Part 40 (E). Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Have your rights been raped by the Federal Parliament?

Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity raise a very important question; have your rights been RAPED by the Australian Federal Parliament.

 

Below is an key extract from an update of the email that I sent yesterday to a senior government legal counsel, Mr. Tim Begbie. if you have ever been breached, had a pension disallowed, or have been hit with a Centrelink “Account payable” bill that were conned into paying, then I have very bad news for you:

YOUR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN RAPED BY A BUNCH OF CON ARTISTS.

LIKE UNWANTED REQUESTS FOR SEX, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SAY NO WHEN CENTRELINK DUMPS ON YOU.

That is the key message in the information below the line. Yes, is pretty heavy legal stuff, but you need to read it. The really important bit is the 3 statements by a former Chief Justice of the High Court, Justice Gleeson. I have put them in the biggest print size possible: – the moment you say “No” to Centrelink hitting on you, is like saying “no” to unwanted sex. That word INSTANTLY brings into play your civil right to have a court decide who is at fault for being overpaid, and Centrelink has to prove it was you.

Read my previous postings or watch the “Waivergate” series of videos that i have placed on YouTube, and Centrelink is faced with an almost impossible task. Please note: it costs Centrelink about $25,000 per case to go to court, which is one reason why they go for the far softer option of simply RAPING YOUR RIGHTS.


The Rape of Rights of Australia’s most vulnerable people, i.e. the persecution, intimidation, coercive enslavement, the “irrelevant” murders of welfare recipients will all have to cease. So also will the rampaging rape of procedural fairness rights by Alan Tudge, Christian Porter, and the pseudo “Centrelink General Manager”, Hank Jongen*,  [*For the record Mr. Jongen’s official title is ‘Department of Human Services General Manager, Communication Division’.]

Whilst the phrase “rampaging rape of procedural fairness rights” may at first reading appear to be gross hyperbole, the matter of fact is to be found in paragraph 51 of Chief Justice Gleeson’s comments in Bhardwaj, Further, there is a certain illogicality in the notion that, although a decision involves jurisdictional error, the law requires that, until the decision is set aside, the rights of the individual to whom the decision relates are or, perhaps, are deemed to be other than as recognised by the law that will be applied if and when the decision is challenged.

Note the 3 underlined statements:

  1. the rights of the individual to whom the decision relates

  2. are deemed to be other than as recognised by the law

  3. if and when the decision is challenged.

  • The statement “rights of the individual” in the first statement1 addresses the fact of law that in tort disputes brought on by the Commonwealth, people have rights that must be respected by the Commonwealth..

  • Statement #2 is also very clear, these rights are deemed to be other than as recognised by the law, e. they are deemed too other than what the law requires.

  • The statement if and when the decision is challenged” means that these rights apply from the instant that a Commonwealth decision-maker’s decision is challenged by a person, e.g. a welfare recipients who Centrelink alleges has been overpaid.

Once a decision by the Secretary of the department of Human Services or the Department of Social Services is challenged, the constitutional right of the individual is to have the primary facts of the matter adduced by a court. Since the Commonwealth is the applicant, the onus is on the Commonwealth, not the respondent, i.e. the welfare recipient, to prove that a Commonwealth error has not occurred.

By making public statements claiming that welfare recipients must provide proof to Centrelink, within 21 days, that Centrelink was at fault, Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and Hank Jongen are creating a false belief that is inconsistent with the civil rights of welfare recipients who are the respondents in Centrelink tort actions.

That is a criminal abuse of public office as no Public Servant, be they a Government Minister, or a senior ‘Spin Doctor’, has the legal right to mislead people for the purpose of recovering alleged overpayments.

As Justice Gleeson further pointed out in Bhardwaj at 51, “A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.” Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and Hank Jongen have no legal right to set aside the constitutional or procedural fairness rights of welfare recipients for the apparent purpose of recovering alleged overpayments, if Commonwealth errors more than 6-weeks old, the Commonwealth has no legal right to attempt to recover.

There are two other real-world examples of this rape of civil rights.

Firstly, there is this statement:

“I am all in favour of rights. I am also in favour of the rights of taxpayers not to have their money abused. I am in favour of the rights of taxpayers to say that young people should be doing the right thing by themselves and by our society.”

Tony Abbott: Question Time, 30th September 2014, [Hansard – page 10,755.]

Secondly, during the AAT hearing that I participated in as a lay advocate assisting a welfare recipient in an appeal, in my opening remarks I emphasized the point that the welfare recipient had rights that must be respected. This was a reference to the fact that one such right was a fair hearing in which evidence was not withheld.

It is a matter of record, as recorded by the Legal Shorthand typist, and also on both audio and audio-visual recordings, that the AGS lawyer representing Finn Pratt, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, responded on behalf of Mr. Pratt by requesting that the issue of human rights be set aside for “other courts” to consider.

  1. Neither Mr. Pratt, nor the AGS lawyer representing him, had the authority to make that request.

  2. Incredibly, as the record reveals, that request was not rejected by the Presiding Member who had no lawful authority to accede to that request.

  3. The rape of the rights is systemic and flows from the top down.

  4. This is evidenced by the need for the Keating decision, a totally unnecessary decision if the Parliament had respected the civil rights of the 15,000 welfare recipients who had been convicted of a non-existent crime.

  5. It is evidenced by the attempt by the Abbott Government to enact a recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional and human rights violating law that would have deprived deprive young unemployed people of a subsistence allowance for a period of 6-months.

  6. It is evidenced by Her Majesty giving royal assent on 1st July 2016 to a Bill that contained unconstitutional provisions that place the lives of Her Majesty’s loyal subjects in life threatening peril.

  7. The ultimate evidence of the rape of rights is the failure to disclose fatalities that may have been triggered by unconstitutional tortious conduct when I requested this information on more than one occasion.

  8. This concealment of fatalities extents to the Quarterly Public Accountability Reports and annual reports to the Federal parliament, i.e. none of these public reports include and details concerning these fatalities

  9. This failure to be transparent about tortious conduct fatalities is compounded by Australian Senate Select Committees of Inquiry secretly classifying the fatalities as “confidential” and “irrelevant”.

At this point in time, the precise death toll is unknown; however, a conservative analysis of published heath report statistics indicates that the death toll may be around the 100,000 mark.

THIS RAPE OF CIVIL RIGHTS NEEDS TO END NOW.

Ronald Medlicott – Australian citizen, registered teacher, genocide survivor, and a Christian lay advocate for justice.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Part 40 (D). Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity.

Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity are happening because Australian Government Service lawyers are not heeding the advice of Commissioner Ian Hanger and advising government Ministers of the “negative” aspects and ‘risks’ inherent in welfare policies and practices.

Note: The short link URL for this site is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-Kd

Below the line is the text of an updated email to Mr.Tim Begbie, is a Senior Legal Counsel for the Federal Government. Welfare recipients how get slugged with one of the Tudge Fudge Fraud demands should copy this email text and include it any rebuttal of Centrelink’s demands.

I also recommend copying the text below into an email and sending it to Mr. Begbie. At the top of the email just print 2 words: EXPLAIN PLEASE.

————————————————

To:    Tim Begbie
Senior General Counsel
T 02 6253 7521
tim.begbie@ags.gov.au

Re: Violation of the constitution – The horrific, real-world-impact of s.42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act (1991).

As a senior AGS lawyer, I should not have to remind you that the constitution is the ultimate law in Australia; even the High Court and the Parliament are bound by it. However, as the Parliament demonstrated on 4th August 2011, if politicians believe that they can get their own way and undermine the jurisdiction of the courts, they will give it a try. The High Court is well aware of this political reality and the rejection of the retrospective legislation put through the Parliament on 4th August 2011 was most emphatic as the following Extracts from the High Court’s Keating decision [HCA 20] on 8th May 2013, clearly reveals:

  1. On the Director’s construction, s. 66A creates a statutory fiction with the effect of attaching criminal liability to the defendant for her failure to advise the Department of an event within 14 days of its occurrence. This is so notwithstanding that at the time of the failure she was not required by law to inform the Department of the event (putting to one side receipt of any information notice) and that the duty is incapable of discharge.* [My comment; Pay slips may not be available for 3-4 weeks.]

  2. A clear statement of legislative intention is required before the courts will find that liability for a serious Commonwealth offence is imposed by means of a statutory fiction. The ascertainment of such an intention proceeds by the application of well-understood principles. In issue is proof of an offence under the Code. This directs attention to the law creating the offence and to the general principles of criminal responsibility under the Code. To observe that s 66A of the Administration Act operates with retrospective effect is not to conclude that the deemed duty it imposes engages with s 135.2(1)(a) and s 4.3 of the Code so as to render the latter nugatory in the case of an omission to inform the Department of an event or change in circumstances on and from 20 March 2000 to 4 August 2011, the date on which the Amendment Act received the Royal Assent.

  3. It is not to the point to observe that ignorance of the law affords no excuse or that the prosecution is not required to prove an intention to breach a legal duty. The submission ignores that the failure to do a thing is not an offence in the absence of a legal duty to do the thing. As explained in Poniatowska, s 4.3 of the Code is a reflection of an idea that is fundamental to criminal responsibility: that the criminal law should be certain and its reach ascertainable by those who are subject to it. This idea underpins the strength of the presumption against retrospectivity in the interpretation of statutes that impose criminal liability. Mr Bennion explains the principle in this way:

“A person cannot rely on ignorance of the law and is required to obey the law. It follows that he or she should be able to trust the law and that it should be predictable. A law that is altered retrospectively cannot be predicted. If the alteration is substantive it is therefore likely to be unjust. It is presumed that Parliament does not intend to act unjustly. [My Comment: This is a presumption masquerading as a fact, this is not supported by the facts of the matter; an issue that may have to considered by the International Criminal Court.]

The relevance of these findings in Keating to Section 42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act (1991) is significant for a number of reasons, starting with provisions contained within the Australian constitution.

Firstly, all the laws of the Commonwealth are binding on the courts, judges, and [the] people, which happens to include Members of Parliament:

  1. This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen’s ships of war excepted, whose first   port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.

Secondly, in paragraph 51 (xxiiiA) of the constitution, the Parliament has a constitutional obligation to pay welfare benefit to those requiring them, and the payment of these benefits cannot be linked to “civil conscription” payments:

  1. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:-

(xxiiiA)   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:

It is not ‘good government’ to violate either the constitutional requirement that the parliament “shall” make “provision” for needy people who may have no other means of surviving without a subsistence allowance. It is also not ‘good government’ for the Parliament, over a period measured in decades, to deliberately violate the constitutional constraint that welfare payments cannot be linked to “any form of civil conscription, i.e. Work for the Dole.

Thirdly, in paragraph 75 of the constitution, there is a clear separation of the powers of the Parliament and the Courts:

Original jurisdiction of High Court.   75. In all matters–

(iii) In which the Commonwealth, or a person suing or being sued on behalf of the Commonwealth, is a party:

When it comes to issues such as an alleged “breach of contract”, the obligation on the Commonwealth is to have the facts of the matter determined by a court. Despite the impression that Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and the pseudo “Centrelink General Manager”, Hank Jongen, have been conveying to the general public in statements to the mass media, politicians or public servants, who may have a vested interest in tortious conduct disputes, have no jurisdiction to make decisions concerning fault until a court has determined the primary facts of the matter upon which a fair and just decision can be based. As you ought to be aware, this is validated by the High Court’s Hellicar decision [HCA 17] on May 3rd 2012 at 141 – 143:

(141) How this duty which the Court of Appeal identified ASIC as having differs in any relevant respect from the duty of a Crown prosecutor considered in Whitehorn and in Apostilides was not examined.. And insofar as the duty was said to stem from a proposition “that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth, in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred”, that premise is false for at least two reasons.

(142) First, the proposition ignores that even a criminal trial “is not, and does not purport to be, an examination and assessment of all the information and evidence that exists, bearing upon the question of guilt or innocence”. Each side in a criminal trial “is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue, the evidence which it or he will call, and what questions whether in chief or in cross-examination shall be asked; always, of course, subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility. Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent required. [My Comment: Whether a murder trial, or a Centrelink ‘Account payable’ demand, in law, the same principles apply when deciding the facts of the matter.]

(143) Second, the proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory agency relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require the regulatory agency to make some final judgment about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority. [My Comment: Whether the issue is an alleged compliance failure or an alleged overpayment, deciding the facts of the matter upon which a fair and just decision can be made is a matter for a court to determine, not Centrelink officials who may be concealing a $4.7 Billion “Commonwealth error”.]

The Hellicar decision was handed down on 3rd May 2012. 10 years earlier, on March 14th 2002, Chief justice Gleeson handed down the High Court’s decision in Bhardwaj, [HCA 11] on 14th March 2002.

 Decisions involving jurisdictional error: the general law

51 There is, in our view, no reason in principle why the general law should treat administrative decisions involving jurisdictional error as binding or having legal effect unless and until set aside. A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all. Further, there is a certain illogicality in the notion that, although a decision involves jurisdictional error, the law requires that, until the decision is set aside, the rights of the individual to whom the decision relates are or, perhaps, are deemed to be other than as recognised by the law that will be applied if and when the decision is challenged*. A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.

[My Comment: *Once a Centrelink decision is challenged, e.g., “It’s not my fault”, in law, deciding the facts of the matter automatically becomes a matter for the courts, not Centrelink bureaucrats. This civil right should not be presented as a threat to welfare recipients, i.e. ”Pay up or we will take you to court” as that violates Federal “Menace” and State “Blackmail” laws.]

52 The view that a decision involving jurisdictional error does not prevent the decision-maker from correcting that error by making a later decision has been accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada. Thus, in Chandler v Alberta Association of Architects, Sopinka J, with whom Dickson CJ and Wilson J concurred, said:

“As a general rule, once [an administrative] tribunal has reached a final decision in respect to the matter that is before it in accordance with its enabling statute, that decision cannot be revisited because the tribunal has changed its mind, made an error within jurisdiction or because there has been a change of circumstances …

To this extent, the principle of functus officio applies. It is based, however, on the policy ground which favours finality of proceedings rather than the rule which was developed with respect to formal judgments of a court whose decision was subject to a full appeal. For this reason I am of the opinion that its application must be more flexible and less formalistic in respect to the decisions of administrative tribunals which are subject to appeal only on a point of law.” [My Comment: Re “…the principle of functus offcio.” In far too many cases, in practice, this means “never minds the facts of the matter” because the legal process is more important. When this happens, “the Law” becomes more important than “Justice” and consequently, Justice is not done.]

In the same case, his Lordship cited with approval a statement by McLachlin J that:

“as a matter of logic and on the authorities … a tribunal which makes a decision in the purported exercise of its power which is a nullity, may thereafter enter upon a proper hearing and render a valid decision”.

53 In our view, logic and legal principle both direct the conclusion that the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada is correct. As already pointed out, a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all. Once that is accepted, it follows that, if the duty of the decision-maker is to make a decision with respect to a person’s rights but, because of jurisdictional error, he or she proceeds to make what is, in law, no decision at all, then, in law, the duty to make a decision remains unperformed. Thus, not only is there no legal impediment under the general law to a decision-maker making such a decision but, as a matter of strict legal principle, he or she is required to do so. And that is so, regardless of s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act.

The Act and jurisdictional error

54   There being no provision of the Act which, in terms, purports to give any legal effect to decisions of the Tribunal which involve jurisdictional error, as did the September decision, it is necessary to consider whether, nevertheless, the Act should be construed as impliedly having that effect. The only provisions of the Act which might conceivably sustain that implication are s 476(1) which limits the grounds upon which the Federal Court may set aside a Tribunal decision, s 478(1) which requires that applications for judicial review be made within 28 days and ss 485(1) and (3) which expressly provide that the Federal Court has no jurisdiction with respect to judicially-reviewable decisions other than that conferred by Pt 8 of the Act.

On 1st July 2016, Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, through the proxy agency of the Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove, gave royal assent to a Bill passed by the Parliament that both exceeded the constitutional powers of the Parliament, which for the purpose of “good government” is required to make ‘provision’ for the payment of welfare benefits to needy people. In addition, the legislation infringed a constitutional prohibition, i.e. the payment of some welfare benefits have been linked to civil conscription, i.e. Work for the Dole. Above and beyond this, as per Hellicar at 141 and Bhardwaj at 51, when it comes to tortious conduct issues, the Parliament has no constitutional jurisdiction to grant authority to Australian Public Service decision-makers, e.g. the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. The High Court decisions are very clear, the power to determine the facts of the matter in any tortious conduct dispute is a matter for the courts, not the Secretary, nor agents of the Secretary.

The Amendment Bill dealt with the imposition of “no show no pay” welfare penalties in section 42A of the Social Security (Administration) Act (1991). Within this Bill are the following unconstitutional, procedural fairness violating provisions:

  • “The Secretary may determine that a person commits a no show no pay failure or a serious failure.”

  • “A person commits such a failure by failing to comply with his or her obligations in relation to a participation payment. The participation payments are Newstart allowance, and for some people, youth allowance, parenting payment, or special benefit.”

As was stated in Hellicar at 141 -143, when a tortious conduct situation arises:

  1. “…a proposition “that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth, in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred”, that premise is false.”

  2. Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent required.

  3. . Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.

I reiterate the point that these 3 statements are very clearly worded precedents that can be applied in conjunction with the following precedents in Bhardwaj:

  1. A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all.

  2. A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.

  3. if the duty of the decision-maker is to make a decision with respect to a person’s rights but, because of jurisdictional error, he or she proceeds to make what is, in law, no decision at all, then, in law, the duty to make a decision remains unperformed.

A Human Rights Issue: “Equality” requires “Equality of access” to taxpayer funded legal expertise.”

A finding within 54 of Bhardwaj that is inconsistent with the fundamental human right and procedural right to “Equality before the law” is found in this statement,

“… of the Tribunal which involve jurisdictional error, as did the September decision, it is necessary to consider whether, nevertheless, the Act should be construed as impliedly having that effect. The only provisions of the Act which might conceivably sustain that implication are s 476(1) which limits the grounds upon which the Federal Court may set aside a Tribunal decision, s 478(1) which requires that applications for judicial review be made within 28 days and ss 485(1) and (3) which expressly provide that the Federal Court has no jurisdiction with respect to judicially-reviewable decisions other than that conferred by Pt 8 of the Act.

For impoverished, functionally illiterate welfare recipients who may be struggling to cope with potentially lethal comorbidity problems, the timeframes and processes required to lodge a Federal court appeal constitute a Systemic denial of Justice. Applying for the resources needed to lodge an appeal is in itself a, process that is beyond the vast majority of welfare recipients.

KEY SOCIO-ECONOMIC BARRIERS TO JUSTICE:

Paragraph 47 of the 2002 Welfare Reform Paper states:

  • An adequate safety net:
    Assistance is targeted to those most in need. People with no other means of support are assisted with their basic costs of living. People with no capacity for work receive a package of assistance that reflects their need for long-term support. People with capacity for some paid work are assisted to earn an adequate income through work.

  1. Welfare recipients are impoverished, with welfare payments intended to meet “basic costs of living”.

  2. If a person has “…no capacity for work, it is self-evident that they also have no capacity to undertake a task that requires the professional skills of a legal expert, i.e. a lawyer. If they cannot afford a lawyer, or cannot find a legal aid lawyer able to comprehend and cope with their case, how do they apply for funding for legal assistance to lodge a federal court appeal?

  3. Further compounding this massive socio-economic barrier to accessing Justice is the absolutely massive issue of functional illiteracy that was identified in Australian Bureau of Statistics Adult Life Skills Survey Report in 1996 and which was updated in the 2006 survey, the results of which are summarized in ABS Summary report 4228. The following statement is from page 11 of the Summary Report:

Across all the scales, those employed had the highest proportion with scores of Level 3 or above (prose 60%, document 61%, numeracy 56%, problem solving 36% and health literacy 47%). Those not in the labour force had the highest proportion assessed at Level 1 or 2 for the prose (63%) and document (67%) scales, while for numeracy, the unemployed had the highest proportion attaining Level 1 or 2 (73%). For the health literacy and problem solving scales, the unemployed and those not in the labour force had the highest proportion assessed at Level 1 or 2 (75% and 84% respectively

What this report summary reveals is that “For the health literacy and problem solving scales, the unemployed and those not in the labour force had the highest proportion assessed at Level 1 or 2 (75% and 84% respectively.”

At Level one on the functional illiteracy “problem solving skills”, it means a lack of ability to comprehend instructions on how to bake a cake, or the inability to accurately read a train or bus timetable.

In Bushell & Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC75 (HL 97), Lord Dorling stated, “To over judicialise the enquiry by insisting on observance of the procedures of the court of Justice which professional lawyers alone are competent to operate effectively in the interests of their clients would not be fair.”

Further underscoring this legal judgement, on August 28th 2013, when speaking at a seminar held by the News South Wales branch of the Australian Institute of Administrative Lawyers, Justice Duncan Kerr stated, “It is understandable that lawyers familiar with and expert in the way things are done in court, and arguably privileged by expertise in contrast to unrepresented litigants, might call for those rules to also apply in any tribunal in which they appear. It is equally understandable that such lawyers might, as does Rees, share the view expressed obiter dicta by Evatt J in R v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal (1933) 50 CLR 228 at 256 that every departure from the rules of evidence will necessarily advantage one side and necessarily disadvantage the other. However, if that proposition was ever tenable, in my view, in the case of modern tribunals designed to permit access to unrepresented as well as represented parties, it conflicts with the statutory commands to the AAT referred to above. Tribunals must be equally open to the unrepresented as to those who can afford counsel.” [My Comment: Lawyers can unfairly manipulate the legal process and gain an unfair advantage that undermines the purpose of the appeal process. In theory, the appeal tribunal should intervene; in practice, in the AAT, this intervention may not always occur.]

The use of taxpayer funded privileged expertise, i.e. professional lawyers …competent to operate effectively in the interests of their clients, i.e. the Commonwealth, against unrepresented litigants who are often  impoverished and who may have serious functional literacy problems is anything but “equality before the law.”

It is in point of fact a gross travesty of justice, i.e. token ‘Justice’, that is totally inconsistent with the Commonwealth’s treaty obligations to provide “Equality before the law” e.g. Article 26 of the International convention of Civil and political rights states:

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

The phrase other status” includes socio-economic status, i.e. it is a denial of human rights for a national government, or an agency of a national government, e.g… the Department of Human Services, to undertake legal action using taxpayers funds whilst depriving an impoverished person of the same taxpayer funded access to professional legal advice. Equality means exactly that; in FY 2014 -2015, the Department of Human Services, (the Commonwealth), spent at least $565,000 in a tort dispute against a welfare recipient who could not afford legal representation and had to self-represent. However, in order to comply with Article 26 human rights treaty obligations, equal legal representation using taxpayer funding, should have been provided in this tortious conduct dispute.

WHY LAWYERS CAN BE LETHAL WEAPONS.

The legal issue of Equality before the law is even further compounded by the identified high levels of potentially lethal health problems, e.g. the mental health risks identified in the 1998 Health Priority Areas report – mental Health and the more recent 2006 Senate Select Committee Report on Mental Health. The identified potentially fatal risks to people with mental health problems who may commit suicide is a clearly foreseeable health risk that is addressed by state and territory criminal codes, e.g. s. 13 (7) in South Australia, s. 296 in Queensland and s.18. in New South Wales.

When used against impoverished, functionally illiterate welfare recipients who may be potentially suicidal, AGS or contracted lawyers may become lethal weapons when ‘deployed’, at taxpayers’ expense, against at-risk welfare recipients who, may be so stupefied and overwhelmed emotionally, that whether intended or not, an easily foreseeable fatal outcome results from the actions of the lawyers who ‘were only doing as they were told.

Justice Kerr’s statement that every departure from the rules of evidence will necessarily advantage one side and necessarily disadvantage the other” needs to re-appraised in terms of the easily foreseeable potentially fatal “disadvantage” of a vulnerable, traumatized person suffering a fatal heart attack, stroke, or committing suicide. As Commissioner Ian Hanger QC made very clear in 14.6.7 of the Report into Home Insulation Program, risk assessment needs to consider all possible negative impact issues; not just those most directly associated with departmental or government policy. For example, why have a senate select committee examine the nation’s mental health problems and then ignore the committee’s finding in the pursuit of tortious conduct to recover alleged overpayment?

HIDING THE DEAD – POST BREACHING TERMINAL OUTCOMES.

Professional organizations and bureaucracies have their own language, e.g. the previously mentioned “functus officio”. In the mid-1990s when I was managing a CES funded job club, breaching triggered fatalities were referred to as “Post breaching terminal outcomes”, a euphemism that concealed the death toll caused by breaching policies and practices. In 14.8.3 to 14.8.6 Commissioner Hanger was highly critical of the practice of using euphemisms to avoid controversial or complex issues, or to hide issues that needed to be kept out of the public arena:

14.8.3 The misuse of language, as Don Watson has shown in his work, although at first glance a question of semantics, can be so gross as to affect the substance of what is to be achieved …The choice of words reflects also the associated mental process. A public servant who says something is “challenging” has, as a matter of cognitive function, not directed him or her herself to the nature of the problem and its seriousness. They have simply formed a view that something will not be easy. But to think that this constitutes any form of sophisticated analysis is, of course, folly.

14.8.4 Worse still is the use of cypher or euphemism in place of clear communication—where an officer has in fact directed him or herself to the nature of the problem, yet is not sufficiently fearless to provide the Minister with frank advice that is set out in very clear terms, for fear of limiting future career prospects.

14.8.5 The use of euphemisms to avoid precise thinking or frank communication is a problem that has proved difficult to fix and has in recent years only become worse. To my   mind, it is a sign of a lack of mental discipline, a laziness that favours use of the meaningless and familiar. All this comes at the cost of precision and reduces the clarity of communication—and the thought behind it—to ineffectual and pointless activities.

14.8.6 The solution turns upon the selection of good, well-trained and experienced people, familiar with difficult tasks and able to demonstrate their past achievements. It is not a matter of simply re-training people who have fallen into poor habits.

The latter point may apply to Justice Kerr, who upon being appraised of the irregularities in the AAT appeal that I was involved in did nothing. Was should have been the appropriate response to this statement, made during the hearing, which was based upon an official ABS report and documents tendered in evidence?

In the 10-year period from 1st January 1997 until the 31st December 2006, there were 20,914 suicides[1]; a significant percentage of which were unemployed people. It is not possible to state precisely how many were post breaching fatalities because Centrelink does not collect the data, the Federal Parliament has secretly classified the death toll as “confidential” and “irrelevant” … the Australian Federal Police has refused to investigate [these deaths] because of the “gravity/sensitivity”.

In addition to that statement, Justice Kerr had a copy of an audio file of a senior AGS lawyer and a Senior AAT Member discussing an appeal going “to trial”, along with a copy of an email from an AGS lawyer indicating that evidence was withheld. Justice Kerr should have acted to ensure that a fair hearing with a just decision was made. Instead, he did nothing. Any consideration of this failure to act is purely speculative; however, this happening in the AAT under his leadership; however and when confronted with irrefutable evidence of a “departure from the rules of evidence”, Justice Kerr did nothing to remedy this injustice.

Justice Kerr’s failure to take action when action was required, as per Bhardwaj at 53 and 54, was inexplicable, especially since the withholding or destruction of evidence may involve breaches of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. Justice Kerr was also aware that the unreported fatalities were also ignored by the Federal Ombudsman’s Office and the Federal Police The failure of Justice Kerr to address these issues opens the door to the possibility of a criminal conspiracy.

That it is possible to even raise such a seemingly inconceivable allegation is in itself cause for grave concern.

Given the well-documented and reported vulnerabilities of welfare recipients, and the questionable advisability of engaging in litigation that has the potential to fatal outcomes, it is the height of arrogant hubris for the Parliament to presume that it is ‘good government’ to allow 28 days or even 31 days for welfare recipients to lodge a Federal Court appeal, especially when the courts have been by-passed in the first place up until that stage of the appeal process.

Although my GPA 4.0/4.0 post-graduate research skills may be extremely rusty, they are far ahead of the Level 1 and Level 2 functional illiteracy skills of many unemployed people who may be forced to appeal in the AAT. It took me 414 days to find the Hellicar Decision. The task not made any easier by the fact that this extremely significant decision appears to be conspicuously absent from AGS Legal Briefing papers website. This apparent omission from the AGS Legal Briefing Papers websites fosters the not unreasonable belief that this was, and still is, an intentional omission for the express purpose of minimizing the chance that it will be discovered and used in appeals. If that was/is the case, then every public official involved in the concealment of the Hellicar decision may have to account for their actions to a criminal court.

The High Court’s use of the phrase “a statutory fiction” in paragraphs 46 and 47 of the Keating decision underscores the fact that the Parliament’s actions may not always be acts of honesty and integrity The statement, “The submission ignores that the failure to do a thing is not an offence in the absence of a legal duty to do the thing” was in itself inconsistent with the right of a wrongly accused person to be compensated if wrongly convicted. Rather than own up to a legislated blunder, the Parliament attempted a ‘statutory fiction’ in order to avoid the consequences of its blunder. In 14.7.3.2.1 of the HIP report, Commissioner Hanger stated, “The Australian government should not seek to abrogate responsibility for identified risk”, a legal principle that appears to be more honoured in the breach that the observance by the Federal Parliament.

Commissioner Hanger had previously stated in 14.7.3.2, “Government must recognize that as much as it might seek to do so, risk cannot be abrogated. The responsibility of Government is to care for its citizens and to exercise care and diligence to do everything reasonable to ensure that its citizens are not placed in danger by its actions, particularly risk of death and serious injury.”

Work for the Dole is “civil conscription”, a statutory “obligation” that violates a constitutional prohibition specified in s. 51 (xxiiiA) of the constitution. It therefore follows that any legislation that imposes a penalty upon a constitution prohibition is yet another “statutory fiction”. Since the only penalty that the Parliament applies to alleged non-compliance with an unconstitutional “obligation” is the recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional, and completely inhumane “No show, no pay” penalty, i.e. the removal of the only means of meeting “basic living costs”, the Parliament is deliberately exceeding its lawful authority by placing lives at risk, possibly for financial and/or political gain, or equally possibly, simply because the power to this is something that is considered to be “acceptable”.

Further compounding this recklessly dangerous injustice is the High Court’s previously mentioned rulings in Hellicar, “Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority”, and the Bhardwaj decision thatA decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all”. Very few welfare recipients have the legal skills or other resources needed to successfully make applications for judicial review. This is a complex process that require skills “which professional lawyers alone are competent to operate effectively.” It is axiomatic that lawyers [are] familiar with and expert in the way things are done in court, and arguably privileged by expertise. Based upon the ABS 2006 Adult Life Skills Survey results, only a minute percentage of welfare recipients who are forced to argue an appeal in the AAT have the necessary capabilities to do so.

However, the very need to so only occurs because the Federal Government, i.e. Centrelink, does not uphold the civil rights of welfare recipients by ensuring that a court determine the facts of the matter, could reasonably understand this professional jargon?

“the principle of functus officio applies” 

[In law, the principle which prevents the re-opening of a matter before the same court, tribunal or other statutory authority which rendered the final decision in the absence of statutory authority to do so. Both Lord Dorling and Justice Kerr are quite correct in defining lawyers as people with professional, privileged expertise. Lord Dorling was, and still is, also quite correct in his determination that “To over judicialise …would not be fair.”

THE RAPE OF RIGHTS IS SHEER MURDER.

Unconstitutional laws, unlawfully applied millions of times over a period of decades to an exceedingly vulnerable targeted minority that is exceedingly prone to suicide, heart attacks, strokes and other easily triggered fatal “natural causes” events, e.g. exposure due to eviction when deprived of a subsistence allowance or deaths due to asthma because no money was available to buy an Asthma ‘puffer’ to prevent or treat an attack.

In Australia, statistically, a person dies of a heart attack every 9 minutes. This is 160 deaths per day and just under 40% of those people are welfare recipients, i.e. approximately 60 per day. When you do the maths on 60 welfare recipient fatal heart attacks per day, i.e. 365 x 60, you have 21,900 fatal heart attacks per year or 219,000 in 10 years, or over 650,000 over the last 30 – 40s.

Add in fatalities from Strokes suicides and other natural causes and the number soars to approximately 1 million fatalities. With potential numbers like that, is it any wonder that even in the middle of a Senate Select Committee Inquiry into the home Insulation Program disaster, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill was unwilling to “collect” and report on the number of fatalities that might have been caused by breaching legislation?

It is therefore easy to comprehend why both the Senate’s ECA Committee, and an AGS lawyer in the AAT appeal that I previously participated in, tried to downplay these fatalities as “irrelevant”.

Whatever else these fatalities are, they are not “irrelevant”. Under Article 7 (1) (a) of the Rome Statute, these deaths are systemic murders on a holocaust scale. They are also unlawful homicides in every state and territory in Australia, a fact of law that means there is no statute of limitations on these deaths. Once there is official recognition of even one fatality as an unlawful homicide, the flood-gate will open and a review of all fatalities will be deemed necessary.

Once that happens, those responsible for the recklessly dangerous laws, and the enforcement of those laws, will have to answer for their actions in accordance with Due process of law…

The Rape of Rights of Australia’s most vulnerable people, i.e. the persecution, intimidation, coercive enslavement, the “irrelevant” murders of welfare recipients will all have to cease. So also will the rampaging rape of procedural fairness rights by Alan Tudge, Christian Porter, and the pseudo “Centrelink General Manager”, Hank Jongen*,  [*For the record Mr. Jongen’s official title is ‘Department of Human Services General Manager, Communication Division’.]

Whilst the phrase “rampaging rape of procedural fairness rights” may at first reading appear to be gross hyperbole, the matter of fact is to be found in paragraph 51 of Chief Justice Gleeson’s comments in Bhardwaj, Further, there is a certain illogicality in the notion that, although a decision involves jurisdictional error, the law requires that, until the decision is set aside, the rights of the individual to whom the decision relates are or, perhaps, are deemed to be other than as recognised by the law that will be applied if and when the decision is challenged.

Note the 3 underlined statements:

  1. the rights of the individual to whom the decision relates

  2. are deemed to be other than as recognised by the law

  3. if and when the decision is challenged.

  • The statement “rights of the individual” in the first statement1 addresses the fact of law that in tort disputes brought on by the Commonwealth, people have rights that must be respected by the Commonwealth..

  • Statement #2 is also very clear, these rights are deemed to be other than as recognised by the law, e. they are deemed too other than what the law requires.

  • The statement if and when the decision is challenged” means that these rights apply from the instant that a Commonwealth decision-maker’s decision is challenged by a person, e.g. a welfare recipients who Centrelink alleges has been overpaid.

Once a decision by the Secretary of the department of Human Services or the Department of Social Services is challenged, the constitutional right of the individual is to have the primary facts of the matter adduced by a court. Since the Commonwealth is the applicant, the onus is on the Commonwealth, not the respondent, i.e. the welfare recipient, to prove that a Commonwealth error has not occurred.

By making public statements claiming that welfare recipients must provide proof to Centrelink, within 21 days, that Centrelink was at fault, Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and Hank Jongen are creating a false belief that is inconsistent with the civil rights of welfare recipients who are the respondents in Centrelink tort actions.

That is a criminal abuse of public office as no Public Servant, be they a Government Minister, or a senior ‘Spin Doctor’, has the legal right to mislead people for the purpose of recovering alleged overpayments.

As Justice Gleeson further pointed out in Bhardwaj at 51, “A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.” Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and Hank Jongen have no legal right to set aside the constitutional or procedural fairness rights of welfare recipients for the apparent purpose of recovering alleged overpayments, if Commonwealth errors more than 6-weeks old, the Commonwealth has no legal right to attempt to recover.

There are two other real-world examples of this rape of civil rights.

Firstly, there is this statement: “I am all in favour of rights. I am also in favour of the rights of taxpayers not to have their money abused. I am in favour of the rights of taxpayers to say that young people should be doing the right thing by themselves and by our society.”

Tony Abbott: Question Time, 30th September 2014, [Hansard – page 10,755.]

Secondly, during the AAT hearing that I participated in as a lay advocate assisting a welfare recipient in an appeal, in my opening remarks I emphasized the point that the welfare recipient had rights that must be respected. This was a reference to the fact that one such right was a fair hearing in which evidence was not withheld.

It is a matter of record, as recorded by the Legal Shorthand typist, and also on both audio and audio-visual recordings, that the AGS lawyer representing Finn Pratt, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, responded on behalf of Mr. Pratt by requesting that the issue of human rights be set aside for “other courts” to consider.

  1. Neither Mr. Pratt, nor the AGS lawyer representing him, had the authority to make that request.

  2. Incredibly, as the record reveals, that request was not rejected by the Presiding Member who had no lawful authority to accede to that request.

  3. The rape of the rights is systemic and flows from the top down.

  4. This is evidenced by the need for the Keating decision, a totally unnecessary decision if the Parliament had respected the civil rights of the 15,000 welfare recipients who had been convicted of a non-existent crime.

  5. It is evidenced by the attempt by the Abbott Government to enact a recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional and human rights violating law that would have deprived deprive young unemployed people of a subsistence allowance for a period of 6-months.

  6. It is evidenced by Her Majesty giving royal assent on 1st July 2016 to a Bill that contained unconstitutional provisions that place the lives of Her Majesty’s loyal subjects in life threatening peril.

  7. The ultimate evidence of the rape of rights is the failure to disclose fatalities that may have been triggered by unconstitutional tortious conduct when I requested this information on more than one occasion.

  8. This concealment of fatalities extents to the Quarterly Public Accountability Reports and annual reports to the Federal parliament, i.e. none of these public reports include and details concerning these fatalities

  9. This failure to be transparent about tortious conduct fatalities is compounded by Australian Senate Select Committees of Inquiry secretly classifying the fatalities as “confidential” and “irrelevant”.

At this point in time, the precise death toll is unknown; however, a conservative analysis of published heath report statistics indicates that the death toll may be around the 100,000 mark.

THIS RAPE OF CIVIL RIGHTS NEEDS TO END NOW.

Ronald Medlicott – Australian citizen, registered teacher, genocide survivor, and a Christian lay advocate for justice.

 

[1]  Due to a calculation error, this statement incorrectly under-stated the true death toll which was 23,254.    Approximately 1 in 3 suicides, i.e. about 7,700 of these people were unemployed at the time.  –

 

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

Part 40 (C). Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. The role of the Australian Law Society in the Tudge Fudge fraud.

Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity would not be happening, e.g. the current Tudge Fudge Fraud, if the Australian Law Society practiced what it preaches. If Australian lawyers lived up to their professional standards, neither the “irrelevant” crimes against humanity nor the Tudge Fudge Fraud would be happening.

NOTE: the short link for this URL is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-JW

Below is a copy of yet another use of the ‘FORWARD’ button in my Microsoft email program to forward the AFP and UNHRC emails that are shown in parts 40 and 40(B) of this extended posting

————————————————————————-.

Attention: President or Chief Executive.

Australian Law Society

19th January 2017

There are no “fence sitters” in a humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions.

I strongly recommend that you follow the advice that I am providing to everyone else, i.e. steps 1 to 10 in the email below to the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Commissioner Al Hussein.

With an undisclosed, state sanctioned death toll that could easily be around the 100,000 mark, it is gross hypocrisy for ALS lawyers on both sides of a criminal prosecution to ignore the fact that the AFP, the ACC, SAPOL and the NSW Police, and every state and territory coroner in the nation, refused to acknowledge the persecution and murder of welfare recipients on a scale that under articles 6 & 7 of the Rome Statute, legally justifies the use of the terms “Genocide” and Crimes against humanity.”

The public silence of the ALS on these issues  means that, by act of omission, the ALS is a silent partner in these crimes, i.e. the ALS is giving 21st century meaning to Ella Wheeler Wilcox’s famous quotation, To sin by silence, when we should protest, Makes cowards out of men.

 Please, totally ignore my opinions and consider the Matters of facts and the Questions of Law raised by those facts. When you do this, please remember your own code of conduct:

“Fundamental duties of Solicitors”:

Section 3: “Paramount duty of the court and the administration of justice”.

Sub-section 3.1. “A solicitor’s duty of the court and the administration of justice is paramount and prevails to the extent of inconsistency with any other duty.”

Sub-section 4, “Other fundamental ethical duties- 4.1.4 “avoid any compromise to their integrity and professional independence.

By failing to uphold your own professional standards, you do nothing but bring the ALS, and indeed, the entire legal profession, into disrepute.

Ron Medlicott – registered teacher & genocide survivor.

 

 

Posted in crimes against humanity, Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Welfare rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 40 (B). Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity.’FORWARD’ to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity could be stopped by the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. Al Hussein. Unfortunately, this agency appears to be on an extended Christian break and so the Tudge Fudge Fraud rolls on unhindered by the United Nations Human Rights Commission.

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

I used the ‘Forward” button in Microsoft Mail to forward the email to the Federal Police that is in my last posting (Part 40) to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Although the plain text email formatting is altered to suit this web page, the text of the to Mr. Al Hussein email is shown below the line is accurate in content:

————————————————————————

hc_al_hussein_largeCommissioner Al Hussein United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Per InfoDesk@ohchr.org

Re: Genocide complaint to the UNHRC re Australia’s Centrelink fraud

Dear Commissioner Al Hussein,

 Below is a copy of an email that I sent to the Australian Federal Police yesterday. If that organization follows it stated policy, my email will probably be re-directed to their email server’s “JUNK” folder and not be read and acted upon.

In order that your support staff and yourself may gain insight into the scope of the politically driven humanitarian disaster that is occurring in Australia, I strongly recommend that you look at the highly entertaining and informative pseudo “Centrelink advertisement” that I recommended commissioner Colvin and his team study.

A member of the teaching profession since 1971, and still teaching at the age of 68, I provide the following is advice to people who have contacted me and I strongly recommend that you do likewise:

  1. Go to this link first of all if you have not seen this incredible YouTube 90 second send-up of a Centrelink advert – it is fantastic to watch:
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoD0efoHzeA
  3. SHARE THE URL – note: I have no links to whoever made this video.
  4. Just read the title of this AAT web page and ask yourself why a Federal Court would need to give this speech in the 1st place: http://www.aat.gov.au/about-the-aat/engagement/speeches-and-papers/the-honourable-justice-duncan-kerr-chev-lh-presid/keeping-the-aat-from-becoming-a-court
  5. Listen to AAT proceed to trial audio
  6. Listen to the Centrelink call will be recorded audio file;
  7. Read the redacted email from a lawyer acting for the DSS, which in turn acts for the DHS!
  8. Check out paragraph 53 of the High Court decision at this link: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/11.html
  9. Now check out paragraphs 141 to 143 of the High Court decision at this link: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/17.html
  10. Read the ‘Skill certified’ jpg file.

skill-certified Although paragraph 5 of the Constitution states: “…the laws of the constitution shall be binding on the courts, judges and the people…”, when it comes to politicians rorting their entitlements, or defrauding and murdering welfare recipients, the Federal Police prefer to go with “government protocols” because of the “gravity/sensitivity” of these issues, i.e. the “see no evil”, unless the alleged rorters are alleged “dole bludgers.

 Since you have a copy of the constitution, scroll down to paragraph 51, sub-paragraph xxiiiA, the bit that says:

 (xxiiiA)   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:

 For the record, “civil conscription” is now called “Work for the Dole”. This constitutional clause prohibits the linking the dole to “civil conscription”; Work for the Dole is unconstitutional , and therefore the “No show, no pay” penalties in paragraph 4c of the Social Security Administration Act are also unconstitutional.

 100,000 FATALITIES?

Many people are vulnerable to death by fatal shock:

  1. Those with a damaged heart due to a recently identified medical phenomenon known as Cardiac heart Muscle degeneration which is caused by Cardiac hypertension. The tragic death of Carrie Fisher may have been caused by this problem, i.e. the reduce air pressure in commercial airliners causes the heart to work harder to supply an adequate supply of oxygen to the body. On the long-haul flight from London to Los Angeles, the extra strain proved to too much.
  2. Emotional Trauma Induced Stroke: Ms Fisher’s mother, Debbie Reynolds, had a long history of Hypertension and a history of strokes. The emotional trauma of Carrie Fisher’s death triggered a fatal stoke.
  3. The world-wide incidence of suicide amongst unemployed people. The Dunedin Experiment in New Zealand has identified poverty as a major killer of people for a number of reasons associated with a financial inability to maintain a healthy lifestyle, the emotional stress of poverty, and very high levels of mental health problems which are combined with a systemic lack of support, e.g. the appended Anglicare submission to a 2005 Senate inquiry. The issued raised on pages 4 – 7 are clearly identified risk factors that highlight the dangers inherent in the fraudulent human rights violating tactics of the Turnbull government in its current attempts to recover a reported $4.7 billion from 1,100,000 people.
  4. Since there is a very degree of probability that very little of those overpayments is legally reclaimable under the 6-week rule in paragraph 1,237A of the Social Security Act, and the cost of a court case could range from A$25,000 – A$565,000, the Turnbull Government, like previous governments over the last 30-40 years, is simply by-passing the courts.
  5. As you are fullky aware, by7-passing the courts is a violation of human rights, and when systemic fatalities occur that are unreported, secretly classified, and officially dismissed as “irrelevant” by an Australian senate committee and more fatalities are allowed to occur, then these deaths are MURDER under article 7 (1) (a) of the Rome Statute.

The intransigence of your staff and yourself in drawing the world’s attention to a humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions is inexcusable. You must act and the time for that action is right now.

Ronald Medlicott  Australian citizen, registered teacher, genocide survivor and a Christian lay advocate for justice in Australia.


 

NOTE TO READERS:

Anyone can write complaints and post them on the Internet; however, to be really effective, they need to be sent to people who have the power to fix the problem.

If you wish to have a safe and easy way to express your concerns about the human rights violating impact of Australia’s unconstitutional welfare policies and practices to Commissioner Al Hussein, especially his apparent lack of response to the Tudge Fudge Fraud, all you have to do is copy and then paste this email address into a new email message address box:

InfoDesk@ohchr.org

For your message, copy and paste this:

The failure of both yourself and your office to address the issued raised in this web posting is unacceptable and an explanation for this is required.

 

Ron Medlicott: Australian citizen, registered teacher, genocide survivor and a Christian lay advocate for justice in Australia.

 

 

 

 

Posted in crimes against humanity, Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 40. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. A complex legal appeal for the Federal Police to investigate the Tudge Fudge Fraud than can be used to fight Centrelink’s fraudulent ‘pay up’ demands.

Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity need to be investigated by the Federal Police, especially the current ‘Tudge Fudge Fraud’ which is reportedly devastating people’s lives at the alleged rate of up to 20,000 per day.

Note: the Short link URL for this posting is:  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-IL

Below is a draft copy of an email that I will be sending to the Federal Police. If you have been hit with a Centrelink demand for repayment of an ALLEGED  over-payment, you need to read it (about 30 minutes) and then copy everything below the line, paste it into a word processor, print the text out and then hand deliver or post it to Centrelink.

————————————————————–

Dear Commissioner Colvin,

Centrelink fail – Honest Government Advert (99 seconds)

AOCC-Liaison-Ops-Support <AOCC-Liaison-Ops-Support@afp.gov.au>

Centrelink fail – Honest Government Advert (99 seconds)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoD0efoHzeA

Recommendation: Watch the above video, read the feedback, and then check out the NOTMYDEBT website before you read another word of this communication.

The on-going role of the Australian Federal Police [AFP] in protecting politicians who may have rorted the Parliamentary Entitlements Fund, or who may be engaging in the systemic defrauding and murder of welfare recipients, is now being exposed to public scrutiny in open forums, e.g. the Internet, free-to-air television, appeals tribunals, and possibly even the International Criminal Court at The Hague in the Netherlands.

Aldous Huxley’s truism that “Facts do not cease to exist because they are disregarded” is extremely relevant to the current humanitarian disaster that is occurring in Australia. Over a period measured in decades, the Australian Parliament has recklessly violated the civil rights of millions of people and as a direct consequence, an unknown number people, possibly 100,000 or more in number, are dead.

Whatever the as yet undisclosed number of officially “irrelevant” fatalities may be, the appalling harm caused by these civil rights violations means that the greatest terrorist threat to Australians comes not from supporters of fundamentalist terrorist organizations, but from the Federal Parliament and numerous agencies acting on behalf of the Federal Parliament.

My colloquial name for the current ruthlessly overt defrauding of welfare recipients, at the reported rate of up to 20,000 people per day is “The Tudge Fudge Fraud”. This is a blatant violation of the civil rights of welfare recipients that uses what I refer to as the “Lie on Rye” deception technique, i.e.  the intimidation and misleading of unsuspecting victims who do have no detailed knowledge of their constitutional, legal and human rights. One of the very serious questions of law relating to this alleged criminal abuse of public office by federal politicians and public servants is whether-or-not a statement made by Christian Porter, the Federal Minister for Social Services, constitutes an unintended admission that since June 2016, Centrelink has defrauded 170,000 of $3 Billion?

The Lie on Rye Scam.

In recent weeks, the “Lie on Rye” scam being promoted in the mass media by Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and Hank Jongen, the manager of the Department of Human Services media relations unit, appears to have been very effective, possibly because this method of deception ‘sandwiches’ the lies intended to deceive between ‘wholesome’, irrefutable ‘slices’ or layers of truth.

  1. It is true that statute laws require that SOME Centrelink overpayments be recovered, IF they are not 6-week-old Commonwealth errors.
  2. It is also true that statute laws allow discrepancies in Centrelink data to be clarified by requesting further information from welfare recipients.
  3. However, IF this discrepancy is the result of Commonwealth data processing errors, the information should only be requested for the purpose of correcting those errors,
  4. Data mismatch should not be used as an excuse to place very vulnerable people, most of whom may not know their civil rights, under extreme duress in order to coerce them into repaying money that, by law, does not have to be repaid.
  5. To conceal the true causes of data mismatch errors and demand the repayment of overpayments that lawfully cannot be reclaimed is a criminal abuse of power, i.e. a violation of s. 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code with any fatalities caused by this criminal abuse of power being murder for financial gain. It should be noted from case law decisions such as Boughey and Kenny Charlie, an intent to kill is not necessary for a person to be charged with murder:

KENNY CHARLIE v R No. CA19 of 1995, Criminal Law and Procedure (1998) 119 NTR 1 (1998) 7 NTLR 152

The Mental Element of Murder: His Honour instructed the jury that the mental element of murder required proof of an intent to either cause the death of Annette Miller or to cause grievous harm to her. It is contended by the appellant that that was in error because upon the proper construction of s31 of the Criminal Code, the mental element of murder to be proved by the Crown comprises not just an  intent to kill, or an intent to cause grievous harm, but that death was foreseen as a possible consequence of the accused’s conduct together with the other matters referred to in that section: where intent to kill is proved, then the requisite foresight is obvious, but where the intent proved is to do grievous harm, it is argued that the jury must be instructed that foresight of death by the accused must also be established within the meaning of s31, before murder can be found.

  1. UNWILLED ACT, &c., AND ACCIDENT

(1) A person is excused from criminal responsibility for an act, omission or event unless it was intended or foreseen by him as a possible consequence of his conduct.

(2) A person who does not intend a particular act, omission or event, but foresees it as a possible consequence of his conduct, and that particular act, omission or event occurs, is excused from criminal responsibility for it if, in all the circumstances, including the chance of it occurring and its nature, an ordinary person similarly circumstanced and having such foresight would have proceeded with that conduct..

  1. KILLING Any person who causes the death of another directly or indirectly by any means is deemed to have killed that other person.
  1. UNLAWFUL HOMICIDE

Any person who unlawfully kills another is guilty of a crime that is called murder or manslaughter according to the circumstances of the case.

  1. MURDER

(1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say:

(a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person grievous harm;

(b) if death is caused by means of an act done when committing or attempting to commit an offence referred to in subsection (2) which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;

“Grievous harm” is defined as meaning any physical or mental injury of such a nature as to endanger or be likely to endanger life or to cause or be likely to cause permanent injury to health (s1).

  1. The above case law precedent is one of many that can be considered by the Federal Police when examining the conduct of feral politicians, and public servants, including Australian Government Service lawyers and federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal Members, in regard to the actions being used to recover alleged overpayments from welfare recipients, or to deprive welfare recipients of social security benefits that they are entitled to under the Australian constitution and under the Commonwealth’s international treaty obligations.
  1. Any physical acts of omission, as per sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), e.g. the deliberate withholding of information that should be provided when Centrelink demands reimbursement of ALLEGED overpayments may constitute a criminal act of reckless endangerment. Whilst the withholding of information may be perceived as being an “astute” administrative tactic, i.e. sound economic management, for the purpose of recovering alleged overpayments to welfare recipients, it is an abuse of public office that is totally inconsistent with the Commonwealth’s procedural fairness obligations and Model Litigant obligations.
  1. Consistent with Kioa at paragraph 6 of Justice Deane’s Findings, respondents to Centrelink claims of overpayment need to able to make an informed judgement as to the merits of such claims and this cannot be done if information that may be credible, relevant or of significance is deliberately withheld from respondents to Centrelink’s claims.
  1. It is my contention that Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and Hank.

Jongen, along with many politicians, public servants and Officers of the Court, have deliberately mislead the Australian public by concealing many primary facts of the matter in relation to ALLEGED overpayments by Centrelink.

Crucial facts withheld from welfare recipients include The waiver of debt due to Commonwealth error and the ‘good faith’ error provisions in paragraph 1,237A of the Social Security Act and the “Exceptional Circumstances” exemptions contained in paragraph 1,237AAD (b) of the same Act.

  1. Other facts withheld include the massive systemic errors within Centrelink that have been independently identified by the Australian National Audit Office in Report No. 37 to the 44th Parliament, and in responses to questions made by senators during Community Affairs Legislation Committee and Community Affairs Reference Committee hearings.
  1. The Centrelink computer system is so inadequate that to prevent the badly overloaded early 1980s era ‘Integrated Social Infrastructure System’, backbone computer system from crashing, call blocking has been in place for several years.
  1. GIGO: Problems caused by undocumented operating system code modifications have caused unexpected errors in the ISIS output.
  1. The separation of the powers of the Parliament and the Courts in Chapter 3 of the Australian Constitution in paragraph 75 (iii) and 75 (iv) make it quite clear that the determination of the facts of the matter needed to ensure a fair and just termination of legal liability can only be made by a court.
  • Centrelink decision-makers have no constitutional jurisdiction to determine liability for overpayment and any decision not made using facts adduced by a court is legally invalid.
  • Any-and-all Ministerial statements that welfare recipients have “21-days” to prove that a Centrelink error caused the alleged overpayments are therefore almost certainly misleading abuses of lawful authority.
  1. Paragraphs 141, 142, and 143 of the High Court’s Hellicar decision [HCA 17 on May 3rd 2012], which enforced the constitutional separation of powers by making it quite clear that public servants have no constitutional right, i.e. no constitutional jurisdiction, to determine the facts of the matter in legal disputes.
  1. All claims by Centrelink that welfare recipients have been overpaid involves matters that require court determinations as to which facts are credible, relevant and significant which must be used to make determinations concerning the alleged legal liability of welfare recipients who have received overpayments.
  1. Since Centrelink is claiming that alleged overpayments be repaid, the legal onus is upon Centrelink, the Claimant, to prove that reliable evidence exists that the Respondent is responsible for errors that have resulted in overpayments. The 21-day time frame ‘allowed’ by Centrelink for welfare recipients to prove to Centrelink, instead of a court, that they are not liable for any alleged overpayments, or are still eligible for a disability pension or other welfare payment, is a criminal abuse of power that violates section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.
  1. At all times in these tortious conduct actions, the [constitutional] onus is upon Centrelink to prove that no Commonwealth error or good faith error has occurred. Until a court determines the facts upon which a fair and just decision can be made, Centrelink can take no action that may be detrimental in any way to any respondents to its tortious claims.
  1. In the pursuit of such claims, Centrelink must comply with the Commonwealth’s obligations under the 2005 Model Litigant Rules.
  2. According to information provided by DHS Secretary, Kathryn Campbell to a CALC hearing on 26th February 2015, the cost of seeking to recover alleged overpayments through the courts averages $25,000 per case and where claims are resisted by respondents who have some knowledge of their civil rights, costs can exceed $500,000.
  1. In most instances, legal action in the courts to recover alleged overpayments would therefore not be cost-effective.
  1. All policies and practices based upon recovering alleged overpayments by deliberately by-passing the courts, which are quite likely to reject a high percentage of Centrelink claims due to unreliable evidence, violate Due Process of Law and are a criminal abuse of power.
  1. The deliberate avoidance of Due Process of Law for the purpose of recovering a reported $4.7 Billion in alleged overpayments to more than 1 million welfare recipients may mean that the current efforts to recover these alleged overpayments may constitute one of the largest frauds in Australia’s history.
  1. As indicated in the Kenny Charlie case law extracts, any fatalities triggered by this alleged fraud could collectively constitute the worst case of serial murder for financial gain in Australia’s history.
  1. There is a substantial body of evidence that Centrelink’s almost 35-year-old ‘Integrated Social Infrastructure System’,k.a. ISIS, is a dysfunctional computer system that is extremely prone to errors due to the compromised operating system code, some of which dates back to the 1950s. The ISIS operating system contains undocumented modifications in its 30 million lines of code that can result in erroneous outputs.
  1. It is a matter of fact that the undocumented code means that it can take a team of Department of Human Service information technology programmers as long as 3-months just to undertake an extremely simple task such as change the date format on a form letter.
  1. There is a very high degree of probability that the majority of alleged overpayment claims are the result of Commonwealth errors and consequently, a very high proportion of Centrelink’s tort claims have no substance and merit in law.
  1. An impartial and independent investigation into the suitability of the ISIS system to do the tasks that it was required to perform is urgently needed as this manifestly dysfunctional system may be underlying cause of ‘Commonwealth errors’ that may have resulted in a major proportion of the alleged overpayment of the $,7 Billion that the Federal government is now seeking to recover.
  1. A Federal Police investigation, to determine whether or not Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and Hank Jongen are using their official status to provide credibility to misleading statements made to the mass media for the purpose of creating a false belief that would result in a financial advantage to the Commonwealth that is not entitled to be received.
  1. Have these public officials been conning the Australian public into erroneously believing that Centrelink’s actions when recovering alleged overpayments are legally valid, when, in law, Centrelink has no legally valid claim to a significant portion of this money.
  1. Since any legitimate action to recover the claimable portion is not cost effective and likely to fail in a court of law, it is not unreasonable to raise the possibility that Due Process of Law is being ignored in order to ensure the unlawful but cost effective, recovery of overpayments allegedly made to over 1 million people.

It is my contention that criminal abuses of power are occurring and a criminal investigation is urgently needed to halt this activity and to identify all of the victims of what I believe may constitute serious criminal misconduct by the Turnbull Government. If my concerns are valid, people who were so stupefied and overwhelmed emotionally that a fatal consequence eventuated, e.g. a heart attack, stroke, or a suicide are murder victims.

The chain of evidence in any criminal investigate should include current affairs segments and statements published in the print media. For example, in South Australia at approximately 7:45 PM Central Standard Daylight Saving Time, on 3rd January 2017, the ABC (Channel 2), broadcast a 7:30 Report segment that may be credible evidence to consider in any criminal investigation of the tactics used to recover alleged overpayments.  The 7.30 Report segment focussed upon the on-going actions using the ISIS computer system to recover ALLEGED overpayments to welfare recipients.

I would point out the following matters of fact that have serious legal implications for the nation as-a-whole, and for the AFP in particular, due to the failure to prevent what may well be Abuse of power for financial gain murders.

In 7.6.8 of the Report of the royal commission into the Home Insulation Program, Commission Ian Hanger quoted a statement made by the Commonwealth Coordinator-General, Mike Mrdak : “My office and my team were therefore initially more engaged with DEWHA than with other agencies. DEWHA also took some greater time than other Commonwealth agencies to identify what the delivery and program assurance issues were.”

The statement “…took some greater time than other Commonwealth agencies to identify what the delivery and program assurance issues were” may be equally relevant to the way in which the Australian Federal Police are failing to deal with the Tudge-Fudge Fraud.

The Australian Federal Parliament has been violating the civil rights of vulnerable welfare recipients for decades, the civil rights of millions of people have been violated and at this stage it is possible that these violations may be the underlying cause of some 100,000 fatalities. To say that the AFP has been taking a very long time to identify the violations of criminal laws inherent in federal welfare policies is therefore something of an understatement, especially given that the stated policy of the AFP is that any complaints that I may make about this alleged criminal activity will not be acted upon. (See Federal Agent Pearce’s email which is appended at the end of this email.)

When Christian Porter stated that ‘since June (2016) 170,000 people had repaid $300 Million’, he was probably making a statement of political and administrative achievement. However, when that statement is viewed in the far broader context of the Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions, he may have been unintentionally confessing to the violating of the civil rights of 170,000 people which had resulted in the proceeds of a financial benefit of $300 Million that was not entitled to be received, i.e. he publicly confessed to defrauding 170,000 people of $300 Million.

Whilst your subjective reaction may be to immediate reject the above statement, you have both a constitutional obligation and a statutory duty of office to forensically evaluate the empirical facts of the matter and the questions of criminal law raised by those facts, e.g. how many people have died as a result of these civil rights violations?

MATTERS OF FACT – Set #1

  1. The allegations of overpayment are being made by the ISIS computer system, which sends out electronic ‘notifications’ in the form of SMS or email notifications, or in the form of letters-of-demand that make contain blatant false and misleading statements, e.g. the redacted letter on page 98 of volume 2 of The Emcott Report.
  2. Many of the recipients of these notifications are impoverished people who may have as little as $5 per day to feed themselves or other family members.
  3. Porter’s statement that the letters are mild in content displays a total lack of awareness that these notifications can extremely dangerous, i.e. so emotionally traumatic in impact that they can trigger a fatal heart attack, stroke, or a suicide attempt that may be successful.
  4. When it comes to the mindset of murder, in law, a person does not have to intend to commit murder to be charged with murder. If they are recklessly indifferent to the harmful, potentially fatal consequences of their actions and a fatality occurs, those responsible for that fatality can face murder charges.
  5. As a former Senior Public Prosecutor, it is a gross understatement to say Christian Porter “ought to have known” the potentially lethal consequences of these notifications, especially since his electorate office provides a link to a DSS fact sheet that clearly identifies people on welfare as being “Australia’s most vulnerable people.”
  6. The determination of the primary facts of the matter in regard to each of these tortious conduct actions is not being determined by a court, but by the Department of Human Services ISIS computer system .
  7. This computer system has a track record of dysfunction operation, e.g. on 1st January 2016, some 73,000 people received electronic notification of ALLEGED debts of up to $800.
  8. After Channel 7 investigated a complaint by Stacy Mitchell, a resident of Cowra in New South Wales, the Department of Human Services [DHS] rescinded all 73,000 notifications with the general-manager of the DHS media relations unit, Hank Jongen, [aka “Centrelink ‘General manager’, Hank Jongen”, who is not THE General Manager of Centrelink], claiming that these notifications were a computer error.
  9. In February 2016, the ABC’s AM program ran a segment featuring Ms. Meredith Ward and the then Minister for Human Services, Stuart Robert. Ms. Ward been the victim of a “Failure to Code to Zero Error”, i.e. a typing mistake, that had resulted in a wrongful claim for the repayment of $25,000. According to Ms. Ward, she had received, without prior written notification, a phone call from a Centrelink official notifying her of an alleged $25,000 debt.
  10. A normal reasonable person, Ms. Ward statement that she had been severely shocked by this notification is a reasonable response to such a notification.
  11. As you are no doubt fully aware, it is a matter of fact that, in law, a computer system is not a legal entity and therefore has no legal jurisdiction to either make allegations of overpayment, or to determine legal liability for the alleged debt until the output from the computer system has been independently verified by court appointed experts.
  12. The dysfunctional problems of the ISIS computer system were pointed out to you in my previous email on 3rd January 2017, along with specific reference to two High Court decisions, i.e. ASIC v Hellicar at paragraphs 141 – 143, and Minister of Immigration v Bhardwaj at paragraph 53.
  13. The Hellicar decision made it quite clear that in tortious conduct actions, the determination of the primary facts of the matter, i.e. the facts that are legally credible, relevant, and significant in regard to the tort action, which must be adduced by a court.
  14. I cannot say this too often, until a court determines the relevant facts, DHS bureaucrats have no jurisdiction to make any legal decision that may impose a pecuniary penalty or other hardship upon a person.
  15. If DHS decision-makers have no jurisdiction to make any determination as to the primary facts upon which a legal decision, i.e. legal liability for alleged Centrelink overpayments, then how much less jurisdiction does the dysfunctional non-legal-entity, the ISIS computer system have?
  16. The answer to the above question is to be found in the Bhardwaj decision at paragraph 53, i.e. “…if the duty of the decision-maker is to make a decision with respect to a person’s rights but, because of jurisdictional error, he or she proceeds to make what is, in law, no decision at all, then, in law, the duty to make a decision remains unperformed.”
  17. No Department of Human Services officials, including Administrative Review Officers, [ARO’s] have the constitutional right to determine the facts of the matter upon which a determination as to legal liability can lawfully be made.
  18. As the Bhardwaj decision made quite clear, in law, any such decisions are, “in law, no decision at all.”
  19. Since they are “no decision at all”, it logically follows that any downstream decisions made by Social Security Appeals Tribunals or Administrative Appeals Tribunals are also, “in law, no decision at all.”
  20. The 7.30 Report segment contained a purportedly “secret” document instructing Centrelink customer service assistants not to assist welfare recipients in responding to Centrelink’s alleged overpayment claims.
  21. If that document is genuine, then the instructions are a clear violation of Section 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995).
  22. As you are probably fully aware, this statute makes unlawful any action that obstructs Commonwealth public officials in the performance of their statutory functions.
  23. The primary function of Department of Human Services customer service assistants is to assist the public. In all matters dealing with the civil rights of members of the public, any instruction that unfairly and/or unlawfully aids the Commonwealth in the recovery of alleged overpayments that the Commonwealth may have no lawful right to reclaim is a criminal act under 149.1  Obstruction of Commonwealth public officials which states:

(1)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a)  the person knows that another person is a public official; and

(b)  the first‑mentioned person obstructs, hinders, intimidates or resists the official in the performance of the official’s functions; and

(c)  the official is a Commonwealth public official; and

(d)  the functions are functions as a Commonwealth public official.

  1. Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

It is highly probable that Ministerial issued departmental directives that prohibit Centrelink customer service assistants from assisting welfare recipients with what may well be fraudulent ‘account payable’ demands that by-pass Due Process of Law, are violations of the above statute.

Although it should not be necessary to do so, I would again remind you of paragraph 5 of the constitution, which very clearly states that “the laws of the commonwealth shall be binding on the courts, judges and the people.”  The word “binding” very clearly implies that compliance with these laws is not optional and that those who wilfully disregard these laws with exigent circumstances to justify this non-compliance must be held accountable before the a court of law.

  1. You need to perform your sworn duty and investigate the allegations raised in this communication. In doing so, you may receive numerous reports from members of public who were threatened with legal action if they did not agree to repay the alleged debt, e.g. agree to repay the (alleged) debt or we will sell your house. Any-and-all such threats are violations of s. 138 and s. 139 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code:
  1. Unwarranted demand with menaces

(1)  For the purposes of this Part, a person (the first person) makes an unwarranted demand with menaces of another person if, and only if:

(a)  the first person makes a demand with menaces of the other person; and

(b)  the first person does not believe that he or she has reasonable grounds for making the demand; and

(c)  the first person does not reasonably believe that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand.

(2)  This Part applies to a demand whether or not it is for property.

(3)  This Part applies to a demand with menaces, whether or not the menaces relate to conduct to be engaged in by the person making the demand.

138.2  Menaces

(1)  For the purposes of this Part, menaces includes:

(a)  a threat (whether express or implied) of conduct that is detrimental or unpleasant to another person; or

(b)           a general threat of detrimental or unpleasant conduct that is implied because of the status, office or position of the maker of the threat.

 

Threat against an individual

(2)  For the purposes of this Part, a threat against an individual is taken not to be menaces unless:

(a)  both:

(i)  the threat would be likely to cause the individual to act unwillingly; and

(ii)  the maker of the threat is aware of the vulnerability of the individual to the threat; or

(b)  the threat would be likely to cause a person of normal stability and courage to act unwillingly.

Threat against a person who is not an individual

(3)  For the purposes of this Part, a threat against a person who is not an individual is taken not to be menaces unless:

(a)  the threat would ordinarily cause an unwilling response; or

(b)  the threat would be likely to cause an unwilling response because of a particular vulnerability of which the maker of the threat is aware.

Division139—Unwarranted demands

139.1  Unwarranted demands of a Commonwealth public official

A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a)  the person makes an unwarranted demand with menaces of another person; and

(b)  the demand or the menaces are directly or indirectly related to:

(i)  the other person’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or

(ii)  any influence the other person has in the other person’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and

(c)  the first‑mentioned person does so with the intention of:

(i)  obtaining a gain; or

(ii)  causing a loss; or

(iii)  influencing the official in the exercise of the official’s duties as a Commonwealth public official.

Penalty:              Imprisonment for 12 years.

139.2  Unwarranted demands made by a Commonwealth public official

A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if:

(a)  the official makes an unwarranted demand with menaces of another person; and

(b)  the demand or the menaces are directly or indirectly related to:

(i)  the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or

(ii)  any influence the official has in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and

(c)  the official does so with the intention of:

(i)  obtaining a gain; or

(ii)  causing a loss; or

(iii)  influencing another Commonwealth public official in the exercise of the other official’s duties as a Commonwealth public official.

Penalty:                                 Imprisonment for 12 years

A question for serious consideration is the issue as to why senior Public Servants have ignored Commissioner Hanger’s advice at 14.6.7 in the HIP Report and failed to advise the Minister of Human Services that this directive was an unlawful directive that was a serious violation of criminal laws?

“The APS ought to brief Ministers on the risks inherent in a recommended approach or advise on how the proposed approach might contain faults in the design or otherwise fail to work. Such a concerted focus on assessing the negatives associated with a proposal is a core component of the modes of thinking promoted by Edward De Bono—he refers to this manner of thinking as ‘black hat’ thinking, and asserts that it should never be seen as an attempt to be obstructionist or argumentative, but instead should be seen as an opportunity to consider negative elements alongside the positives, and to make a decision informed by the balance of each.

As a practical measure, there should be a requirement to provide advice of this nature to Ministers at the same time as presenting a brief or proposal for a Minister’s consideration”

If the directive shown on the 7:30 report was genuine, then it would appear that DHS officials had failed to take on board both the above advice and the following advice contained In 14.6.8: Advice must be multifaceted. It must look at issues beyond the Department’s primary objective. For example, in the case of the HIP, advice on the economic impacts should have focused not only on the macro-economic stimulus impacts, but also on the likely impact on the industry itself in both the short and long term.”

Commissioner Hanger’s comments in 14.6.9 leave DHS, and DSS officials with no reasonable excuse for failing to fully inform either Alan Tudge of Christian Porter of the inappropriateness of the alleged directive: Responsive advice is frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and timely. The advice should be evidence-based, well argued and creative, anticipate issues and appreciate the underlying intent of government policy. Responsive advice is also forthright and direct and does not withhold or gloss over important known facts or ‘bad news’.

In 14.6.11, Commissioner Hanger made a scathing judgement statement that may be applicable to all areas of the Department of Human Services management of the crucial task of protecting Australia’s most vulnerable form abusive, ideology driven exploitation by politicians who may be more concerned with “actuarial issues” than with the task of providing welfare support to at-risk people: 14.6.11 It is a shame that those entrusted with the implementation of the HIP did not adhere to these principles.

As has been pointed out in volume 2 of The Emcott Report, in 14.7.3.1 Commissioner Hanger made it quite clear that public servants need to advise Ministers on risk factors: Regular and ongoing engagement with identified risks—I consider that  the APS has already gone some way to achieving this. It is recognised that officials ought to treat seriously the whole question of risks and their management—it is not enough to name and dismiss those problems.

In 14.7.3.2.1 Commissioner made it very clear that governments cannot abrogate responsibility for risks:

Risk cannot be abrogated—Government must recognise that as much as it might seek to do so, risk cannot be abrogated. The responsibility of Government is to care for its citizens and to exercise care and diligence to do everything reasonable to ensure citizens are not placed in danger by its actions, particularly risk of death and serious injury.

  1. What sought of risk management is in place when, for decades, successive governments refuse to replace a manifestly inadequate, dysfunctional computer system that is known to be error prone.
  2. What sought of risk management is in place when, for decades, impoverished welfare recipients are accused of being responsible for overpayment errors caused by this computer system and are left struggling to survive on a manifestly inadequate subsistence allowance?.
  3. What sought of risk management is in place when the management team does not monitor the human impact of its activities and has no specific knowledge of the numbers of people who are:
  • Unable to pay for essential services;
  • Unable to buy life-preserving medication;
  • Unable to pay accommodation costs and are evicted;
  • So traumatized by the harsh, inhumane treatment that they die from strokes, heart attacks or other natural causes?
  • What exactly is Risk Management when you have Hank Jongen telling welfare recipients to call Lifeline?
  • What risks are inherent in telling aged pensioners who cannot afford $500 per hour for legal advice, that if the do not agree to prepay Centrelink’s ALLEGED overpayments, that their house will be sold>

In addition to these unwarranted threats being a violation of the above mentioned statutes, as is pointed on page 106 of volume 2 of The Emcott Report, the letter threatening to deprive me of my pension was also a violation of Sections 171 and 172 of South Australia’s criminal code.

The threat to deprive me of my age pension was unwarranted as my wife and I were 100% compliant with our reporting obligations. The problem for Centrelink was that due to the limitations of the ISIS computer system, cross-checking to confirm that fact would have required the time-consuming creation of a manual database report. From a systemic perspective, it was far more cost effective to simply threaten to deprive my wife and I of our means of subsistence. Whilst this abuse of power is effective, it is a threat to endanger life simply for administrative convenience; that is a major crime with a 12-year head sentence PER OFFENCE and yet this standard procedure.

MATTERS OF FACT – SET #2

  1. In my previous email, you were provided with a digitized copy of volume 2 of The Emcott Report, a dual-purpose document that is both part of a complaint lodged with United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights and a number of Australian agencies that have the lawful authority to undertake criminal investigations of alleged human rights violations, e.g. the AFP, the ACT Human Rights Commission, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Privacy commissioner and the Australian Law Society.
  2. This document is also an educational document for the national and international community and may also be used as a “facts not yet in evidence” document for any person who may the victim of fraudulent or erroneous Centrelink overpayment claims.
  3. In addition, it may also be used as “facts not yet in evidence” by persons accused of fraud, misrepresentation, obtaining a benefit by deception, blackmail, intimidation, unlawful coercion, reckless endangerment, manslaughter. or murder for the specific purpose of demonstrating that the charges, prosecution or conviction for allegedly committing one, or more, of these crimes, in law, constitutes manifest ostensible Bias.
  4. The failure of the AFP, ACC, ACMA, OCO and a number other agencies who “ought to have known” that crimes were being committed but declined to investigate these crimes over a time frame measured in decades, constitutes massive ostensible bias on a Broad Ultra Vires
  5. One example of this criminal abuse of power is found on page 102 of volume 2 of The Emcott Report, i.e. the letter from Ms. Alice Linacre, the Acting Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS.
  6. Please note the following statement contained in that letter; “I refer to your letters dated 9 December and 17 December 2015 (addressed to the former Chief Legal counsel for the Department of Human Services) regarding <Redacted> and the Secretary of the Department of human Services [2014] AATA <???> and the bound material enclosed with those letters. Your letter requests that the information provided be considered and I confirm that it has been considered. I do not consider that any action by the Department of Human Services is necessary.”
  7. This letter from Acting Chief Legal Counsel Linacre is empirical evidence that the Department of Human Services, as a legal entity, was aware of the Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions, and in direct violation of the civil rights of the applicant, chose to ignore those High court decisions and by not to honouring them, defraud the applicant.
  8. As stated previous, Commissioner Hanger recommended that senior public servants who advise Ministers should be fearless in giving impartial information, based upon facts rather than ideology or opinions.
  9. The contents of the information provided to Ms. Linacre included Volume 1 of The Emcott Report, made specific references to the Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions and pointed out that, in the absence of a court adducing the facts of the matter, the original decision was, in law, “no decision at all.
  10. In paragraph 44 of the AAT appeal that I was involved in, I was unaware of Hellicar when this finding, in paragraph 44 of the appeal findings was made: The Tribunal’s power to stand in the shoes of the decision-maker, in this case the Secretary, is exercisable only in relation to the decision under review, in this case the SSAT Decision. The Tribunal has no general review or decision-making power and it cannot substitute for the decision-maker generally. As Brennan J said in Re Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd and Collector of Customs (NSW) (1978) 1 ALD 167 at 175: “The AAT is not the primary administrator. It is not the original repository of powers and discretions under an enactment”. The Tribunal’s inability to exercise powers other than those available to the decision-maker can lead to injustice in some cases.
  11. The ‘decision-maker’ in this case was “the Secretary”, who, according to the High court in Hellicar at 141 – 143, had no jurisdiction to determine the facts of the matter and yet did so in clear violation of the applicant’s constitutional rights, which as the presiding AAT Member “ought to have known” was a major procedural fairness violation that invalidated the Secretary’s decision that, in law, was no decision at all.
  12. It is eminently logical that if the original decision was, in law, no decision at all, then the SSAT decision was also ‘no decision at all’ and yet this was upheld be referring to a case law decision that pre-dated the Hellicar decision by 35-years and the Bhardwaj decision by 24-years.
  13. Paragraph 46 of the AAT finding stated: A person, like Ms Locke, who is dissatisfied with a departmental decision may have other courses of action open to him or her, including lodging a complaint with the Commonwealth Ombudsman or applying to the Federal Court of Australia under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJRA) for a review of the decision concerned on grounds which include breach of natural justice, improper exercise of power and no evidence to justify the making of the decision: see s 5(1) of the ADJRA.
  14. There are a number of procedural fairness problems that highlight the use of the absolute inadequacy of the AAT appeal system, other than as a convenient means of providing a veneer of legitimacy when defrauding welfare recipients.
  • Firstly, this decision was made in knowledge that evidence had been withheld, i.e. the phone call, recording at the centre of the dispute had not been made available by Centrelink.
  • Secondly, an appeal was lodged with the Commonwealth Ombudsman hat contained the Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions, as well as a protest at the failure to provide the phone call recording, was set aside and the applicant informed that since no new evidence had been presented, the appeal was not upheld.
  • Thirdly, the applicant only had Year 9 level education some 45 years earlier. In Bushell & Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC75 (HL 97), Lord Diplock stated that “To over judicialise the enquiry by insisting on observance of the procedures of the court of Justice which professional lawyers alone are competent to operate effectively in the interests of their clients would not be fair.”
  • Lord Diplock’s statement highlights the utter absurbity of suggesting to an impoverished person with low education standards that they should apply to the Federal Court for a review.
  • Indeed, that suggestion that an impoverished person, with no means to do so, should appeal to the Federal Court, is absolutely outrageous given that the Secretary, as the Original Claimant, should have first sought a court determination of the facts of the matter before making any decision as to who was legally liable for any alleged overpayments.
  • In July 2009, Francis Neale, the Co-chair: International Bar Association – Rule of Law Action Group stated: “All countries, even those governed by the crudest dictatorship, need or have laws, although they disregard the individual or collective rights of all or parts of the population. Indeed, apartheid was enforced with meticulous attention to form and detail.”
  • The massive, deliberate over-judicialization of an appeal process that ignores the constitution, criminal laws, High Court precedents and criminal law statutes has nothing to do with justice; it is, as stated previously, a legalistic veneer that is intended to legitimize criminal abuses of power for the apparent purpose of purpose reclaiming monies that the Commonwealth has no lawful right to reclaim.
  • THE ENTIRE AAT SYSTEM NEEDS TO BE INVESTIGATED BY THE AFP TO DETERMINE JUST HOW EXTENSIVE THIS ACTIVITY IS.

If 14.6.7 had been complied with, both Alan Tudge and Christian Porter should be have been fully aware of the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions, as would the members of the Community Affairs Reference Committee. If DHS and DSS officials have not officially made these decisions known to the Ministers, then accountability for the fraudulent violations of civil rights may, in law, rest solely with these officials. With the possibility of a substantial, unreported, secretly classified, “irrelevant” death toll that the AAT refused to acknowledge, accountability carries life-changing implications for those who failed to meet their professional responsibilities.

MATTERS OF FACT – SET #3  Abuse of Public Office

The following statute provisions contained in the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) are Matters of Fact that need to be considered in any legal review of both the OCO letter and Ms. Linacre’s letter:

142.2  Abuse of public office

             (1)  A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if:

                     (a)  the official:

                              (i)  exercises any influence that the official has in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or

                             (ii)  engages in any conduct in the exercise of the official’s duties as a Commonwealth public official; or

                            (iii)  uses any information that the official has obtained in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and

                     (b)  the official does so with the intention of:

                              (i)  dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or

                             (ii)  dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.

Penalty:                 Imprisonment for 5 years.

  1. Linacre’s letter is also evidence that the DHS senior management team “ought to have known” about both the Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions.
  2. Since the documents provided to Ms. Linacre included Assistant secretary Neil Skill’s “Centrelink does not collect Post Breaching Terminal outcomes statistics, a fact verified in April 2016 by the “Letters to the dead” fiasco, Ms. Linacre’s letter is also evidence that she would have been fully aware that DHS officials were not collecting and reporting the statistical data on the fatal impact of breaching penalties and Centrelink’s account payable demands.
  3. Linacre would also have been aware that data on the inability of welfare recipients  to pay for ESSENTIAL services and data on EVICTIONS was also not being collected.
  4. In her position as the Acting Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS, Ms. Linacre “ought to have known”, especially in the aftermath of the Hanger Royal Commission Report, that without this mission critical data, human services risk assessment was impossible.
  5. As Justice Brooking stated in R v Faure [1999] VSCA 166 (24 September 1999), ‘the placing of life in peril constitutes the crime.’
  6. The systemic failure to collect this data after concerns about the scale of this death toll were raised by a member of the public, i.e. me, during the ECA Senate Committee hearing into the 4 HIP fatalities is almost certainly a criminal act of omission that the AFP, or an independent commission of inquiry, needs to investigate thoroughly.
  7. As the Acting-Chief-Legal-Counsel for the DHS, Ms. Linacre “ought to have known” that these (alleged) fatalities, whatever the actual cause of death, were murders under Article 7 (1) (a) of the Rome Statute and homicides under Australian state and territory laws.
  8. Linacre’s arbitrary rejection of the information may be more than just an abuse of public office for the purpose of defrauding the person that I was representing; it may have also been a deliberate attempt to conceal the death toll triggered by unconstitutional tortious conduct.
  9. Empirical confirmation of what was provided to Ms. Linacre can be best sourced from Ms. Linacre who should be required to make ALL of the information provided, i.e. my letters, bound documents and DVD disks, for forensic examination.
  10. An appropriate forensic examination to verify that the original documents have been provided to investigators would be to test for my DNA on the documents and DVD.

MATTERS OF FACT -SET #4 – Model Litigant Rules.

  1. The “Model Litigant Policy”, as it is commonly described, is a Legal Service Direction issued by the Attorney-General pursuant to s 55ZF of theJudiciary Act 1903. It was first issued in 1999, i.e. about 87 years after a 1912 court hearing first raised the need for the Commonwealth to avoid abusing its power in litigation in a manner that would provide an unfair advantage. In civil litigation the Commonwealth has a duty to act as a Model Litigant. The development of this ‘Model Litigant’ obligation in conducting litigation can be traced to Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead (1912) 15 CLR 333 where Chief Justice Griffith explained it as ‘[t]he old fashioned traditional, and almost instinctive, standard of fair play to be observed by the Crown in dealing with subjects. The current version is contained in Appendix B of the Legal Services Directions 2005.
  2. Directive 1 of the Commonwealth Direction states:

“Consistently with the Attorney-General’s responsibility for the maintenance of proper standards in litigation, the Commonwealth and its agencies are to behave as model litigants in the conduct of litigation.”

  1. Directive 2 goes on to give content to the obligation stating:

“The obligation to act as a model litigant requires that the Commonwealth and its agencies act honestly and fairly…”

  1. This obligation is not being met, a fact evidenced in several ways, the most obvious current example being that Alan Tudge, Christian Porter, DHS staff and the DHS’s ISIS computer have no constitutional jurisdiction, and therefore, in law, have no legal jurisdiction, to determine legal liability when attempting to recover alleged overpayments to welfare recipients. In addition to the case law precedents already mentioned, there are many other court precedents that are apparently being more honoured in the breach than the observance.
  1. In Kioa v West (HCA 81 – 18th December 1985) at paragraph 6 in his findings, Justice Deane ruled that information should not be withheld by administrative decision-makers, His Honour ruled that “To do so : In the absence of a clear contrary legislative intent, a person who is entrusted with statutory power to make an administrative decision which directly affects the rights, interests, status or legitimate expectations of another in his individual capacity (as distinct from as a member of the general public or of a class of the general public) is bound to observe the requirements of natural justice or procedural fairness”.

At paragraph 38 of his Findings in this case, Justice Brennan also ruled, Nevertheless in the ordinary case where no problem of confidentiality arises an opportunity should be given to deal with adverse information that is credible, relevant and significant to the decision to be made. It is not sufficient for the repository of the power to endeavour to shut information of that kind out of his mind and to reach a decision without reference to it. Information of that kind creates a real risk of prejudice, albeit subconscious, and it is unfair to deny a person whose interests are likely to be affected by the decision an opportunity to deal with the information.

  1. Decision-makers who withhold credible, relevant information that may be of significance commit a procedural fairness violation that, if deemed by a court to be a serious violation, invalidates the decision-maker’s determination. Such violations therefore also constitute a serious violation of Model Litigant Rules.
  1. Directive 5 (i) of the Model Litigant Rules clearly specifies not requiring the other party to prove a matter the Commonwealth or agency knows to be true. Not informing welfare recipients about their legal rights, e.g. the Waiver of debt law, or the long-term systemic problems with the ISIS computer system that are identified in DHS testimony to senate committees, the Auditor-General’s Report No. 31, and in volumes 1 & 2 of The Emcott Report, constitutes a serious violation of the Kioa procedural fairness principle and is also totally inconsistent with Directive 5 (i) of the Model Litigant Rules.
  2. Directive 5 (g) requires that Commonwealth agencies not take advantage of a claimant who lacks resources. Unemployed people are impoverished people who subsist 50% below the OECD poverty line and are currently receiving a subsistence allowance that is, according to ACOSS, $53 below the minimum amount required to meet the basic costs of living.

Whilst it is manifestly obvious welfare recipients appealing “Account payable’ demands in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, cannot afford legal representation, the DHS, the DSS and other government agencies that use the AAT appeals system have taxpayer funded access to teams of AGS] lawyers.

In clear violation of Article 5 of the constitution and s. 3 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, AGS lawyers routinely prepare complex ‘T’ Documents that are the domain of legal experts, i.e. lawyers, not impoverished or aged members of the public who may be intellectually stupefied and emotionally overwhelmed’ by the documents

 “Informal”: The word “informal” is contained in 2A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, “In carrying out its functions, the Tribunal must pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick.”

“Informal” means a lack of formality, which in turn means that technically complex, legal documents which are formal documents required as part of part of Due Process by a court, by Act of Parliament, have no place in AAT hearings unless requested by the applicant or their representative.  The problem is, the AAT appears to have been hi-jacked by the AGS and AAT members to the point where is has become a quasi-legal court system where the emphasis is on formal courtroom processes and procedures rather than the fuction of being an informal administrative review of administrative decisions.

Irrefutable evidence of the extent to which this has become a major problem is emphasized by the need for the President of the AAT, Justice Duncan Kerr to express his concern about this hi-jacking of the AAT in a speech to the New South Wales branch of the Australian Institute of Administrative Lawyers on 28th August 2013. In this speech, titled “Keeping the AAT from becoming a court”, Justice Kerr emphasized that the AAT has no constitutional jurisdiction to act as a court. The application of courtroom procedures in a tribunal that, by Act of Parliament, must be informal, is a major violation of procedural fairness principles and their constant use by AAT lawyers is a procedural fairness violation. Article 5 of the constitution clearly states that “the laws of the Commonwealth are binding on the courts, judges and the people”.

  • Justice Brennan said in Re Bolton; Ex parte Beane(1987) 162 CLR 514 at 523, that the Courts will not construe a statute as abrogating or suspending a fundamental freedom unless the Parliament made its intention to do so “unmistakeably clear”
  • In Coco v The Queen 1994) 179 CLR 427 at 436, Chief Justice Mason and Justices Brennan, Gaudron and McHugh emphasised that “Statutory authority to engage in what otherwise would be tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and unambiguous language.”
  • They then stated at 438, “In Bropho v Western Australia, Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ. pointed out that the rationale against the presumption against the modification or abrogation of fundamental rights is to be found in the assumption that it is:”
  • [quoting Potter v Minahan (1908) 7 CLR 277 at 304 ] “‘in the last degree improbable that the legislature would overthrow fundamental principles, infringe rights, or depart from the general system of law, without expressing its intention with irresistible clearness; and to give any such effect to general words, simply because they have that meaning in their widest, or usual, or natural sense, would be to give them a meaning in which they were not really used’.”

Authority to engage in tortious conduct has been expressed in unmistakeable and unambiguous language with irresistible clearness that cannot be abrogated, either by AGS lawyers or by AAT Members. In order to comply with both statute law and procedural fairness, AAT hearing must be “informal” when seeking to reach a “fair” and “just” determination. When AAT Members and AGS lawyers conspire to hold a trail, e.g. the Directions Hearing for AAT case file 2014/<Redacted> on <Redacted> that are in violation of Section 12.3 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act:

12.3  Fault elements other than negligence

(1) If intention, knowledge or recklessness is a fault element in relation to a physical element of an offence, that fault element must be attributed to a body corporate that expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted the commission of the offence.

(2) The means by which such an authorisation or permission may be established include:

(a) proving that the body corporate’s board of directors intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carried out the relevant conduct, or expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted the commission of the offence; or

(b)      proving that a high managerial agent of the body corporate intentionally, knowingly or recklessly engaged in the relevant conduct, or expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted the commission of the offence; or

  1. c) proving that a corporate culture existed within the body corporate that directed, encouraged, tolerated or led to non‑compliance with the relevant provision; or

(d)       proving that the body corporate failed to create and maintain a corporate culture that required compliance with the relevant provision.

(3)       Paragraph (2)(b) does not apply if the body corporate proves that it exercised due diligence to prevent the conduct, or the authorisation or permission.

It is possible that one of the underlying reasons for Justice Kerr’s speech to the AIAL in August 2013 was to diminish liability for the problem of AGS lawyers and AAT Members holding ‘Kangaroo court’ trials. In December 2015, Justice Kerr was provided with an audio-recording of the above-mentioned Directions Hearing but failed to act to ensure that the applicant received a re-hearing of the case as per Bhardwaj at 53. The failure of Justice Kerr to act to ensure a “fair” and “just” re-hearing of the case may be evidence of widespread  acceptance of gross injustices being perpetrated against welfare recipients.

  1. The extreme lengths that some high-ranking bureaucrats will go to win legal appeals in almost beyond belief. On 26th February 2015, the Secretary for the Department of Human Services, Kathryn Campbell, conformed to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee [CALC] the accuracy of a Canberra times report that $565,000 had been spend in an endeavour to recover an amount of less than $6,000 from a welfare recipient. Ms. Campbell also admitted that 3 government lawyers and a hired barrister had represented the DHS. This was an example of ‘over-judicialization’ by Ms. Campbell, who justified this extravagant expenditure of taxpayer’ money on the basis that it was necessary as the DHS was attempting to obtain a case law precedent.

Whatever Ms. Campbell’s motives may have been, her actions in the conduct of this legal action were inconsistent with the Model Litigant Rules, which means that any legal precedent set may be of dubious legal merit. The precedent that Ms. Campbell was seeking may also be legally invalid because of the issue raised by Senator Xenophon, a barrister with some 30 years of experience, i.e. that evidence was being withheld in this tort action. Not only is the withholding of evidence inconsistent with procedural fairness and the statutory obligation of the AAT to provide a “fair” and “just” hearing, engaging in this activity to win tort cases is a crime.

The problem of withholding information was central to the AAT case that I was involved in. It is a also central issue in many of the instances where people contacted me seeking advice about the waiver of debt law.

For some welfare recipients, the first knowledge that they had of this statute was when they read about it in one of my Ronald’s space web postings. The withholding of information is also glaringly obvious in statements made in the mass media by Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and Hank Jongen. The statutory rights and procedural rights of welfare recipients is omitted from statements claiming that overpayments ’must’ be recovered.

The concealment of civil rights by senior public officials, e.g. Alan tudge, Christian porter and Hank Jongen, is a conspicuous omission in interviews conducted by representatives of the mass media. Emphasizing that alleged overpayments must be repaid whilst avoiding any mention of the Commonwealth’s obligations to waiver Commonwealth error debts is exceedingly misleading. In ACCC v AGL South Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1369 at 149 the court stated,

“However, this does not mean that all matters communicated by a representor are to be taken to have the same weight or effect, or that later qualifying words will neutralise the effect of an earlier misrepresentation. Some words and representations may have a more dominant effect than others. That effect may be so dominant or persuasive as not to be neutralised by other statements made on the same occasion, or as part of the overall representation, which are less prominent. The ACCC invoked the concept of the dominant message, contending that the offered discount in conjunction with the fixed term gave rise to such a message.

Statements that welfare recipients have 21-days to prove that Centrelink was responsible for the (alleged) overpayments, i.e. a Commonwealth error, may be a serious abuse of public office given that constitutional onus is on the DHS (Centrelink) to first have a court adduce the facts of the matter upon which a fair and just determine of legal liability may be made.

References to the appeals mechanisms fail to mention the extremely ‘nit-picky, technical defence details that AGS lawyers and bureaucrats will go to, in defiance of the Model Litigant Rules, to recover alleged overpayments.

  1. Clause 5 (h), The Model Litigant principle of “not relying on technical defences” was a Dickensian Bleak House travesty of justice in the AAT case that I was involved in that did little other than bring the appeals system into disrepute.

In violation of the principles of a “just” and “fair” hearing, and in violation of s. 1142.2 and s.149.1 of the commonwealth Criminal Code, the DHS withheld critical evidence needed for a fair and just decision, i.e. a phone call recording, and downplayed the possibility that a DHS call centre operator may have given incorrect advice concerning what constituted changes in circumstances with the previously mentioned finding in paragraph 42 of the decision that (Commonwealth) errors were normal and therefore did not qualify as exceptional circumstances.

An impartial court holding a public hearing would have been unlikely to have accepted that disgraceful perversion of justice as a valid finding

  1. In addition to relying on 3 lawyers to overwhelm a 60-year-old school cleaner with Year 9 education levels, the core of the DSS case on behalf of the DHS was the highly questionable technical defence that the applicant should have read and understood the DHS letter stating that changes in circumstances must be reported. It was a very much a case of never mind the primary facts of the matter, any excuse to force repayment of the alleged overpayment would do. If that was not an abuse of public office, what was it?
  1. Like the Australian Taxation office and other federal Government agencies, Centrelink arbitrarily records phone calls made to its call centres. Since the applicant had queried her change in circumstances in a phone call query to Centrelink, the withholding of the phone call recording of that conversation, as is shown by the redacted email on page 99 of volume 2 of The Emcott Report, meant that the Commonwealth was both withholding evidence and at the same time, relying on a minor technical point to win the appeal.
  1. As you are aware, withholding evidence is a violation of both s. 142.2 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, a very significant error of law for it is a violation of two federal criminal law statutes.
  1. As I pointed out in my previous email, it is a matter of fact that the Commonwealth has a track record of engaging in such reprehensible tactics. In Queen v Martens [2009] QCA 351 at paragraph 50, the Court was scathing in its criticism of the Commonwealth’s tactics: “The submission does little credit to the DPP – The records are of critical importance – The prosecutor did not provide the records and instead told Martens that they did not exist – They were found after Martens’ conviction as a result of efforts made by his wife – It is a poor reflection upon the DPP and the Australian Federal Police that one should have failed to find them, and denied their existence, and the other object to their use in the reference on the ground that Martens should have obtained them earlier – The fresh evidence proves that GN did not fly with Martens from the small village to Port Moresby on any occasion which satisfies her depiction of the circumstances in which she was assaulted – The evidence also corroborates Martens’ evidence at his trial.”
  1. In 2006, the Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] released the Adult Life Skills Report which revealed that 47% of people in Australia have serious functional literacy problems, especially documentary literacy, i.e. the ability to accurately comprehend or understand the content of documents.
  1. The following extract is sourced from the ABS Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey, Summary Results, Australia 2006 (cat. no. 4228.0):

 Literacy skills are becoming increasingly important in contemporary Australian society. In 2006, just over half of Australians aged 15-74 years had adequate or better prose (54%) and document (53%) literacy skills. Although these rates are slightly higher than those in 1996 they still represent a high proportion of people who may be at a disadvantage in finding employment, completing documents and performing other tasks. “

  • Just 17-18 % of Australians, approximately 1 in 6, have the high order literacy skills needed to comprehend and accurately interpret legal documents prepared by lawyers with some 47%, almost half the population, not capable of this high-order document reading skill.
  • The summary report statement, people with jobs were more likely to be assessed as having the skill levels needed to meet the complex demands of everyday life and work than were the unemployed or those not in the labour force highlighted the fact that unemployed people, i.e. one of Centrelink core client groups, have the lowest levels of document functional literacy skills.
  • While three-quarters of people surveyed scored below level 3 in at least one domain, just over one-third (36%) were below level 3 in all four domains.”
  1. This ABS data raises the Procedural Fairness and Error of Law questions as to why, a decade of the release of the 2006 Adult Life skills Report, AGS lawyers, in violation of both Model Litigant Rules and the statutory obligation to ensure that AAT hearing are informal, continue to serve formal ‘T’ documents on functionally illiterate welfare recipients who are incapable of discerning that much of the information in these documents is, in law, unreliable evidence that an impartial court would reject? Any fatalities caused by this apparently deliberate “Stupefy and Overwhelm” functionally illiterate people are unlawful homicides in some Australian states, e.g. s. 302.4 in Queensland and s. 279.4 in Western Australia. In South Australia, deliberately placing people under duress that they commit suicide is murder under s. 13.7 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935).
  1. The well-known functional literacy problems would also seriously inhibit awareness by some respondents to Centrelink demands for repayment that some of the legal precedents used in AGS prepared ‘T’ documents, i.e. all of the AAT determinations that were not based up findings made by a court, are, in law, legally invalid. (Possibly every decision made since November 1976.)
  1. In the 2014 AAT case that I was involved in, the withholding of the of the phone call recording and my statements that incorrect advice represented a Commonwealth error that the applicant had acted on in good faith was disregarded by the presiding AAT Member.
  1. Paragraph 42 in the unconstitutional Findings issues in AATA (???) was what Queensland’s Chief Justice, Tim Carmody, might consider describing as a Dickensian Bleak House farce with the tribunal contradicting s. 1,237A of the Social Security Act with this insightful statement that could be a precedent that invalidates all of Centrelink’s “Account payable” claims: <Redacted>’s contention that she acted in reliance of incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials security recipients. This circumstance is not o unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance” for the purpose of s 1237AAD(b) of the SSA

22.This AAT finding, which is inconsistent with the concept of a fair and just determination, is a (quasi-legal) precedent that has the potential to nullify ALL of Centrelink claims for the repayment of alleged overpayments for it acknowledges that Commonwealth errors are a normal systemic problem.

Directive 5 (i) of the Model Litigant Rules also specifies not requiring the other party to prove a matter the Commonwealth or agency knows to be true.

What the AAT finding did was acknowledge that a commonwealth error had occurred, asper 1,237A, and then dismissed that as valid grounds for the appeal, i.e. “…incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance.” As far as this tribunal was concerned, Commonwealth errors, in the form of incorrect advice given by Centrelink’s call centre operators, are so commonplace that these errors do not qualify as exceptional circumstances that would have been grounds for waiving the debt!

  1. Ditto for this equally remarkable statement: “This circumstance is not so unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance”
  • Again, the Presiding Member was stating was that Commonwealth errors, i.e. mistakes, are so common that they are part of the normal experience of welfare recipients and therefore are not grounds for waiving the debt.
  • AAT findings like these make a complete farce out of the Model Litigant Directives.
  1. Directive 5 (i) deals with not appealing from a decision unless there are reasonable prospects for success or it is otherwise justified in the public interest.”

25 With AAT decisions like that above, how can the Commonwealth fail to have “reasonable prospects for success”? However, the question of such “success” being in the public interest raises the matter of fact, ignored by the AAT Member in the above-mentioned case, that the suicide rate amongst welfare recipients is absolutely staggering, i.e. 23,254 suicides in the 10-year period 1997 – 2006 1 in 3 was an unemployed person, i.e. about 7,700 people who committed suicide were unemployed and Centrelink did not include even one of these fatalities in official reports during this period.

An issue that needs to investigated is the possibility that tort actions by Centrelink are a significant reason, if not the primary reason, why Australia’s top suicide categories contain a high proportion of Centrelink clients.

  1. Centrelink’s actions when attempting to recover alleged overpayments are extremely traumatizing to many people, a fact evidenced in the AAT hearing, in statements made by Andrew Wilkie MP, the suicide email shown on page 95 of volume 2 of The Emcott Report. To these examples can be added the numerous first-person reports of the emotional trauma caused by Centrelink that are contained in current affairs segments that have been broadcast by the ABC, Channel 7 and Channel 9 television networks.
  1. Article 3 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees “security of person and the right to life.” The cavalier violation of these human rights obligations, which are included in human rights treaties ratified by the Commonwealth of Australia in 1976, are violated by Centrelink, and by extension, the Turnbull Government, with the current, recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional, fraudulent, human rights violating “account payable” demands being sourced from the data contained in Centrelink’s dysfunctional 35-year-old ‘Integrated Social Infrastructure System’ computer network.
  1. The Original Commonwealth Error: No ability to data match in real time.

Although prepared in good faith, the original specifications for the purchase of what is now known as the ISIS computer system were inadequate as they specified a computer system that was not fit for the intended purpose. A s specified, the system required very high levels of manual data input that then required manual report generation to cross-check the data that had been input. The purchase of the IBM 204 ISIS database system was therefore the

original underlying Commonwealth error that has resulted in billions of dollars in overpayments. It is therefore a significant matter of fact that none of the people from whom Centrelink is seeking to recover overpayments had input into this purchase decision and therefore cannot be held liable for downstream overpayment errors that were caused by the inadequate data-matching capabilities of the system.

30-years of using a computer system that was never suitable for its originally intended purpose, a fact demonstrated by the need for a reported 50 million keystrokes of data entry per day and, until recently, the need to manually generate data-matching reports, was bad management by a string of federal governments. Over the years, efforts by system administrators to have the system replaced were unsuccessful, After all this time, is quite reasonable that new data-matching software is now discovering Commonwealth errors that have accumulated over a period of decades due to the inability of the system to make real-time data-matches that would have enabled data checking and overpayment corrections with in the 6-week waiver of debt period.

  1. Directive 5 (j) requires an apology where the Commonwealth is in error, However, in March 2000, legislation was unintentional extinguished and investigators, prosecutors, defence lawyers and the judiciary all failed to notice this critical Commonwealth error. As a direct consequence, some 15,000 welfare recipients were prosecuted for a non-existent crime!

When Malgorzata Poniatowska appealed her conviction for a non-existent crime all the way to the High Court, on August 4th 2011, the Federal Parliament set aside duty of agency obligations, human rights obligations, and the Model Litigant obligations and passed retrospective legislation that was intended to “fix” the 11-year-long blunder.

  1. On May 8th 2013, the High Court handed down its Findings in DPP (Cth) v. Keating (HCA 20) and in paragraph 43, quite rightly dismissed the retrospective legislation as “statutory fiction.”

MATTERS OF FACT -SET #5 – Human Rights Obligations.

In the AAT case that I was involved in, I pointed out that the applicant had human rights that needed to be respected. I was literally left dumb-founded when the AGS lawyer representing Finn Pratt, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, requested that the issue of human rights be left for “other courts” to decide. I was then further emotionally and mentally ‘poleaxed’ when the Presiding Member failed to reject that outrageous request.

There are at least 6 human rights treaties have been ratified by the Commonwealth of Australia and 5 other treaties contained human rights that may have been applicable in this hearing, e.g. the right to a fair hearing in which the Commonwealth was not allowed to withhold or destroy evidence. The Secretary of the DSS, Finn Pratt, has never had the constitutional or legal authority to request that these treaties be set aside. Likewise, the presiding AAT Member also has never had the constitutional or statutory authority to accede to that request. However, by act of omission, i.e. the failure to immediate rule that request ‘Out of Order’, this request to deliberately violate the human rights of the applicant was acceded to by the tribunal.

The following information is copied from the Australian Human Rights Commission’s Briefing Paper No. 4. The human rights principles summarised in this document are an independent commentary on human rights obligations that I believe were unlawfully compromised or violated in that AAT hearing that I had participated in. These rights were subsequently either disregarded or not were adequately considered in the appeal that I subsequently lodged with the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Note that page 101 of volume 2 of The Emcott Report which contains a redacted copy of the response from the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Lawful Limits on Fundamental Freedoms

Many fundamental freedoms are guaranteed by international human rights law. They include the freedoms of expression, movement and choice of residence, peaceful assembly and association, and the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief.

All human rights and fundamental freedoms are subject to the general rule that no-one has the right to ‘engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms’ recognised elsewhere.

{Emphasis added]

Some freedoms cannot be restricted by governments in the interests of balancing other competing interests. These ‘absolute freedoms’ include freedom from torture, freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention, freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom to hold opinions without interference.

Other freedoms, ‘limitable freedoms’, can be restricted by governments within defined boundaries with the aim of protecting competing interests. These restrictions or limitations are themselves constrained by international human rights law. A lawful limitation is one that satisfies at least five criteria.

  1. It must be provided by law or, in the case of limits on peaceful assembly, imposed in conformity with the law.
  2. The objective must be one or more from the following exhaustive list: protection of national security and/or public safety, protection of public order (ordre public), protection of public health or morals, protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
  3. It must be necessary to achieve its objective.
  4. It must operate without discrimination.
  5. It must be exceptional and not impair the essence of the freedom itself.

In his speech, titled the “Age of Entitlement is Over”, presented on 17th April 2012, to the London Institute of Economic Affairs, Joe Hockey’s advocated the human rights violating withholding of subsistence allowances. He stated, “The entitlements bestowed on tens of millions of people by successive governments, fuelled by short-term electoral cycles and the politics of outbidding your opponents is, in essence, undermining our ability to ensure democracy, fair representation and economic sustainability for future generations.” … “It is ironic that the entitlements system seems to be the most obvious and prevalent in some of the most democratic societies…Most undemocratic nations are simply unable to afford the largesse of universal entitlement systems. So, ultimately the fiscal impact of popular programs must be brought to account no matter what the political values the government are or how popular a spending program may be. Let me put it this way the age of entitlement is over. We should not take this is cause for despair.”

Given that Joe Hockey was on a taxpayer funded Member of Parliament’s base salary of about $210,000-a-year at the time, it is completely understandable why he personally had “no cause for despair” about leaving impoverished people without any means to subsist.

During Question Time on 30th September 2014, Prime Minister Tony Abbott made his views on human rights versus saving money very when he stated,

I am all in favour of rights. I am also in favour of the rights of taxpayers not to have their money abused. I am in favour of the rights of taxpayers to say that young people should be doing the right thing by themselves and by our society.”

That statement was Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s response to the Joint Party on Human Rights Committee’s rejection of a Bill before the Australian Parliament that would have deprived young unemployed people of a subsistence allowance for a period of 6 months. It should be noted that this is the 2nd attempt involving Mr. Abbott to violate constitutional and human rights by deliberately depriving vulnerable people of the means to survive for a period of 6-months.

“Facts do not cease to exist because they are disregarded”

The word “disregarded” implies a knowledge and an awareness of the facts and it also implies a failure to acknowledge and act on those facts when some form of action is required.

There are 4 common reasons for disregarding facts that require some form of action:

  1. Disbelief – a refuse to accept the facts because they challenge or offend a person’s believe system.
  2. Incredulity – a person’s inability to accept the facts.
  3. Indifference – a lack of concern for the consequences implicit in the facts of the matter.

Any explanation as to why the civil rights of several million vulnerable Australians of have been violated over a period measured in decades and any comprehensive understanding of why the death toll caused by these civil rights  violations are officially regarded as “irrelevant” simply cannot be answered in a single document written in a few days by one person.

The need for a national and state royal commissions into the failure of child protection agencies to protect children from sexual abuse and sometimes fatal physical abuses are a symptom of societal dysfunction. When the report into the death of 4-year-old Chloe Valentine was released, a News Ltd columnist, Andrew Bolt, describes South Australia as a toxic state. However, news ltd columnist Ken McGregor had no qualms about committing criminal defamation when he described welfare recipients as “cheats”; an offence that is a matter of law for the courts, not journalists, to determine. Ken McGregor’s article also contained an unconstitutional, human rights violating ‘survey’ question may have been an attempt to encourage the general public to accept genocidal welfare policies that violate international criminal laws, i.e. “When should job seekers have their payments reduced? Implicit in this question is the presumed right to place lives in danger if job seekers do not meet arbitrary expectations that may in fact be unconstitutional. To the question, how can these things be happening, is the equally relevant question as to what other wrongs are happening?

  1. The constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth are binding on the courts, judges and the people, and yet the Federal Police refuse to investigate far too many politicians who may have violated the same criminal statutes that has seen welfare recipients. The Slipper case may have been the exception to this policy:

A former Speaker, Peter Slipper, was prosecuted and convicted on three counts of violating s135.1 (5) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. The charges stated, “That in the Australian Capital Territory he dishonestly caused a risk of loss to a person, namely the Department of Finance and Deregulation, which is a Commonwealth entity, knowing or believing that there was a substantial risk of the loss occurring.”

  • 20 January 2010 (CC13/40001);
  • 12 April 2010 (CC13/40002);
  • 27 June 2010 (CC13/40003).

In September 2014, at a sentencing hearing in the ACT Magistrates court, the Crown Prosecutor wanted to ‘throw the book’ at Peter Slipper, as this comment reveals; “Peter Slipper committed a fraud and has shown no contrition”.

The above statement by the Crown prosecutor raises the legitimate question as just how much contrition have the following politicians shown for possible rorting of the Parliamentary Entitlements Fund by failing to comply with the easy-to-understand Parliamentary Entitlement Rules contained in section 4.6.4 of the Entitlement Rules:

  1. Tony Abbott –(A reported $9,400. A former Rhodes scholar with a law degree, Mr. Abbott “ought to have known” that using his Parliamentary Travel Card for travel costs when promoting the launch of his book “Battle Lines”, was not Consistent with the entitlement rules.
  2. Bronwyn Bishop – A reported $5,200 for a helicopter flight from Melbourne to Geelong to attend a Victorian liberal party function.
  3. Sussan Ley – 16 trips to the Gold Coast that apparently did not comply with the rules in 4.6.4 of the entitlements rules.

Compliance with the entitlements rules is simple because the advice and support of Entitlements Managers who effectively act on behalf the Finance Minister in advising on eligible entitlements spending. If any ‘mistake’ is made in wrongly claiming entitlements, the most likely reason is a voluntary physical act of omission as per s. 4 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

4.1  Physical elements

(1)  A physical element of an offence may be:

(a)  conduct; or

(b)  a result of conduct; or

(c)  a circumstance in which conduct, or a result of conduct, occurs.

(2)  In this Code:

conduct means an act, an omission to perform an act or a state of affairs.

engage in conduct means:

(a)  do an act; or

(b)  omit to perform an act.

4.2  Voluntariness

(1)  Conduct can only be a physical element if it is voluntary.

(2)  Conduct is only voluntary if it is a product of the will of the person whose conduct it is.

135.2  Obtaining financial advantage

(1)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

(a)  the person engages in conduct; and

(aa)  as a result of that conduct, the person obtains a financial advantage for himself or herself from another person; and

(ab)  the person knows or believes that he or she is not eligible to receive that financial advantage; and

(b)  the other person is a Commonwealth entity.

Penalty:               Imprisonment for 12 months.

Politicians, especially senior politicians, who claim entitlements by ignoring the entitlements rules and by failing to consult with Entitlements Managers before signing off on claims are making voluntary acts of omission that enable them to obtain a financial advantage from the Commonwealth that they are not entitled to receive. To refuse to investigate these alleged rorting incidents on the unconstitutional grounds of “Gravity/sensitivity” or the equally spurious “government protocols” is to create a procedural fairness violation, i.e. Apprehended bias or Manifest ostensible Bias, that could potentially invalidate the prosecution of any other person who may have been charged with, or convicted of, violations. 135 of these criminal statutes.

To allow these proceedings to remain in the Court would bring the administration of justice into disrepute among right-thinking people and would be manifestly unfair to Mr Slipper:

Justice Steven Rares Ashby v Commonwealth of Australia

(No.4) [2012] FCA 1411 at 197

GENOCIDE & CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act is not only a criminally reckless, unconstitutional law that is intended to endanger life, it is a violation of international criminal statutes contained in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court:

THE ROME STATUTE: Article 6 – Genocide [For ‘group’, read ‘welfare recipients’.]

6 (a), 6 (b) and 6 (c)

THE ROME STATUTE:  Article 7 – Crimes against humanity

7 (1).   For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;

(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement;

 (e Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(h)    Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

2For the purpose of paragraph 1:

(a) “Attack directed against any civilian population” means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;

(b) “Extermination” includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia, the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;

(c)     “Enslavement” means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population” means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;

(e) “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;

(g)   “Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;

(h) “The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;

In one form or another, the unconstitutional, sometimes lethal ‘No Show, No Pay No Survive’ law violates commonwealth, state, territory and international laws. When fatalities occur, they are MURDER under Article 7 (1) (a) of the Rome Statute and under homicide laws in every state and territory in Australia. Despite these legal realities, the official policy of the Australian federal Police is very clearly identifiable in Federal Agent Pearce’s email, i.e. The Australian Federal Police does not want to know because the Australian Federal police do not intend to do anything about these crimes.

It is therefore perhaps no surprise that politicians rort the entitlements fund with impunity; it is because the Australian Federal police actively provided immunity from prosecution. In the same manner, it is understandable that politicians also believe and act on the assumption that they have the right to persecute, defraud and murder welfare recipients. Whilst they have never had this right, the failure of the Australian Federal police, and a number of other agencies that take their lead from the actions of the Federal police, to act to hold accountable those responsible for the ruthless persecution of welfare recipients has only encouraged the flagrant violations of civil rights that are currently occurring.

To fail to hold accountable those responsible for the current Abuse of Public Office crime wave is to encourage it.

Nation-wide, community concern is mounting:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/aussies-panicking-over-centrelink-demands-to-pay-up-to-avoid-debt-collector/news-story/a13ba2f6090aecc7152b5ceb65166315

https://www.themonthly.com.au/blog/nick-feik/2017/06/2017/1483676768/centrelink-summer

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/editorial-admit-centrelink-system-is-broken-and-then-fix-it/news-story/8113462cc604129773104e2547927986

Opposition to these criminal abuses of power are also becoming highly  sophisticated as the YouTube video link at the beginning of the communication clearly demonstrates.

To do nothing about these crimes means that s. 12.3 may also apply to the Australian federal Police:

12.3  Fault elements other than negligence

(1)       If intention, knowledge or recklessness is a fault element in relation to a physical element of an offence, that fault element must be attributed to a body corporate that expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted the commission of the offence.

(2)       The means by which such an authorisation or permission may be established include:

(a)       proving that the body corporate’s board of directors intentionally, knowingly or recklessly carried out the relevant conduct, or expressly, tacitly or impliedly authorised or permitted the commission of the offence;

No-one is above the law; the word “people” in paragraph 5 of the constitution includes, politicians, public servants, judges, lawyers and police officers. However, if no action is taken under Australian laws, then there is always the United Nations Human Rights commission, and as a last resort, there is Article 17.1 (a) and 17 2 (b) and 17 .2 (c) of the Rome Statute:

Article 17

Issues of admissibility

1 Having regard to paragraph 10 of the Preamble and article 1, the Court shall determine that a case is inadmissible where:

(a) The case is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution;

  1. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable:

(b)  There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice;

(c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.

After some 40 years of hiding the death toll caused by welfare penalties and fraudulent tort actions, there are four Public Interest Questions of Law that I colloquially call ‘The Awesome Foursome’ that need to be answered.

PUBLIC INTEREST- Questions of Law: ‘The Awesome Foursome’

  1. What is the total number of [unconstitutional] Breaching penalties that have been issued to-date?
  2. How many [fraudulent] ‘Account payable’ demands have been made to welfare recipients?
  3. How many people with disabilities have been denied a pension?
  4. How many people never survived the above abuses of power, i.e. how many people has the Federal Parliament murdered?

However satisfactory and reasonable the “gravity/sensitivity”: and “government protocols” excuses offered by Federal Agent Louise Denley and Federal Agent Pearce may seem to be to you and your case evaluation staff, when it comes to the ICC jurisdictional issue of “inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice”, it is a matter of fact that unconstitutional, unlawful excuses contained in these two Federal Police communications tick-all-of-the-boxes for providing jurisdiction for an ICC investigation.

Ultimately, the decision as to whether-or-not an ICC investigation will occur resting in your hands. If you uphold the law in accordance with the constitution and Due process of law, there will no legal grounds for an ICC investigation. However, should you decide to defend the status quo, i.e. do nothing, then, by yours act of omission, you will provide jurisdiction for an ICC investigation.

Please, decide wisely, for the range of public interest questions could engage any diligent inquiry in the resolving of public interest questions that may perhaps be best described as:

Public Interest ‘Awkward’ Questions.

The constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth shall be BINDING on the Courts, judges and the people:

  1. Quite clearly, federal politicians and police officers are people and are therefore subject to this binding provision. Why then are the Federal Police quarantining from investigation, un unconstitutional policy that violates Due Process of Law and very effectively quarantines politicians from accountability before the courts?
  2. Is this unconstitutional Federal Police policy Broad Ultra Vires, i.e. does it totally undermine the concept of Rule of Law in Australia by enabling any person charged with a criminal offence to mount a valid Apprehended Bias or a Manifest ostensible Bias Defence?
  3. By failing to uphold the law when concerns about the legality of federal welfare policies and practices were first raised with the federal Police, how much unlawful harm in the form emotional trauma, financial loss, cruel and unusual treatment, e.g. extreme deprivation, reckless endangerment, and loss of life has occurred?
  4. How many violations of criminal laws, state, territory, federal and international, have occurred because the Australian Federal Police have placed unconstitutional “government policies” and “gravity/sensitivity” ahead of upholding the law?
  5. There is not constitutional or statutory right for a police officer, whether state, territory, or federal, to refuse to accept complaints from the public that express concern that criminal laws may have been violated by public officials. The “See something, hear something, say something”, advertising campaigns of various Australian police forces underscores the fact that hearsay from any source is adequate grounds for an investigation if the hearsay indicates that violations of criminal laws may have occurred. Why then has the Australian Federal Police adopted a blanket policy of refused to accept complaints from me?
  6. How independent and how effect is the Australian Federal Police as a bulwark of society when it colludes with Federal Governments who Members may have rorted the Parliamentary Entitlements system?
  7. Apart from Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, how many other Australians have died because of unconstitutional agreements between the Federal Police and Federal Government ministers?
  8. How many of these unconstitutional agreements has the Australian Federal Police entered into since being established?
  9. How many of these agreements are backed by statute law?
  10. How many of these agreements have been the subject of independent inquiries by courts or other entities with the jurisdiction to review such agreements?
  11. When your appointment was first made public there were reports  in the mass media that you had been the personal choice of prime Minister Tony Abbott. This raises the valid questions as to the reason why Mr. Abbott selected you. Were you appointed because of your highly acclaimed skills and personal integrity as a law enforcement officer, or were you appointed by Prime Tony Abbott because he was certain that when it came to the sensitive issue of any fatalities that may been caused by the Howard government’s illegal enforcement of the lethally dangerous and unconstitutional  Performance Indicator Targets , you could be relied upon to “see no evil” if questions about these homicides were raised.
  12. In 14.6.7 of Report of the Royal commission into the Home Improvement Program, Commissioner Hanger stated, “Officers must be supported to engage with personal risk when giving advice, rather than to remain complicit with a particular approach thought to be favoured by the Minister or a political adviser. Senior officials must likewise satisfy themselves that advice concerning risks is accurate, independent, and comprehensive. Additionally, advice on risk, whether delivered in a written submission or verbally, should not be pitched at such a high level that it is impossible for the Minister to discern real tangible risks ther
  13. What advice have you and your senior officers given to the Turnbull Government about the foreseeable risks to people with mental health problems of skipping Due Process of Law to recover alleged overpayments to welfare recipients, e.g. what are the risks in Centrelink staff phoning a person with serious mental health problems, that may not have been diagnosed due to lengthy delays in accessing mental health services, and telling these people that they owe thousands of dollars that must be repaid in days or their house will be sold to recover the alleged debt?
  14. Have you, or any of your senior officers ever read any of the Australian Institute of Health & Welfare reports or public agency reports on the risk factors inherent in what I very publicly refer to as the Tudge Fudge Fraud, e.g. the Anglicare Tasmania response to the Inquiry into the Provision of Mental Health Services in Australia?
  15. This can be downloaded from the following URL and the risk factors identified on pages 4 – 7 of this report are matters of fact that raise significant credible questions about the methods used by successive federal governments to recover alleged over-payments from welfare recipients who may be potentially suicidal:
  16. https://www.anglicare-tas.org.au/sites/anglicare-tas.org.au/files/Senate_Inquiry_into_the_Provision_of_Mental_Health_Services.pdf
  17. Am I correct in my views that by-passing the courts and/or withholding evidence in order to recover alleged overpayments constitutes violations of criminal laws, human rights obligations, due process of law, and procedural fairness principles?

A question all Australians, especially victims of the Tudge Fudge Fraud, are entitled to receive is an answer to is whether the widespread, and still growing, concern about the Turnbull Government’s alleged “debt” recovery actions. Are this actions legally valid and justifiable, or are they a criminal abuse of power and are therefore not justified? If these actions are unlawful, this criminal activity needs to be halted and the those responsible held accountable before the courts.

The  concerns of Australia’s most vulnerable people need to addressed and if the Australian Federal Police are still, ot upholding the law, then, by default, the task becomes a matter for international agencies to address.

 Ronald Medlicott.

Australian citizen, genocide survivor and a Christian volunteer lay advocate.

Other recommended YouTube videos:

The Tudge Fudge Fraud

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDbUgetGIgU

The Tudge Fudge Fraud – Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po6Zkgcq-FA

Waivergate – Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEfQ7PuBz60

Waivergate – Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23bBEfN_H8I

Waivergate – Part 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktBNxr7iY7E

Assembling Ikea furniture in the dark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCBN7l34VSg

CHILCOT REPORT ISSUES (and John Howard’s other lethal lies)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_kltEXaNcY 

Burn Notice: The Others

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

Genocide in Australia: Evidence for the ICC  to consider

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf5RPOQkTFM

The Culleton factor

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RctoEN-ZuE8

Centrelink Prosecutions: 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

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

 

  1.   DON’T FORGET TO RE-WATCH:

    Centrelink fail – Honest Government Advert

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoD0efoHzeA

Posted in Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 39: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. After 40 years of civil rights abuses, has the ‘Velvet Revolution’ against this inhumane treatment begun?

Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity are under pressure with a very real possibility that a non-violent “Velvet Revolution’ against the cruel injustices being heaped upon vulnerable welfare recipients may have finally sparked the national conscience.

NOTE: The short link for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-Iz

The YouTube video below is B-R-I-L-L-I-A-N-T

Below the video link is the text of a letter sent at 2:58 PM [Adelaide time], i.e. about 20 minutes ago to the Federal Commissioner of Police. I strongly suggest that readers of this posting click on the velvet revolution [‘Centrelink Advert’] URL below ASAP. This brilliant YouTube video may be a very visible sign of Australia’s ‘velvet revolution’, i.e. a non-violent rejection of the manifestly corrupt leadership in the national parliament.

Computer literal young Australians who have had a guts-full of the self-serving, out-of-touch politicians have done something that every Australian should see. If that is the case, lets have more of it; in the meantime, below are some points of law on the defrauding and murder of our nation’s most vulnerable citizens.

======================================================================

Dear Commissioner Colvin

RE: Genocide, Crimes against Humanity, State sponsored terrorism, rorting politicians, and Australia’s very own “Velvet Revolution”

Hard evidence of Australia’s very own “Velvet Revolution” can be found at this URL:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoD0efoHzeA

Ignore the underlying message and you could wind up facing Genocide and Crimes against Humanity charges, a statement that is not hype as you will see if you check out the appended PDF file from the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.

In plain English, “The CRAP is hitting the fan” and the email below puts you at ground zero for the fall-out from about 5 million criminal violations of civil rights and a possible death toll that at this time may be around the 100,000 mark (give or take a few). The reality is that even Centrelink does not know how many welfare recipients have died as a result of their criminal abuses of power, i.e. the violation of Section 142.1 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth criminal Code.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/the-man-in-the-box-inaccurate-centrelink-debt-letter-sent-james-into-meltdown/news-story/21c762d55b36157449ed7f81f4c3272e?utm_source=The%20Advertiser&utm_mediam=email&utm_campaign=editorial

‘The man in a box’: Inaccurate Centrelink debt letter sent James into meltdown

In the above ‘Man in the box” posting, Social Services Minister Christian Porter said the system was “working as intended”. The government has announced it will claw back $400 million in unemployment benefit overpayments through the review process, despite calls from Labour for the system to be suspended while the problems are fixed.

Mr Porter said 20 per cent of review letters were sent to people who did not owe anything but these were not debt letters and only asked for more information to explain a discrepancy between employment data held by Centrelink and the ATO.

The most likely cause of the discrepancy is the fact that the 32-year-old ISIS computer was never fit for purpose from day 1 and the new software is identifying “Commonwealth errors” that under section 1,237A of the Social Security Act, do not have to be repaid.

What Alan Tudge and Christian Porter, both people with law degrees,  are brazenly doing is ignoring ASIC v Hellicar at 14 -143, Bhardwaj at 53, Morely & Ors v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2010] NSWCA 331 at 706, 707, 716, 717, 719, 727 and 728.

Boughey v R [1986] HCA 29; (1986) 161 CLR 10 (6 June 1986) – “ought to have known”

  1. The last three of the above-mentioned four possible bases of a verdict of guilty of murder, namely those founded on s.157(1)(b) and s.157(1)(c) of the Code, contain an element that the accused either “knew” (s.157(1)(b) and first limb of s.157(1)(c)) or “ought to have known” (second limb of s.157(1)(c)) that his act of applying pressure to the deceased’s neck in the manner and with the force and for the length of time that he did was “likely to cause death in the circumstances”. It is submitted, on behalf of the applicant, that the learned trial judge misdirected the jury about what was involved in the notion of something being “likely” to cause death. In essence, the submission is that “likely”, in the context of s.157 of the Code, means “more likely than not” or “odds on” or “more than a fifty percent” chance whereas his Honour directed the jury in terms which conveyed that the phrase “likely to cause death” meant merely that there was “a good chance” that death would ensue.
  2. The words “likely to cause death” in s.157(1) follow their use in s.156(2) where “culpable homicide” is defined to include:

“Homicide … caused–

(a) by an act intended to cause death or
bodily harm, or which is commonly known
to be likely to cause death or bodily
harm, and which is not justified under
the provisions of the Code;”

Section 157(1), which designates the cases in which “culpable homicide” is murder, is structured upon the definition of “culpable homicide” in s.156. Presumably, it was not intended to use the words “likely to cause death” in s.157(1) with a meaning different to that with which they were used in s.156(2)(a). In the context of the express provision of s.156(5) that “(h)omicide that is not culpable is not punishable”, it would seem plain enough that the words “likely to cause death” in s.156(2)(a) are not used in a sense which would exclude from “culpable homicide” an intentional act which obviously involved a substantial risk of death or bodily harm to another unless the act was also “commonly known” to be more likely than not, in the sense of an “odds on chance”, to cause such death or bodily harm. In our view, the word “likely” is used in both ss.156(2)(a) and 157(1) with what we apprehend to be its ordinary meaning, namely, to convey the notion of a substantial – a “real and not remote” – chance regardless of whether it is less or more than fifty percent (cf. Sheen v. Fields Pty. Ltd. (1984) 58 ALJR 93, at p 95; 51 ALR 345, at p 348; Waugh v. Kippen, unreported, High Court of Australia, 20 March 1986, at pp 9-10 of the pamphlet).

When you receive complaints about Centrelink deliberately depriving people of a welfare benefit, or arbitrarily reducing welfare payments by switching people to a lower benefit without a court first determining the facts of the matter, the first question you have to consider is the potential harm that depriving a person of their sole means of subsistence can do, i.e. is it “likely to cause death”?

Editorial: Admit Centrelink system is broken and then fix it

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/editorial-admit-centrelink-system-is-broken-and-then-fix-it/news-story/8113462cc604129773104e2547927986

WHEN a government agency tasked with assisting some of the most vulnerable Australians is reduced to suggesting on Twitter that clients seek help via Lifeline, perhaps it is time to acknowledge there might be a problem. In recent weeks Centrelink has been deluged with thousands of angry and frightened social security recipients who received letters informing them they need to repay, in some cases, thousands dollars in alleged overpayments.

This, according to Human Services Minister Alan Tudge, is all about “strengthening the integrity of the welfare system by cracking down on fraud and overpayments”.

That premise is something no reasonable Australian would disagree with. Quite simply, anyone caught rorting the system should be forced to repay money owing, and possibly face additional penalties depending on the scale of any deliberate fraud. The problem is that there is mounting evidence that thousands of innocent Australians are being informed they are liable for debts that don’t exist due to issues with Centrelink’s now automated compliance system. One key issue relates to a data matching system Centrelink is now using to marry its information with that held by the Australian Taxation Office and other agencies.

What this item is saying is that welfare recipients are the victims of systemic abuse that is being covered up.

In my home state of South Australia, section 13.7 of the criminal code states:

13A—Criminal liability in relation to suicide

A person who, by fraud, duress or undue influence, procures the suicide of another or an attempt by another to commit suicide shall (whether or not he was a party to a suicide pact with the other person) be guilty of murder or attempted murder, as the case may require.

In Queensland, you have this provision in section 302 of that state’s criminal code:

CRIMINAL CODE – SECT 302

302 Definition of murder

(1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to say:

(a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;

(b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;

(c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;

(d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c);

(e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes;

is guilty of murder.

(2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed.

(3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.

(4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result.

In Victoria, you have this:

Victorian Crimes Act

 Conduct endangering life

A person who, without lawful excuse, recklessly engages in conduct that places or may place another person in danger of death is guilty of an indictable offence.

Penalty: Level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum).

  1. Conduct endangering persons

A person who, without lawful excuse, recklessly engages in conduct that places or may place another person in danger of serious injury is guilty of an indictable offence.

Penalty: Level 6 imprisonment (5 years maximum).

  1. Negligently causing serious injury

A person who by negligently doing or omitting to do an act causes serious injury to another person is guilty of an indictable offence.

Penalty: Level 6 imprisonment (5 years maximum)

  1. Extortion with threat to kill

A person who makes a demand of another person—

(a) with a threat to kill or inflict injury on a person (other than the offender or an

accomplice of the offender); or

(b) with a threat in circumstances where, if the threat were carried out, the life of a person (other than the offender or an accomplice of the offender) would be endangered—

is guilty of an indictable offence.

Penalty: Level 4 imprisonment (15 years

maximum).

SECTION 320

Maximum term of imprisonment for certain common law offences

An offence at common law specified in column 1 of the Table is punishable by the maximum term of imprisonment specified opposite it in column 2 of the Table.

 s 320 Misconduct in Public Office” Level 5 penalty [Maximum 10 years]

What Alan Tudge (Minister for Human Services) and Christian Porter (Minister for Social Services) are doing by telling welfare recipients that they have 21 to prove to Centrelink that they are not at fault when ALLEGEDLY overpaid by Centrelink is most probably a violation of all of the above statutes, PLUS the following Commonwealth Criminal Code Act violations:

142.2  Abuse of public office

         (1)  A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if:

                (a)  the official:

                       (i)  exercises any influence that the official has in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or

                      (ii)  engages in any conduct in the exercise of the official’s duties as a Commonwealth public official; or

                     (iii)  uses any information that the official has obtained in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and

               (b)  the official does so with the intention of:

                       (i)  dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or

                      (ii)  dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.

Penalty:          Imprisonment for 5 years.

Division 149—Obstruction of Commonwealth public officials

149.1  Obstruction of Commonwealth public officials

         (1)  A person is guilty of an offence if:

                (a)  the person knows that another person is a public official; and

               (b)  the first‑mentioned person obstructs, hinders, intimidates or resists the official in the performance of the official’s functions; and

                (c)  the official is a Commonwealth public official; and

               (d)  the functions are functions as a Commonwealth public official.

Penalty:          Imprisonment for 2 years.

The denial of civil rights, e.g. Government Ministers and DHS (Centrelink officials) by-passing due process of law and ignoring the constitution and High Court decisions such as Hellicar and Bhardwaj for the purpose of expediting the recovery of ALLEGED overpayments that may not legally be recoverable due to Commonwealth error, as per s. 1,237A of the Social Security Act, is totally inconsistent with the right to a fair hearing.

Section 42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act – Amended 1st July 2016.

How do you match up the “No show, no pay” penalties, e.g. no subsistence payments for up to 8 weeks, with the following ICESCR provisions?

Article 9

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance. 

Article 11

  1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.
  2. The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed:

Article 15

  1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone:

(a) To take part in cultural life;

Then there is the ICC&PR

Article 17

  1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
  2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

The reality of the overall situation for welfare recipients is perhaps best summed up in this statement which summarizes my UNHRC complaint:

“I hope Centrelink’s rules are changed in a hurry.  I’m gob-smacked that people do this to other people – how the hell are people even supposed to even buy food, let alone pay bills, if they take away the pittance that they receive in the first place for a breach? Politicians have been working for too long away from ordinary people and don’t know what it’s like in the real world.”

 “The system stinks and it is totally unjustified and hurts the poorest of all people.”

  1. Arhardidis: Identity/Letters to the Editor Page 26, News Review Messenger 2nd July, 2003

In July 2009, Francis Neale, co-chair of the International Bar Association’s Rule of Law Action Group stated:

“All countries, even those governed by the crudest dictatorship, need or have laws, although they disregard the individual or collective rights of all or parts of the population. Indeed, apartheid was enforced with meticulous attention to form and detail.”

As the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, it is not the legitimate role of the Federal Police to deliberately ignore fraud, intimidation, coercion, blackmail, extortion, fraud, civil enslavement, reckless endangerment, manslaughter, or murder for financial gain. How then do you justify the AFP doing that since its inception 40 years ago? Does the above statement by Francis Neale accurately sum up your personal approach to what has been happening to Australia’s most vulnerable people.

Paragraph 5 of the constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth shall be BINDING on the Courts, judges, and the people. How can that happen when the AFP response to alleged rorting by federal politicians is the unconstitutional human rights violating garbage contained in Federal agent Pearce’s email below?

Tony Abbott reportedly spent $9,400 of taxpayers money to launch his book “Battle Lines”. Bronwyn Bishop reportedly spent $5,200 on a helicopter joyride to Geelong and now we have Sussan Ley allegedly spending a reported $50,000 on 16 trips to the Gold Coast.

MATTERS OF FACT THAT RAISE QUESTIONS OF LAW.

  1. Politicians are subject to the same due process of law as anyone else; it is called “Equality before the law”.
  2. Questions have arisen about Ms. Sussan ley’s 16 trips, at taxpayer’s expense, that raise serious questions of law
  3. Did Ms. Ley ignore her obligations under  s. 4 and s134 or s. 135 of the Commonwealth criminal Code?
  4. In law, what is different, if anything, about the Peter Slipper case and Ms. Ley’s conduct concerning the 16 trips at taxpayers expense to the Gold Coast.

A former Speaker, Peter Slipper, was prosecuted and convicted on three counts of violating s135.1 (5) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act:

“That in the Australian Capital Territory he dishonestly caused a risk of loss to a person, namely the Department of Finance and Deregulation, which is a Commonwealth entity, knowing or believing that there was a substantial risk of the loss occurring.”

  1. 20 January 2010 (CC13/40001);
  2. 12 April 2010  (CC13/40002);
  3. 27 June 2010 (CC13/40003).

In September 2014, at a sentencing hearing in the ACT Magistrates court, the Crown Prosecutor wanted to ‘throw the book’ at Peter Slipper, as this comment reveals; “Peter Slipper committed a fraud and has shown no contrition”. The prosecutor then asked the court to impose a tough sentence.

Even though Peter Slipper was successful in having the conviction quashed on appeal, the fact of matter is that it was a court, as per s. 75 (iii) of the constitution, that determined the legality of Mr. Slipper’s allegedly unlawful conduct.

http://www.maps.finance.gov.au/entitlements_handbooks/ministers-of-state/Ministers_of_State_Entitlements.asp

The above web link provides access to the guideline handbook of Entitlement rules for Government Ministers. PART FOUR: TRAVEL 4.5 Ministerial Charter Entitlement covers the rules that Bronwyn Bishop failed to comply with when chartering aircraft. These rules are not complex, however, a team of Entitlements managers exists who act in the place of the Finance Minister. If they approve travel costs when asked, then any error by a Minister is a ‘Commonwealth error’ and the Minister is not accountable.  HOWEVER, if the Minister avoids asking about the rules, in effect, avoiding the Finance Minister’s approval (by delegation to Entitlements Managers, then the following criminal code provisions, which the High Court endorsed in the Keating Decision (HCA 20 – 8th May 2013), apply to the actions of any politicians who may deliberately avoid consulting with their designated entitlements Manager:

4.1  Physical elements

(1)            A physical element of an offence may be:

                            (a)   conduct; or

                            (b)   a result of conduct; or

                            (c)    a circumstance in which conduct, or a result of conduct, occurs.

(2)            In this Code:

conduct means an act, an omission to perform an act or a state of affairs.

engage in conduct means:

                            (a)   do an act; or

                            (b)   omit to perform an act.

4.2  Voluntariness

(1)            Conduct can only be a physical element if it is voluntary.

                   (2)            Conduct is only voluntary if it is a product of the will of the person whose conduct it is.

                   (3)            The following are examples of conduct that is not voluntary:

                            (a)   a spasm, convulsion or other unwilled bodily movement;

                            (b)   an act performed during sleep or unconsciousness;

                            (c)    an act performed during impaired consciousness depriving the person of the will to act.

                   (4)            An omission to perform an act is only voluntary if the act omitted is one which the person is capable of performing.

                   (5)            If the conduct constituting an offence consists only of a state of affairs, the state of affairs is only voluntary if it is one over which the person is capable of exercising control.

  1. 149.1 deals with obstructing public officials in the performance of their duty. Therefore to repeat the fiascos of 2004 and 2009 and again refuse to investigate Ms. Ley ‘s conduct re the gold Coast trips is to violate that statute; not a good move as it could now destroy your career. Yesterday, Prime Minister Turnbull stated during a press conference that he will set up an “independent inquiry” to look at Ms. Ley’s conduct. However s.5 and s. 75 (iii) of the constitution makes it quite clear that politicians have no legal jurisdiction to conduct criminal inquiries. The lack of jurisdiction by the Parliament underscores the needless futility of an “independent inquiry” that is not conducted by the AFP in accordance with Due Process of Law. The High Court’s Bhardwaj Decision (HCA 1 – 2002) at paragraph 53 further underlines the futility  of any inquiry other than an AFP inquiry:

In our view, logic and legal principle both direct the conclusion that the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada is correct. As already pointed out, a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all. Once that is accepted, it follows that, if the duty of the decision-maker is to make a decision with respect to a person’s rights but, because of jurisdictional error, he or she proceeds to make what is, in law, no decision at all, then, in law, the duty to make a decision remains unperformed. Thus, not only is there no legal impediment under the general law to a decision-maker making such a decision but, as a matter of strict legal principle, he or she is required to do so. And that is so, regardless of s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act.”

THE EVIDENCE ACT: SECTION 139 (2):

The proverbial “nail in the coffin” on any independent inquiry is to found in section 139 (2) of the Commonwealth Evidence act, which states:

(2) For the purposes of paragraph 138(1)(a), evidence of a statement made or an act done by a person during questioning is taken to have been obtained improperly if:

(a) the questioning was conducted by an investigating official who did not have the power to arrest the person; and

  1. b) the statement was made, or the act was done, after the investigating official formed a belief that there was sufficient evidence to establish that the person has committed an offence; and

(c) the investigating official did not, before the statement was made or the act was done, caution the person that the person does not have to say or do anything but that anything the person does say or do may be  used in evidence.

A former highly successful barrister, Malcolm Turnbull would be fully aware of the above provision in the Evidence Act and consequently, would be well aware that an “independent inquiry” would provide valid legal grounds for Ms. Ley to challenge any prosecution on the grounds of denial of civil rights.

Debate of any independent report in the Parliament could mean that any findings fall under the parliamentary privilege rules in s. 13 of the Australian Constitution, i.e. the information could not be used in court. Therefore, Mr. Turnbull’s motives in proposing an independent inquiry that would undermine any chance of a successful prosecution need to be very carefully and impartially investigated. At the very least, Mr. Turnbull needs to warned that he must not take any action that might result in his being prosecuted under s. 149.1 of the Commonwealth criminal Code Act. This is a warning that should be given to all other MPs and Senators in order to preclude deliberate abuse of s. 13 of the constitution.

Hellicar, Bhardwaj, Denlay, and a host of criminal law appeals such as Faure and Boughey underscore the fact that politicians have been acting outside the law for decades and any fatalities caused by abuses of power are homicides. The current furor over Centrelink’s unconstitutional, unlawful, human rights violating attempts to claw back over $4 Billion from 1,100,000 welfare recipients only draws attention to what Commissioners Mick Keelty, Tony Negus, and yourself have studiously avoided, i.e. the unreported, secretly classified, “irrelevant” death toll caused by the brutal persecution of welfare recipients.

The current furore represents the inevitable consequences of the AFP’s systemic failure to uphold the law and protect vulnerable Australians from politicians who have placed ideology and the lust for power ahead of public safety.

In 14.7.3.2 of the Home Insulation Program Report, Commissioner Ian Hanger stated:

14.7.3.2 RISK CANNOT BE ABROGATED    [Emphasis added.]

  • Government must recognize that as much as it might seek to do so, risk cannot be abrogated.
  • The responsibility of Government is to care for its citizens and;
  • To exercise care and diligence to do everything reasonable to ensure that its citizens are not placed in danger by its actions, particularly risk of death and serious injury.
  • 7.3.2.1  The Australian government should not seek to abrogate responsibility for identified risk.

Commissioner Colvin, what is your personal excuse for 40 years of human rights violations that may have resulted in a 100,000 or so officially “irrelevant” fatalities that the AFP has refused to investigate because of the “gravity/sensitivity” of this genocidal crimes against humanity?

How do you explain the dog’s vomit, Dickensian Bleak House drivel in Federal Agent Pearce’s email below? The excuses used to justify not investigating federal politicians are inconsistent with paragraph 5 of the constitute, due process of law, or equality before the law.

This email is a national disgrace, especially since the failure to take action at that time may be a crucial in a disastrous chain of events  that has traumatized hundreds of thousands may have resulted in an extremely significant death toll that is still being concealed from an increasing well-informed, and extremely alarmed, populace that will not tolerate a politically privileged elite being held above and beyond the law by the Federal Police.

The message of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoD0efoHzeA , i.e. the “Centrelink advertisement”, is that Australia is facing a ‘Velvet Revolution’ from technically savvy people who reject elitism, especially elitism that persecutes, defrauds, and even murders, very vulnerable people.

As Marshall McLuhan once stated, “The medium is the message” and the message for elitist politicians, bureaucrats and cops like yourself is simple; Times up!

DO YOUR JOB, SHUT DOWN THE CANBERRA KILLERS CLUB  AND STAMP OUT THE CORRUPTION IN AUSTRALIA’S FERAL FEDERAL PARLIAMENT.

Ronald Medlicott. Australian citizen, genocide survivor, and a Christian lay advocate for justice in Australia.

========================================================From: PEARCE, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.PEARCE@afp.gov.au] On Behalf Of AOCC-Liaison-Ops-Support
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 4:17 PM
To: Ronald Medlicott <ronald48@optusnet.com.au>
Subject: RE: Attn: Commissioner Negus – Request to investigate Perksgate [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Good afternoon Mr Medlicott,

I refer to your correspondence dated 11 September 2009 in respect to ‘Perksgate’.

The AFP Operations Coordination Centre Client Liaison Team assess correspondence from the public taking into account a number of factors including the gravity/sensitivity of the matter, the current investigational workload and whether Commonwealth laws have been breached.  Each case is assessed and a decision is made as to the appropriate response.

The assessment process of your matter included considerations that you are onforwarding information which you have apparently seen in the media and which has been the subject of political debate and inquiry.  As you yourself identify, this matter has been the subject of an Auditor-General report.  Where matters are the subject of an Auditor-General investigation it is not necessary for members of the public to advise the AFP of this; government protocols exist for this purpose.

As per previous advice to you in July 2004, the AFP will not accept matters for investigation on the basis of third hand correspondence of matters in the public domain.

Further correspondence from you will be recorded by the AFP for future reference however no response will be provided.

Yours sincerely,

FEDERAL AGENT JEFF PEARCE
CLIENT LIAISON – OPERATIONS COORDINATION CENTRE
CANBERRA OFFICEwww.afp.gov.au

From: Ronald Medlicott [mailto:ronald48@optusnet.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 11 September 2009 2:15 PM
To: AOCC-Liaison-Ops-Support
Subject: Attn: Commissioner Negus – Request to investigate Perksgate

Ronald Medlicott

40 Siddall Road

Elizabeth Vale SA 5112

Ph: (08) 8255 3638

Mobile: 0438626811

Email: ronald48@optusnet.com.au

==============================================================

Attn: Commissioner Negus,

Congratulations on your new job.

Now’s here’s a case that you can really get your teeth into.

This email and the attached documents constitute a formal request to investigate “Perksgate”.  Perksgate is the name that I use in reference to the recent Auditor-General’s report that 144 federal MPs have, allegedly, rorted millions of dollars in “entitlements” by double-dipping into a taxpayer funded $390 million perk..

The attached file LEG-CON is an undated Parliamentary Privilege Suppression Order that was issued by the Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee late in November 2005. I intend to mount a legal challenge to that gag and that means that the manner in which you deal with this request to investigate Perksgate will be closely scrutinized, possibly by the High Court, to ensure that, this time, the AFP actually complies with Due Process of Law.

The gag related to the AFP’s refusal to investigate both the Trish Draper Travelgate scandal and concerns that the deaths of welfare recipients who died as a direct result of the Howard Government’s illegal use of breaching quotas were criminal offenses. Crown v Josiah Finch – Sa Supreme Court, February 2006, may be a legally binding precedent that in South Australia these deaths are Felony Murders. Whatever the legal status of these deaths, Transparency is paramount. When government policies indiscriminately kill at-risk people, then that is a national interest issue!

The AFP refused to investigate on the grounds of (political) “gravity/sensitivity”. Check Federal Agent Denley’s letter to me, dated 7th July 2004, and you will see why “gravity/sensitivity” is in quotes. In addition the other implied reasons for not investigating were not also neither constitutionally nor legally valid.

The devil is in the detail. The appended letter to you contains a brief overview of what are incredibly complex issues. The other files provide insight into the logic of my thinking. They form the basic outline of how I intend to challenge the Senate’s gag.

My recommendation is not to respond in writing. Any such correspondence may be used when I argue that in July 2004, the AFP failed to comply with its core charter, i.e. protect the Constitution and uphold Federal  Laws in a fair and impartial manner

Finally, a 36 page public discussion paper is to released shortly. Submision 287 was a “concise” summary for the LEG-Con committee. A lot of material is outside the gag and I am using some of that to stimulate public discussion on these “under the carpet” issues.

Yours truly

Ronald Medlicott

Posted in Human Rights violations, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 38 (b): Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. A Dummy’s Guide to understanding Australia’s GENOCIDE LAW, Section 42c of the Social Security (Administration) Act.

Understanding Australia’s GENOCIDE law means looking at the law and the reasons why this law is a recklessly dangerous, criminal violation of civil rights.

[Note: the short link URL for this website is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-I6  ]

genocide-law

Subdivision B—No show no pay failures 42C  No show no pay failures

            (1)  The Secretary may determine that a person commits a no show no pay failure on a day if:                    

(a)  the person commits any of the following failures:

(i)  the person fails to participate, on the day, in an activity that the person is required to undertake by an employment pathway plan that is in force in relation to the person;

(ii)  the person fails to comply, on the day, with a serious failure requirement imposed on the person;

 The primary purpose of this recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional, human rights violating, ‘Do as we say or you may die’ Bill was, and still is, to coercively intimidate very vulnerable people.

  1. It compels victims to undertake an unconstitutional activity, i.e. “civil conscription”, which is a form of ‘coercive servitude’, [Slavery] that is expressly prohibited in paragraph 51 (xxiiiA) of the Australian constitution.

  2. Section 42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act is “Bad Government” for this law deliberately penalizes people who do not ‘comply’ with the unconstitutional ‘obligation’ referred to as ‘Work for the Dole’, with a defacto death sentence, i.e. they are deliberately deprived of what may be their sole financial means to survive.

Not one of the officially “confidential” and “irrelevant” homicides caused by this Genocide law has ever been included in public accountability reports.

failure-rates

Note the “Reasons for Failure” column – the determine of whether or not these ALLEGED “failures” were legally valid and justified any penalty being imposed, has always been a matter for the courts as per ASIC v Hellicar at paragraph 143. (See last posting for details.)

The ‘No show, No pay’ penalties violate Article 1.2 of both the International Convention on Civil & Political Rights, and the International Convention on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights. The 2 articles are identical and prohib the targeting of a societal group, e.g. welfare recipients, and the imposition of any measure that deprives members of this group of their sole means of subsistence. Deliberately depriving people of their sole means of subsistence is a crime against humanity.

THE ROME STATUTE: Article 6 – Genocide [For ‘group’, read ‘welfare recipients’.]

For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a)     Killing members of the group;

(b)     Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c)     Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

THE ROME STATUTE:  Provisions in Article 7 that may apply to the ‘No show, no pay’ breaching penalties include the following: [It is for a court to decide which provisions of the following violations apply.]

Article 7 – Crimes against humanity

  1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a)     Murder;

(b)     Extermination;

(c)     Enslavement;

 (e)     Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f)     Torture;

 (h)    Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

 (k)     Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. [The great ‘catch-all’.]

THE DENLAY DECISION

You do not have to look at international laws and conventions to find statute laws or case law decisions that  make it quite clear that violating of human rights is not acceptable. The Denlay Decision in the Queensland Court of Appeal in 2010 is an excellent case law example that demonstrates that the ‘No show, no pay’ law is not legally valid.

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v. Denlay & Anor [2010] QCA 217 (20 August 2010)

Primary Facts of the Matter: The Commissioner of Taxation commenced enforcement proceedings against taxpayers, [Denlay], for the payment of assessments. The taxpayers sought an order from the court to stay the proceedings as they would be forced into liquidation. The Court ordered the stay of proceedings as there was relevant evidence, which should have been considered by the Commissioner, indicating that they would suffer hardship in having the judgement enforced.

The Court stated at paragraph 50: This leads to the appellant’s third point, that the loss of their property and consequent inability to prosecute their appeals does not constitute extreme personal hardship. The point may be answered shortly. It is preposterous to contend that the loss of the respondents’ entire estate, and with it any chance of demonstrating that the basis for the assessments was wrong so that they should not have lost their property, could not be a hardship rightly called extreme. It is not easy to imagine a greater hardship in this context. Certainly the primary judge cannot be criticised for so regarding it.’

The ‘No show, no pay’ penalties deprive IMPOVERISHED PEOPLE of the ability to subsist for a period of up to 2 months, down from 3-months and less than the 6-months that some members of the Liberal-National coalition wanted to see introduced, e.g. Tony Abbott and Kevin Andrews.

[NOTE: Both politicians have law degrees and therefore ‘ought to know’ that when you deprive impoverished people of the ability to subsist, some will cease to exist!]

The Denlay decision was made on 20th August 2010, and yet Royal Assent was given to the latest version of the unconstitutional, human rights violating ‘No show, no pay’ Bill on 1st July 2016.

How does any federal politician, especially those with law degrees, e.g. Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten, explain that discrepancy?

The answer is to found in this letter from Federal Agent Louise Denley, i.e. politicians have a ‘resonable belief’ that they are beyond accountability before the law

7-07-2004-denley-page-1

7-07-2004-denley-page-2

Politicians also believe that the deaths of welfare recipients are “irrelevant”.

ewre-submission

The Senate’s response to a detailed submission concerning the lethal harm caused by “Breaching” penalties, aka ‘No show, no pay’ penalties, was this  disgraceful “irrelevant” response:

 

ewre-irrelevant

 

Despite what Secretary John Carter and the EWRE Committee senators may have believed, there is no such thing as an “irrelevant” murder

The on-going defrauding of welfare recipients at rates of up to 73,000 people in one hit, i.e. New Year’s day 2016, and the current reported rip-off rate of up to 20,000 people per day has to stop. However, the power of life and death is the ultimate addiction, and Australia’s federal politicians, and the Posen Minded public servants who do their bidding, will not stop until they are forced to stop.

When a supposedly civilized nation spends decades repeatedly ‘strengthening’ a human-rights-violating, genocidal law that can indiscriminately kill vulnerable people by deliberately depriving them of their sole means of subsistence, shouldn’t all civilized nations and all people of good-will unite and raise a voice of protest?

If you want this criminal abuse of power to stop, you must take action to stop it.

hc_al_hussein_large

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein.

You can file a Genocide/Crimes against Humanity complaint with the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein. To do this, send an email to InfoDesk@ohchr.org and state that you wish to add your support for the complaints lodged by another Australian citizen, Ronald Medlicott, aka me.

Ronald Medlicott – Australian citizen, genocide survivor and a Christian volunteer lay advocate for justice in Australia.

Posted in Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment