3. Using traditions handed down from that time, Standard Operating Procedure is to only provide a token minimum of information about the issues that confront jurors.
  4. For example, the idea that if jurors ‘get it wrong’ the accused can always appeal displays an appalling lack of basic knowledge of the huge expenses involved to those wrongly convicted, e.g. $10,000 a day for a QC/SC and $6,000 a day for a “2nd Seat”.
  5. In March 2013, the SA Supreme Court awarded Dr John Knight $3.6 million in compensation for wrongful dismissal and then awarded a further $640,000 in legal costs.
  6. Jurors need to know ALL of the real-world consequences of their decisions; in business this called ‘informed decision making’, and in the 21st century, jurors need the same baseline information for the same reason, i.e. to make a fully informed VALID decisions.

 IGNORANCE IS NOT BLISS

In the aftermath of the Poniatowska, Patel and Keating decisions by the High Court, the deliberate withholding of such basic information from the jury poor is far from adequate, especial since, Matthew informed me, and Jurors are forbidden to “investigate” such basic facts once they are impaneled.  However, “ignorance of the law is no excuse” when accused of crime, so is it “investigation” or “self-education” for juries to acquaint themselves with the law?

  • There is no simple answer to that question for lawyers have one view-point and  educators  have another.
  • So what is fair and reasonable?
  • Who knows? Certainly not any of the people who were in the jury pool room with me on May 2nd, that’s for sure for no-one questioned this statement.

 By concealing relevant systemic information from jurors and not pointing out the need, the responsibility and the obligation to the defendant(s) to query both the procedural fairness of the case and the legality of the legislation that applies in the case at hand, the briefing process effectively amounts to systemic tampering with the jury pool. Ignorance is not bliss; it is a breach of duty of care to the defendant(s) that makes a mockery out of the principles of Procedural fairness and Due Process of Law.

 Elephant #1 – the ignored problem of Jurors and the Social Media.

As my own example of 2ND May 2014, clearly demonstrates, doing nothing about the social media problem until after the jury pool is Sworn-in is very much a case of too little, too late! Why was I sworn-in at midday and then booted out of the jury poll at 4.30 PM. (Is that a record?)

 Seating in the 2nd row from the front, I had made my presence known in the jury pool room with a series of statements that took Matthew and others by surprise.

  • “I am here today because the Hanger Royal Commission will not subpoena me.”
  • “As a result of my ‘Life Experiences’ I know about a number of High Court decisions.”
  • “Poniatowska. 15,000 impoverished welfare recipients prosecuted for a non-existent crime. Wow!”
  • “PATEL. 87 dead and 106 injured but Dr Patel is free today because of Procedural Fairness issues.”
  • “Keating. On May 8th last year, the High Court dismissed as “statutory fiction” unconstitutional, human rights violating, retrospective legislation that was intended to undermine the Poniatowska decision by validating the 15,000 convictions of people who had not broken the law because the alleged law did not exist at the time of the alleged offence!

I then filled the silence in the room that followed these statements with the comment that “I am the author of submission 287 to the 2005 Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry. This submission is secretly classified as confidential and I also have to suppression orders that relate to the fatalities that the Federal Parliament does not wish reveal.”

 At this point Matthew found his voice and stated that he would like to see me after the jury pool swearing-in process was completed.

  • My response to this request was to point out to Matthew that I had some documents that I wished to show to him but, they were so sensitive that he may not wish to look at them.
  • Matthew counter-responded with the comment, “In that case, I won’t.”

 Unfortunately for Matthew, he forgot that statement when we spoke privately at the end of the meeting, he looked closely at the 4 documents that I had handed to him. As a consequence, I have 4 documents with his fingerprints (and DNA) that prove that he is aware of the unreported breaching triggered fatalities and the refusal of the Federal Police and the National Audit Office to do anything about these deaths.

 After reading the documents Matthew then expressed the viewpoint that he needed to be sure that, knowing about these issues, that I could fulfil my obligations as a Juror. I assured him that I could. However, at the forefront of my mind was the thought that he had had clear ‘warning’ of my knowledge of these sensitive issues and had failed to clarify them BEFORE I was sworn-in as a Juror. Expelling from the jury pool was a clear case of wasting taxpayer’s money, i.e. shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted!

  •  Swearing in jurors and then turfing them out of the jury pool once it becomes evident that their dissident “life experiences” or alternative lifestyles may result in valid but unacceptable views being expressed in jury room, or even in a court room, is clearly a very flawed and tainted process that urgently requires much needed transparency.
  • Turfing out Sworn Jurors with anti-establishment life experiences , e.g. ‘boat-rocking’, ‘whistle-blowing’, or dissident political viewpoints, may be Standard Operating Procedure; if so it is socio-economic or political jury pool tampering and that is just not on.

 I am of the opinion that, without total transparency and strict compliance with Procedural fairness obligations, the removal of a Juror from the jury pool is simply systemic jury pool tampering.

Assistant Professor Lorana Bartels perceptive “elephant in the room” comments about the interactive role of the Social Media in the 21st century and its impact upon jurors and some trials, has highlighted the need for the Sheriff’s Office to be pro-active with the well-known problems of jurors and their interaction with the ubiquitous nature of Social Media:

THE SOCIAL MEDIA IS UBIQUITOUS:

Australia’s population of 22 million people own some 24 million mobile phones, almost all of which can be used to directly access Twitter, FaceBook, et cetera, in real time.

  1. With 12 million Facebook accounts in Australia, 2 million Twitter accounts, 4 million LinkedIn accounts plus an unknown number of blogging web pages, the Summons to Jury Duty notice is the point of contact where Social Media is an easily foreseen problem/issue and consequently it is an issue that must be confronted, not ignored, at that point of contact.
  2. To just continue to treat the problem as “The elephant in the room”, as Professor Bartels puts it, is simply just not good enough for it is a serious failure of Due Diligence that involves NONFEASANCE, i.e. a failure to take action when action is required.

 The 2nd” elephant in the room” is the problem of ‘Functionally Illiteracy’

Check out the hyperlink to an Australian Bureau of Statistics Literacy Survey published in 2006; A staggering 50% of jurors may be functionally illiterate!

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/F55F20618CA23DA1CA2573A000114B25/$File/4228055002_2006.pdf

First published in 2006 and then again in 2008, this survey was updated with a ‘spot check’ in Tasmania in 2013. The initial surveys revealed that a staggering 47% of Australians aged between 15 and 70 are functionally illiterate. A 2013 survey in Tasmania upped the ante to an even 50% and highlighted the fact that this was costing Tasmania billions of dollars each year in lost productivity.

 (A)  The obvious question to consider is what is what else besides productivity, time, and money, could get “lost” in the courtroom?

(B)   Could the answer to that question be “JUSTICE”?

One of the most common ways in which functionally illiterate people try to conceal this problem is to avoid situations where this educational deficiency may be revealed. When a Summons to Jury Duty is received, a common avoidance response is a “no show”, i.e. the person does not present themselves for jury duty, fearing that their literacy problems will be exposed.

  •  For juries, a ‘No- show’ at induction may be a potentially beneficial case of ‘Natural Selection’ at work if it is filtering out people who cannot ‘read between the lines’ because, according to the Bureau of Statistics, in many instances functionally illiterate people cannot even comprehend the instructions for the safe use of prescription medication and yet, magically, they are expected to understanding hours, days, or even weeks of complex legal argument. A teacher for 43 years, I believe that this is totally unrealistic.
  • Therefore, instead of fines being $1,250 being issued, potential jurors should be interviewed on a confidential one-on-one basis and asked if they have literacy problems and if they say “Yes”, then they should automatically qualify for an exemption from jury service.
  • This needs to be determined before the Swearing-In of jurors. By deliberately ignoring this issue, the Sheriff’s Office is effectively ‘stacking the jury’ with people who may have difficulty in coping with the legal complexities of a criminal case.

 The 3rd “elephant in the jury pool room” is the issue of mentally ill Jurors.

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/content/8E0E3BC67E3962AFCA25712B0080235F/$File/nhpaall.pdf

[This report wins the prize for the longest title]

 National Health Priority Areas Report: Mental Health 1998

A REPORT FOCUSING ON DEPRESSION

Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care Australian Institute of Health and Welfare AIHW Cat. No. PHE 11 © Commonwealth of Australia 1999   ISBN 0 642 39406 7

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.

 According to this report, 1 person in 5 may have a mental health problem and it may be a lifelong problem, i.e. medication treats, but does not cure their problem(s).

 For any Australian Sheriff’s Office swearing in a jury pool there are a number of “elephant in the room” mental health issues that are currently ignored but which urgently need to be addressed:

 (A)  The risk of mental health stress triggered Suicide page 23 of the report states: “Suicide is a leading cause of death in Australia, …

“Since 1990, suicides have exceeded road injury deaths and have been the leading cause of death due to injury in Australia (DHFS& AIHW 1998a)…”

 “Several known factors can, under certain circumstances, contribute to a person attempting suicide. Mental disorder, and specifically depression, consistently emerges as the largest single risk factor for suicide and suicidal behaviour (Patton et al 1997). It is estimated that about 88 per cent of people who died from suicide suffered from a diagnosable mental disorder at the time of their death (Henriksson et al 1993). “People with a history of mental disorder are 10 times more at risk of dying from suicide compared to the general population (Gunnel & Frankel 1994).”

 (B)   People with mental health problems may be not mentally competent to stand trial for a crime and yet paradoxically, they may be compelled to undertake jury duty! How do you explain that legal contradiction?

 Report extracts:

1.11 Mental health and disability – page 28 of the report.

“The burden of mental disorders is more evident in associated disability than in mortality. The effects of this psychiatric disability are multidimensional. Not only is a person’s full functioning compromised but their participation in day-to-day life may also be affected.”

 Note the last sentence which I have underlined. There are clearly identifiable “Duty of Care” issues implicit in the above statements when swearing-in juries.

 (A)  The obligation to ensure that the responsibilities of jury duty do not overburden a person with (hidden) mental health problems. Compromising a person’s health, welfare, or safety by arbitrarily imposing $1,250 a day fines for a “No show” is a sub-set issue that leaps into the grey area of Culpable Negligence, especially if a person is stressed or traumatized that they (attempt to) commit suicide.

(B)   The obligation to ensure that the accused person who opts for a trial by jury is presented with a jury selection process in which ALL of the jury pool candidates are legally “fully functioning competent persons” from a `mental health perspective.

With a statistical 20% probability of mental health issues or problems, many of the 193 people at the Adelaide Courts Juror Pool Swearing-in session on 2nd May, 2014 have one or more dysfunctional mental health problems! The 193 people who attended juror swearing-in session thus statistically represents a potential 38 people who may be serving on juries who, legally, are not mentally capable of making fair and accurate judgements.

 In the 21st century, knowing what we now know about the societal problems that are deeply embedded in our society, compulsory jury duty is potentially a massive legal disaster in many ways because a ‘normal’ jury of ‘ordinary, reasonable people’ may be composed of 47 – 50% functionally illiterate people, 2 in every 5 of whom are also mentally incapable of making sound judgements. [Think Poniatowska!]

 A potential scenario is a jury composed of:

  • 50% functionally illiterate jurors,
  • AND another 20% of jurors with a mental health dysfunction problem!
  • And that is not the end of the problems faced by defendants fronting up to dysfunctional juries.

 CHRONIC PAIN.

A news media report on May 15th 2014 reported that an estimated 20% of South Australian adults may have a chronic pain problem. This is an additional factor that needs to be considered in the jury selection process.

 

THE STATISTICAL WORST CASE SCENARIO IS.

  •  50% of Jurors are functionally illiterate;
  • 20% of Jurors are with impaired mental functional capacity;
  • 20% of Jurors are with a distracting or serious chronic pain problem.

 This means that statistically it is possible that up to 90% of a jury may be functionally challenged people whose competency to serve on a jury may be in some doubt.

 So, what do you call a process whereby “the System” appoints juries composed of people who may not be competent to meet the stringent requirements of jury duty?  Surely that is jury stacking which is a form of jury tampering?

The “T-Rex” of BIGOTRY.

 Senator BrandisThe recent statement in the Senate by Senator George Brandis, the Federal Attorney-General, that “People have a right to be racial bigots… even if it harms people”, is a potentially catastrophic T-Rex problem when it occurs in the jury pool.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-24/brandis-defends-right-to-be-a-bigot/5341552

(A)  Whilst the political ideology of so-called ‘Bigots Rights’ may seem perfectly reasonable and logical to Senator Brandis, the NAZI Holocaust and other more recent acts of racial genocide underscore the very obvious fact that Bigotry is a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

(B)   Since 10th December 1948, Australia has been a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (The UDHR)

(C)   Article 3 of the UDHR guarantees Freedom, Security of Person, and the Right to Life and bigoted racial statements that engender racial hatred are 100% contrary to this most basic, fundamental human right.

(D)  Bigotry in the jury room is a time bomb that could totally undermine the concept of Justice contained in Article 10 of the UDHR which states that:

  • Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of his rights andobligations and of any criminal charge against him. [Bigotry and Impartial are contradictory terms.]

 If Jurors run with Senator Brandis’ logic about the “right” to be bigoted and are UNCHECKED in the privacy of the jury room in the exercise of their ‘right’ to be bigoted in any way, e.g. racial, sexual, religious, socio-economic et cetera, then it will be impossible to provide “in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, i.e. jurors impartiality will be seriously compromised and surely, complements of the Federal Attorney-General, that is another form of systemic jury tampering?

 With the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, fully supporting Senator Brandis’ comments in the House of Representatives, and the very real possibility that Section 18 of the Racial Discrimination Act will be amended to legally allow racially bigoted comments, active measures need to in place to ensure that bigotry in jury pools is totally eliminated before it results in grave injustices once again re-occurring.

  • “The Stolen Generations” and “The White Australia Policy” are two well-known examples of bigotry driven national political agendas that have been proven to be exceedingly harmful to targeted minorities, e.g. the Royal Commission currently looking at the sexual abuse of children in institutionalized care is graphically highlighting the harm caused by racial bigotry in our society.
  • Until recent times, indigenous people in Queensland and Western Australia were up to 10 times more likely to be imprisoned for a minor crime than white people who may have violated the same laws.
  • Bigotry in the jury pool will turn back the clock to the 19th century. Do we really want that to happen? If not, then jury pool in-servicing procedures must formally address this problem rather than ignore it and simply let the “life experiences” of Jurors ‘resolve’ this problem within the confines of the jury room.

 In the 21st century, the practices and procedures for assembling a jury that have stood the test of time since the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 are no longer viable.

 The fundamental legal concept of the ‘ordinary, reasonable person’ whose life experiences enable them to make fair, honest, impartial and accurate judgements is a myth. The reality is that statistically, many ‘ordinary, reasonable people’ are either not capable or are not competent enough to meet these crucial but mythically ‘idealized’ standards. Even if they are, there is a 50% probability of bias or bigotry of some form.

 The implications are quite obvious; without empirical Job & Person Specification standards that establish baseline levels of “Competence”, jury selection is a joke! Intensive one-on-one vetting by skilled counsellors prior to the Swearing-in jurors, is now essential in order to ensure that jury members are reasonably capable of achieving the high standards of competence and integrity required for jury duty. To reject such measures and deliberately allow the status quo to continue is to “stack the jury” in ways that may be detrimental to either the defendant(s), or to the victim(s) of a crime; both of whom are entitled to see that justice is done, and done impartially.

 End note: Justice Rares on “clear wording…

When Matthew called me about 4 hours after I was sworn-in to inform me that I had expelled from the jury pool, he claimed that I had violated the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act. Was that statement actually true?

 (1)   What is the precise, ‘clear wording’ of the Act as per Justice Rares’ comment at last year’s AGS Law Administrators Conference? Since Matthew did not provide this information, how do I know if he was telling the truth?

(2)   Does the precise wording apply to people who are not yet jurors, or does it only apply to people who have been sworn-in as Jurors? If it only applies to the latter, then the Sheriff has almost certainly exceeded his lawful authority by excluding me from the jury pool by misleading me as to the legality of the grounds for doing so.

 If the law applies to people who have been Summons to Jury Duty and not just too Sworn Jurors, I have still been denied my constitutional rights, legal rights, civic rights and basic human rights, by a deplorable lack of systemic transparency. Such a gross and arbitrary denial of these rights is flagrantly systemic jury tampering.

 Transparency, procedural fairness and due process of law may be an administrative and legal pain the butt to implement, but these steps are the only way to ensure that the legal system can be seen to be both fair and impartial.

THE ESSENCE OF TRUTH IS PROOF.

Lawyers across the nation who represent clients accused of major crimes that may violate laws dealing with Fraud, Endangering the Public, Manslaughter and/or Murder should study the following sample documents very carefully for they may throw open the door to a “Manifest Ostensible Bias” defence for their clients. When it comes to larceny and unlawful deaths on a grand scale, thanks to a plethora of law enforcement authorities, federal politicians have so far gotten away with massive fraud and wholesale murder.

The devil is in the detail, but these documents and the appended web links make a good start.

QUOTAGATE: Between 1st July 2000 and 30 June 2002, the Howard Government “saved” $1.62 BILLION but never reported any of the lives ‘lost’,

27-06--2000 KernotCheryl Kernot’s mass media-suppressed Media Release provided detailed insight into how the Howard Government bilked over 600,000 impoverished welfare recipients, violating Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995). It was never investigated because of the [political] “gravity/sensitivity” of the issue. The 85% ‘Performance Indicator Targets’, i.e. breaching quotas were achieved by using the slightest excuse to deprive welfare recipients of the dole. If a bus was 10 minutes late and a job seeker was late for a Centrelink interview, that was deemed by the Howard Government to be a valid excuse to suspend welfare payments for a period of 3 months! Quotagate was dangerous, ideology driven fraud; in South Australian any deaths are Felony Murders!

 ABC Radio news – AM Program, Monday 11th March 2002, 8.25 AM. Reporter: Rebecca Carmody.

Linda Motteram: An independent review into breaches and penaties in Australia’s social security system has recommended a major overhaul after finding it to be unfair and counter-productive. Chaired by Emeritus Professor of Law at the Australian National University, Professor Dennis Pearce, the review also involved the Australian Industry Group.

 Rebecca Carmody: Professor Pearce says some of the failings he identifies are the direct result of Centrelink staff being exposed to excessive pressure or incentives to impose penalties. He says staff have told him of being called before management to explain why they had been soft on breaching.

Dennis Pearce: If they’re not carrying through a fairly tough line on penalties, then they are called to account.

Amanda Vanstone: The people who wrote the review were advised by Centrelink officers that the assertion was simply incorrect and nonetheless had gone ahead and continued to print that. I think you need to ask them why they’ve done that.

MY COMMENT: If Senator Vanstone had admitted to having applied the PIT breaching quotas reported by Centrelink staff, she might have been charged for systemic fraud and mass murder.

Travelgate:

Trish Draper allegedly left her defacto spouse at home and allegedly took a young male acquaintance overseas at taxpayer’s expense. Upon returning, John Howard allegedly ‘spat the dummy’ when he found out about this. However, whilst prosecuting welfare recipients at the rate of “10 people a day” for allegedly violated Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act , he did not report Ms Draper’s fake travel claim to the AFP. Why not?

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!

The Double Standards of the Australian Federal Police:

Centrelink 10 a day prosecutionsWelfare recipients can be prosecuted at the rate of “10 people a day”, but politicians who allegedly commit the same crimes, or even worse crimes, were not investigated.

In June 2004, the federal Police Commissioner, Mick Keelty, was asked to investigate both Travelgate and Quotagate. A specific question put to Commissioner Keelty was the issue of whether or not breaching quota triggered fatalities were Felony Murders? The answer to that question is that under Section 18 of the New South Wales Crimes Act (1900) and the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935) any fatalities triggered by the Howard Government’s Performance Indicator Target fraud are probably Felony Murders.

 What is currently known about the unreported, un-investigated and now secretly classified post-breaching fatalities? In part, the answer is to be found in the previously mentioned National Health Priority Areas Report- Mental health 1998, Suicide (See page 23 of that report)

“Suicide is a leading cause of death in Australia, resulting in a total of 2,393 deaths (1,931 males, 462 females) in 1996. Since 1990, suicides have exceeded road injury deaths and have been the leading cause of death due to injury in Australia (DHFS& AIHW 1998a)… Several known factors can, under certain circumstances, contribute to a person attempting suicide. Mental disorder, and specifically depression, consistently emerges as the largest single risk factor for suicide and suicidal behaviour.” (Patton et al 1997).

Connecting the dots.

About 30% of these deaths involved unemployed people; i.e. about 700-800 per year! “Connect the dots” and what you get is a Federal Parliament that puts financial issues ahead of public safety, even when hundreds of thousands of lives are  at risk.

  • Unemployment.
  • Depression.
  • Breaching.
  • Suicide.

So how does anyone explain the fact that since breaching penalties were first introduced decades ago, not one single post-breaching fatality have ever been reported in DSS and Centrelink reports to the Federal Parliament? The answer may possibly found in this remarkable letter from Centrelink.

“Centrelink does not collect…unable to assist with this information.”

Neil Skill 300dpi copyCheck out the 2nd paragraph in the above letter and also note that a return address is not included in the letterhead. This letter explains the basic reason WHY these fatalities have never been reported to the parliament. (This statement may also provide chilling insight into why the Hanger Royal Commission flatly refuses to look at these fatalities , which in some states may be Felony Murders, a crime that has no statute of limitations.)

HOW MANY FATALITIES IS CENTRELINK HIDING?

The simple answer is that until Centrelink releases the data, no-one knows. However, just as a ‘Black Hole” is unseen but can be detected by what happens around it, the post breaching fatalities can also be detected in a similar manner.

Check out the following suicide statistics that are contained in Australian Bureau of Statistics and National Institute of Health reports such as the example below:

INJURY RESEARCH AND STATISTICS SERIES. Number 49 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Canberra.

Table 2.1: Number of suicide deaths in Australia according to ABS causes of death data by sex and year of death registration, 1997–2006. (Source: ABS 2008b:Table 4.1.)

     YEAR     MALE     FEMALE     TOTAL.

  • 1997       2,145         577              2,722
  • 1998      2,150         533             2,683
  • 1999      2,002        490            2,492
  • 2000     1,864        503             2,367
  • 2001      1,936        521              2,457
  • 2002     1,817         503             2,320
  • 2003     1,737         477             2,214
  • 2004     1,661         437            2,098
  • 2005     1,658        444            2,102
  • 2006     1,398        401            1,799
  • TOTAL DEATHS =             20,914
  1. Australia’s unemployed make up approximately 3 – 4% of the population but account for approximately 30% of all suicides.
  2. In very simple terms, unemployed people in Australia are 7 or 8 times more likely to commit suicide than the rest of the population.
  3. That means that in the 10 year period above, i.e. “The Howard Years”, some 7,000 unemployed people committed suicide and yet John Howard DELIBERATELY breached emotionally fragile, impoverished people at the rate of up to 3 people per minute. (346,078 people were penalized for an alleged “Breach of Contract” in FY 2000-1.)
  4. HE KNEW what he was doing and he knew the potentially lethal risks and yet his 2002 ‘solution’ to the problem of POST BREACHING FATALITIES (apart from concealing them) was to try and double the unconstitutional, human rights violating Breaching Penalty is an incredible 26 weeks!

Why was this so?

 As of 1st June 2014 the status-quot on these fatalities is:

  1. The Hanger Royal Commission does not want to know about them;
  2. Centrelink still does not reveal them;
  3. Federal Parliament has officially classified the post breaching fatalities as “confidential” and “not relevant”.
  4. Australian law enforcement “Alphabet Warriors” refuse to investigate.

Every decent, honest person in Australia should be asking, Why is this so?

  • As of 30th May 2014, Centrelink has produced 16 annual reports and 67 quarterly public accountability reports that contain thousands of data tables that highlight how efficient Centrelink has been at prosecuting welfare recipients.
  • However, the most mission critical of all of Centrelink’s data, the post-breaching death toll is still not deemed by Centrelink’s senior management to be of sufficient importance to merit being reported!
  • Who really believe that this data is not worth “collecting”?

The Hanger Royal Commission is currently trying to determine why the Rudd Government failed to take action until 4 ceiling insulation installers were dead.

  1. Significantly, despite the possibility of a massive death toll caused by unconstitutional breaching legislation, the general council to the Hanger Royal Commission, Jessica Robinson, refuses to either acknowledge the validity of information about these deaths, all of which preceded the 4 Roofgate deaths.
  2. The Hanger Royal Commission will not subpoena anyone, e.g. me, who may provide insight into the cavalier attitude of politicians, the AFP and the Australian Public Service towards the easily foreseeable potentially lethal consequences of the unconstitutional, human rights violating welfare penalties legislation.
  3. Is this because these deaths were secretly classified as confidential by the Howard Government in 2005?\ or is because the political party that set the Hanger Royal Commission is also that the political party that illegally enforced the Performance Indicator Targets, i.e. Breaching Quotas, that in just 2 years saw over 600,000 impoverished welfare recipients defrauded of some $1.6 BILLION ($1,600,000,000.)?

The Australian Federal Police should have investigated “QUOTAGATE” but as the extract from an AFP letter dated 4th July 2004 clearly states, the AFP refused to do so.

Denley extractQUESTION? Was the “gravity/sensitivity” of the QUOTAGATE fraud too insignificant for an AFP investigation or was  this fraud and its attendant mass murder too significant?

  • We all need to know the answer to that question, especially now that John Howard’s QUOTAGATE ‘hatchet man’, Tony Abbott, is now running the country after having, according to a recent ALP advertising campaign, lied his way into the Prime Minister’s job.
  • If the suspicions of both the ALP and myself are valid, Australia’s Prime Minister is a liar, a thief, and a mass murderer.
  • Suspicion in itself means little; the validity of the above statement requires the Due Process of law that Juror #157 did not receive.
  • Ultimately, it is for a jury of 12 people to come to a unanimous decision as to whether or not Tony Abbott is a mass murderer.
  • Until now, the hard bit,has been getting Tony Abbott in to court. Thanks to Sheriff Stokes bumping-off of Juror #157 on the alleged grounds of violating the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act, that ‘Mission Impossible” task may now be possible.

 

The death toll caused by QUOTAGATE was officially classified as “confidential” by the Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee in November 2005. It is possible that the AFP’s refusal to investigate was the result of a ‘dirty deal’ between the Howard Government and the AFP, i.e. no investigation of Travelgate and Quotagate in exchange for the draconian police powers contained in the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 legislation. If that is the case, then the legislation is the proceeds of a crime and is not legally valid.

  1. Perhaps, the lawyers who represent Wissam Mahmoud Fattal, Saney Edoe Aweys and Nayef el Sayed, may like to give that some thought? I’m sure that Mr Fattal, Mr AWeys and Mr Sayed will.
  2. That’s the other big problem with QUOTAGATE; it has the potential not just to destroy the Liberal Party politically, legally and financially, it also has the potential to empty our nation’s jails of people who perhaps many people should never be let loose back into our society.

Sheriff’s Stokes’ research into the social media activities of Juror #157 began with the the URL link below. It appears to have taken about 3 hours to work through the subsequent postings to the May 1st 2014 Ronald’s space posting, i.e. the previous posting to this publication.

To understand the scope of QUOTAGATE, you need to do the same. My suggestion is to ignore what I have written and just concentrate on the documents that support my views for I believe that the essence of Truth is Proof, and those documents are proof that QUOTAGATE is very real.

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-3v (1-7-12 Senate classified documents.)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Hanger Royal Commission appears to be politically biased, i.e. pro Tony Abbott and anti ALP.

I believe that the Hanger Royal Commission may be extremely biased and so I have written a statutory declaration that will be passed on to lawyers representing people at this inquiry.

[The short link to this posting is  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-ka

(Please Note:- Update re legal ‘stuff’.  Although originally written as a statutory declaration, in South Australia such a declaration must fit on just 1 page. It will be revised to meet the legal requirements of an Affidavit and then be submitted to the Hanger Royal Commission and other vested interest parties.  Ronald Medlicott, 3rd May 2014)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

May 16th Update re Peter Garrett’s “I was not told…” statement to the Hanger Inquiry into the 4 Roofgate deaths.

The letter below is independent corroboration that bureaucrats deliberately conceal fatalities from government ministers and the public.

In this instance, with the death toll building up over decades, it is not about 4 deaths but rather a 4 or 5 figure death toll that we can only guess at until the figures are revealed.[ Note that the letterhead has no return address. This is a top down letter from a high ranking bureaucrat who did not want me to respond to his admission that Centrelink has never collected the data on pst breaching fatalities.

Neil Skill 300dpi copyChoke on this letter from the Governor-General written just weeks before Matthew Fuller’s death. It was her official response to a 38 page document detailing the scams that were killing welfare recipients. Mrs Bryce has a lot of explaining to do about why she took no action for had she done so, 4 young men might still be alive today.

Extract of a letter from Quentin Bryce's secretary, Mark FraserAnd how about  the 14 September 2009 refusal of the Federal Police to investigate the rorting of $4.64 million by federal MPs, also just weeks before Matthew Fuller’s death. The attitude within Federal Parliament was “anything goes” with both major parties. It is this refusal to hold politicians accountable for their actions that underpinned the Roofgate Disaster but the Hanger Royal Commission still refuses to look at any of the deaths that preceded the 4 Roofgate fatalities.

AFP refusal to investigate Perksgate email+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

THE STATUTORY DECLARATION TEXT

  [Note: Hyperlinks to supporting web pages with documentary evidence, etc are placed after  this declaration. It is recommended that readers check out these links.]                                                         

I, Ronald Medlicott,

Of 40 Siddall Road, Elizabeth Vale South Australia 5112,

do solemnly and sincerely declare that I have a grave concern that evidence in my possession justifies a reasonable belief that the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Home Improvement Program, hereafter the Roofgate Inquiry or ‘the Inquiry’, may be far more biased that Queensland’s Morris Commission of Inquiry which was shut down by order of Mr Justice Moynihan, on 1st September 2005. [QLD Supreme Court, Leck v Morris; Keating v Morris.]

In 2013, a High Court’s decision, ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54) focussed upon the “Dominant Message” in a TPG advertising campaign and in doing so the High Court placed the emphasis on the real-world impact or intent behind the actual words of TPG’s advertisements. Applying this “Dominant Message” principle to the Terms of Reference for the Roofgate Inquiry, I believe that the primary purpose of this inquiry is to accurately determine the circumstances that resulted in the Roofgate disaster, i.e. the Home Improvement Program which resulted in the deaths of Matthew Fuller, Marcus Wilson, Mitchell Sweeny and Reuben Barnes and injury to others e.g. Monique Pridmore.

The Terms of reference specify details such as:

  • the processes by which the Australian Government made decisions about the establishment and implementation of the Program, and the bases of those decisions, including how workplace health and safety and other risks relating to the Program were identified, assessed and managed; and, also
  • whether, in establishing or implementing the Program, the Australian Government failed to have sufficient regard to workplace health and safety or other risks relating to the Program; orfailed to deal adequately with the risks, advice, warnings or recommendations; and,
  • if so, why sufficient regard was not had to the risks, advice, warnings or recommendations, or why they were not dealt with adequately;

I believe that the repeated question of “why” in the Terms of Reference does empower the Inquiry to consider any long-term, underlying factors that may have influenced the Rudd Government’s planning, implementation and management of the Home Improvement Program., i.e. “why” allows the Roofgate Inquiry to scrutinize any prior policies or programs that may have also involved unlawful misconduct and/or mismanagement in other federal government programs that were the responsibility of any other government ministers in other any federal governments that may have placed people in harms way.

The repeated refusal of the Roofgate Inquiry to look at other allegedly unlawful activities that may have resulted in other fatalities and the lack of transparency by previous governments concerning these fatalities, may be evidence of political bias by the Roofgate Inquiry. The refusal to even consider the possibility that other fatalities may have been crucial links in the chain of events that precipitated the Roofgate disaster only adds to the on-going lack of transparency concerning every fatality.

The “Dominant Message” in subpoenaing Kevin Rudd and Peter Garrett to explain the Roofgate fatalities whilst declining to consider the role of the Howard Government in the alleged “Quotagate” fraud is a factor that is of major political benefit to Tony Abbott who, as the Employment Minister at the turn of the century may have played a key role in the non-reporting of post-Breaching fatalities.

In FY 2000-01, the Howard Government deprived 340,078 impoverished welfare recipients of their welfare allowance and ‘saved’ $867 million. The Roofgate Inquiry has a copy of Assistant Secretary Neil Skill’s letter, dated 18 May 2010, in which Centrelink’s decision not to “collect” the post breaching terminal outcomes statistical data is clearly acknowledged. The Inquiry is also aware that none of Centrelink’s 16 annual reports and 67 published Quarterly Public Accountability Reports, contain any reference to the death toll caused by Breaching legislation which was legislated for the express purpose of deliberately depriving welfare recipients of their constitutional right to a welfare benefit for a period of 3 months. Until 30th June 2009, even though this benefit was officially acknowledged as being the only means of support for many people in meeting their basic costs of living, there were no human impact risk assessments, either prior to Breaching penalties being applied, or during the 2-3 month penalty period.

On July 4th 2013, the Queensland Coroner, Michael Barnes, was scathing in his criticism of the Rudd Government’s focus upon economic issues rather than public safety. He said These three young men lost their lives because of a chaotic, rushed and underdone Federal Government policy.”

  • This same reckless attitude to monetary issues rather than public safety is clearly evident in Centrelink’s FY 2001-02 Annual Report which contains a “Scorecard” detailing “Savings” of almost$ 1.623 Billion in the 2 year period 1st July 2000 – 30th June 2002, but the “Scorecard” omits any reference to the shocking humanitarian impact that resulted from these “Savings”.
  • Compounding the issue of the unreported fatalities is the possibility that the Howard Government was illegally implementing and enforced a policy of “Performance Indicator Targets”, i.e. breaching quotas, (hereafter referred to as Quotagate.) These were revealed by the Shadow Employment Minister, Cheryl Kernot, in a press release dated 27 June 2000.
  • These alleged breaching quotas, when combined with the official breaching data in Centrelink reports, indicates that the Howard Government may have been in violation of Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995).
  • Consequently any fatalities caused by this illegal enforcement of breaching powers would mean that under Section 18 of the New South Wales Crimes Act (1990) and the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935), any quota triggered fatalities can probably be reclassified as Felony Murders in these 2 states.
  • In Victoria and other states, breaching quota-triggered fatalities, once investigated, may have to be re-classified as ‘Manslaughter due to criminal negligence.’

The Inquiry is also aware that on July 7th 2004, the Australian Federal Police, hereafter the AFP, refused to investigate either Quotagate or alleged rorting by a federal MP, Trish Draper, hereafter referred to as ‘Travelgate’, who allegedly had falsely claimed a travel allowance benefit for a person who was not her defacto spouse. This alleged rorting by Ms Draper and the alleged Quotagate fraud were referred to the Australian Federal Police Commissioner Keelty for investigation in June 2004:

  • Ignoring both Paragraph 5 of the Constitution, i.e. the law is binding on the people, and Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), the AFP officially declined to investigate these alleged breaches of the law citing “gravity/sensitivity” and falsely implying that the AFP’s case load was too high to permit any investigation of these alleged activities.
  • The “Dominant Message” presented by the AFP’s July 7th 2004 written response was that even if the law had been broken, the AFP would not investigate John Howard or other government MPs.
  • This “politicians are above and beyond the law” Dominant Message was reinforced in 2009 with the AFP’s formal response to investigate ‘Perksgate.’

‘Perksgate’: In September 2009, the federal Auditor-General tabled Report No. 3 in the Federal Parliament. A comment on Page 12 of that report contained the following alarming standard-of-ethics statement:

“As elected officials holding public office, Parliamentarians are expected to act with integrity in accordance with the public trust placed in them.”(Auditor-General’s Report No.3 2009-10. Audit Report – Administration of Parliamentarians’ Entitlements by the Department of Finance and Regulation)

In an email that I received on 14 September 2009, the AFP refused to investigate ‘Perksgate’, i.e. the alleged rorting of $4.64 million of tax-payers funds to allegedly fund re-election campaigns in 2007 by ‘a high proportion’ of the 144 federal MPs that the Auditor-General had investigated.

4 of the absurd, Broad Ultra Vires reasons cited by the AFP for declining to investigate these possible violations of Section 135.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) included:

  • “…gravity/sensitivity”;
  • “…government protocols”.
  • The incidents had been reported in the newspapers;
  • The incidents had been debated in the Federal Parliament.

This spurious, outrageously biased response, was very similar to the AFP’s July 7th 2004 response and again sent the “Dominant Message” that no matter strong or valid the evidence of unlawful actions may be, the AFP would still not investigate federal politicians who may have broken the law.

In addition to being aware of, and ignoring the AFP’s responses to Travelgate, Quotagate and Perksgate, the Roofgate Inquiry is also aware of allegations that 3 Senate committees, the Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee (LEGCON), the Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Committee (EWRE), and the Environment, Communications & Arts Committee (ECA) may have abused their Parliamentary Privilege powers for the express purpose of concealing Centrelink’s failure to report any of the post-breaching fatalities.

My specific allegation is that these committees abused their powers for the express purpose of obstructing and perverting the course of justice in order to avoid legal accountability for the breaching triggered fatalities. At this point in time, the view that I have expressed to the Roofgate Inquiry is that the Quotagate fatalities share many similarities with the 4 Roofgate fatalities for they are:

  • Unconstitutional,
  • Unlawful,
  • Unreported and ‘Un-investigated’.
  • On top of this, secretly classified as “confidential” by the LEGCON Committee,
  • and classified as “irrelevant “by the EWRE Committee.

In a letter dated, 1st November 2011, Federal Agent Rochelle Zurnamer, the manager of the Australian Communications & Media Authority’s (ACMA) broadcasting investigations unit, responded to a complaint lodged with the ACMA concerning the role of the 7 Network in aiding Centrelink and the Human Services Minister, Tanya Slibersek, to defraud welfare recipients by concealing the ‘Waiver of debt due to Centrelink error’ provisions found in Paragraph 1,237 (a) of the Social Security Act (1991), with the comment that “The ACMA does not investigate politicians…” In view of Justice Moynihan’s “Manifest Ostensible Bias” determination in Leck vs Morris; Keating vs Morris, it is quite clear that some federal law enforcement authorities, e.g. the AFP and the ACMA, show extreme bias in favour of federal politicians and little or no regard for Paragraph 5 of the Constitution or for state or federal criminal laws.

It is my expressed view to the Roofgate Inquiry that the lack of transparency and accountability for the Quotagate fatalities, and the other hardships caused by unconstitutional and unlawful Breaching activities that I am personally aware of are crucial factors in the chain of events that resulted in the mindset and events that resulted in the Roofgate disaster. For Commissioner Ian Hanger QC to disregard the Quotagate fatalities and other Centrelink triggered deaths is to be blatantly biased against the former prime minister, Kevin Rudd, members of his government and the Australian Labour Party.

It is also my expressed concern to the inquiry that the lack of legal accountability of federal politicians for the harmful consequences of their decisions has fostered a recklessly dangerous culture of risk-taking in which no real consideration is given to the human impact of ideology driven decisions. The colloquial name that I have given to this exceedingly dangerous mindset is “Rinehart Syndrome.”

  • Whilst “Rinehart Syndrome” is not a recognised term legally or medically, I believe that it accurately characterizes a sociopathic mindset that is endemic in Australia’s political and bureaucratic systems and that this mindset now poses a clear and present danger to the public as is evidenced by the 4 Roofgate fatalities and the High Court’s DPP (Cwth) vs Keating decision.
  • As has been highlighted by these fatalities and the unreported, secretly classified post breaching fatalities, it is now standard operating procedure for ideology driven economic and financial considerations to take precedence over the health, welfare and safety of the general public.
  • The unlawful refusal of the AFP, the ACC, and several other federal government agencies to hold politicians accountable for alleged unlawful actions such as Travelgate, Quotagate and Perksgate has served to foster and encourage the false belief that federal politicians are beyond accountability before the law. (Unless some politicians deem it to be politically expedient and advantageous for specific individuals to held accountable for their allegedly unlawful actions.)

In the performance of my duties as a juror at the Adelaide courts in May 2014, I shall at all times keep in mind the following statement from ACMA Report 2729: A person of fair average intelligence, who is neither perverse, nor morbid or suspicious of mind, nor avid for scandal. That person does not live in an ivory tower, but can and does read between the lines in the light of that person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs. (Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited v Marsden (1998) 43 NSWLR 158 at 164–167 (references omitted)

This decision clearly infers that an ordinary reasonable person’s general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs is adequate in enabling them to ‘read between the lines’, or as the High Court expressed it, can understand the “Dominate Message” that is implicit, but not stated, in issues of importance that they may encounter in their daily lives.

I believe that Justice should be fair and impartial and therefore as a juror, I believe that it is my responsibility to reject the Ultra Vires biased and unconstitutional ‘justice’ of the AFP, and numerous other federal agencies with law enforcement powers and will therefore uphold the Australian Constitution, statute laws, Common Law obligations, and fundamental human rights such as Equality before the Law. I refuse to discriminate on the basis of political or high socio-economic status. With some regret, I believe that the yardstick used by the AFP, for Perksgate and, Quotagate and is an inappropriate baseline standard of Justice that I must now apply to everyone else who may be accused of breaking the law for to do differently would be manifestly biased. As the outcomes of Queen vs Patel in the High Court in 2012 and again in the Queensland Supreme Court in 2013 have demonstrated, no matter how serious the alleged crime or how overwhelming the evidence of guilt, as a juror, I cannot can ignore the crucial principle of Procedural Fairness which I believe takes precedence over the case evidence if Justice is truly to be applied in a fair and impartial manner.

And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Oaths Act 19336

 Ronald Medlicott

The essence of Truth is PROOF, so check out the documents in these hyperlinks.

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-eK High Court May 8th “statutory fiction” decision

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-3v  1-07-12 Senate classified stuff posted on the web.

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.

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-4y     22-07-12 The gag on constitutional rights.

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-5E    How Centrelink works the 6 week rule.

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-52 31-07-12 Privacy Act blog

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-5k  10-08-12 HREOC blog

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-5x  28-08-12 Patel prosecution???

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-5E 4-09-12 Update of 6 Week Rule

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-8u         Jacintha Saldanha Submission: Part 1

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-8C           Part 2

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-96           Part 3 a

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-9J          Part 3 b  

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-ap         Part 3 c  

http://wp.me/P1n8TZ-2           Part 3 d Governor-General letter

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-bo         Part 3e Dept Communications downplay Jacintha’s death    

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-bu     Brief statement re ACMA Report 2729 quote

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-bC           The role of Australia’s mass media regulations in the death of Jacintha Saldanha. Part 3h:- The Vice Regal cop-out.

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-bT    The role of Australia’s mass media regulations in the death of Jacintha Saldanha. Part 3i:

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-bX The role of Australia’s mass media regulations in the death of Jacintha Saldanha. Part 3j: The statutory declaration

YOU TUBE VIDEOS

 5,000 South Australians are dead and an estimated 15,000 more are expected to die but most of these new victims do not know that they were sacrificed to economic and political expediency – check out the 1st video to see if you are a potential victim.

School safety problems

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfRDZnt8-MQ

Centrelink Prosecutions:

Poniatowska [2011 HCA43] and Keating [2013 HCA20] were two recent High Court decisions that highlight just how far off the rails Justice is in Australia. So jurors need to understand that “Procedural Fairness” is more honoured in the breach than the observance in Australia at the moment:

Bunging a spanner in the works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oncpVb6anAg&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Are Centrelink penalties unconstitutional?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH3TEMiSNgM

Centrelink and the 6 week Rule.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCBonJY5Z-k&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Murder by Legislation: The Canberra Killers Club.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0WEN5ix0Fc

Centrelink’s Secret Breaching Triggered death Toll.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QSdj5gXsx8  

Billabong Ghosts (How almost 4 million Aussie Battlers were thrown in the Billabong.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuTmc2nA8Kc

SIDDALL ROAD PARKING PROBLEMS – the council that is playing Russian Roulette to raise revenue.

http://youtu.be/ikcaCifJkyQ

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“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:

“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. 

ICAC Logo

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?)

 IN A SIMILAR MANNER:

 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!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6khSms5Ku5Y

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.

AUSTRALIAN ROAD FATALITIES:

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.”

ARRESTED FOR “ENDANGERING THE PUBLIC” .

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.

x

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