COVID-19. The Real Truth: ATTENTION HELL TOWERS RESIDENTS – WANT HELP? HERE IS YOUR SURVIVAL LIFELINE.

The “Hell Towers” lockdown is a massive violation of civil rights, an illegal abuse of public office that starts with the not so minor detail that these residential accomodation blocks are NOT CERTIFIED LEVEL 4 BIO-HAZARD CONTAINMENT & TREATMENT FACILITIES.

Rge short link to this posting is: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1xg

I repeat, these residential accomodation blocks are NOT CERTIFIED LEVEL 4 BIO-HAZARD CONTAINMENT & TREATMENT FACILITIES.

This not so minor detail also explains the anything but minor detail that the Victorian Government, taking a leaf out of the fraudulent ROBODEBT playbook, skipped the legal obligation to obtain 3,000 court orders to detain these people in a life-threatening situation.

NOTE: NO COURT WOULD EVER ISSUE SUCH A DEADLY ORDER.

ALSO NOTE: NO COURT ORDER MEANS  NO LEGAL RIGHT OF DETENTION.

COVID-19 is a CATEGORY A disease and legally, the Victorian Government, like every other government in Australia, has no legal right to force healthy people to cohabiate with COVID-19 infected people.

[Yes – all of fines issues to people who did not want to share COVID-19 with their families are not legally valid; they violate the Commonwealth’s Reckless Conduct provisions in the federal Work Health & Safety Act.] 

Infected people should be relocated to a certified Level 4 containment & treatment facility. This enforced quarantine is no more mor legal than the now discredited ROBODEBT fraud.

Clearly the Victorian Government has learnt absolutely nothing from either the on-going Prygodicz class action or the Brett Cattle class action decision on the 2nd June. Every person illegally detained in the “Hell Towers” should pay very close attention to the ruling of Justice Rares at paragraphs 48 and 49 of the Brett Cattle decision. Brett Catttle com pany Pty Ltd v Minister for Agriculture [FCA 732. 2nd June 2020].

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCA/2020/732.html

Justice Rares stated:

[At 48] When he made the Ban Order, the Minister knew that:
• it would prohibit any exports to Indonesia without any exception in an industry that in 2010 had exported over 500,000 live cattle worth about $400 million;
• the industry representatives had told him that there were supply chains in Indonesia that had, or readily could be, adjusted to have a closed loop system with animal welfare standards that were at least compliant with the OIE Code;
• he had made no attempt to explore agreeing an appropriate solution with the Indonesian Government and that an order prohibiting all exports there would cause that Government concern;
• he had no Departmental advice to make an order in a form that affected only exports to Indonesia;
• he had no legal advice that he could make lawfully the, or any, order in such a form; and
• there was a real risk that, if he made the order in the form he adopted, it might be invalid.

[At 49] Yet, with that knowledge the Minister plunged ahead regardless. He made the Ban Order shutting his eyes to the risk that it might be invalid and to the damage that it was calculated to cause persons in the position of Brett Cattle.

These statements by Justice Rares are ‘Superior Court Rulings’ that could be used by the victims of the Victorian Government’s “Hell Towers” abuses of power if they seek a Magistrate’s Court injunction to have the recklessly dangerous, highly illegal quarantine order lifted.

The statement at paragraph 49 may prove to be a particularly relevant citatation that is applicable to the Victorian Premier who, when he announced the quarantine order on television, failed to produce a court order that legally validated what may have been a criminally negligent arbitrary and unlawful ‘executive’ decision.

Victims of this high-handed abuse of public office should demand a copy of any legal advice by the Victorian Solicitor-General in regard to the legality of forcing people to cohabitate with people who have been exposed to, or are infected with, COVID-19.

I REPEAT: NO COURT ORDER = NO LEGAL RIGHT OF DETENTION

Every person currently illegally detained should phone Victoria Legal Aid and demand a court order lifting the quarantine order as it is a clear violation of the RECKLESS CONDUCT statute in Section 31 of the Commonwealth Work Health & Safety Act (2011). This can be downlaoded from this URL:

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018C00293/Download

Section 31, which is binding on the Victorian Government, which includes the Victorian Police states:

30 Health and safety duty
In this Division, health and safety duty means a duty imposed under Division 2, 3 or 4 of this Part.

31 Reckless conduct—Category 1
(1) A person commits a Category 1 offence if:
(a) the person has a health and safety duty; and
(b) the person, without reasonable excuse, engages in conduct that exposes an individual to whom that duty is owed to a risk of death or serious injury or illness; and
(c) the person is reckless as to the risk to an individual of death or serious injury or illness.
Penalty:
(a) In the case of an offence committed by an individual (other than as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking)—$300, 000 or 5 years imprisonment or both.
(b) In the case of an offence committed by an individual as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking—$600, 000 or 5 years imprisonment or both.
(c) In the case of an offence committed by a body corporate—$3, 000, 000.

2) The prosecution bears the burden of proving that the conduct was engaged in without reasonable excuse.
32 Failure to comply with health and safety duty.

IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO EXPOSE PEOPLE TO THIS:

6-7-20 541078 deaths

Any additions to this death toll that were caused by the potentially lethal quarantine order means that these deaths would be murders under sections 268.8 and 474.32 of the Commonwealth crimianl Code Act (1995).

474.32 Abhorrent violent conduct
(1) For the purposes of this Subdivision, a person engages in abhorrent violent conduct if the person:
(a) engages in a terrorist act; or
(b) murders another person; or
(c) attempts to murder another person; or
(d) tortures another person; or
(e) rapes another person; or
(f) kidnaps another person.

Murder
(2) For the purposes of this section, a person (the first person) murders another person if:
(a) the first person’s conduct causes the death of the other person; and
(b) the conduct constitutes an offence.

Torture
(3) For the purposes of this section, a person (the first person) tortures another person if:
(a) the first person inflicts severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon the other person; and
(b) the other person is in the custody, or under the control, of the first person; and
(c) the pain or suffering does not arise only from, and is not inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (a copy of the English text of which is set out in Schedule 2 to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986).

TAKE NOTE: It not a “lawful sanction” to deliberately expose people to a lethal disease that has killed 541,062 people in just 125 days.

It  is also not a “lawful sanction” to use armed Vicrorian Police Officers as a para-military blocking force, as this is the misuse of police powers to aid in the commission of a crime, unlawful detention and the reckless endangerment of life.

Above and beyond that, instead of holding up appeals for HELP in the windows of appartments, residents should phone the Victorian ‘INDEPENDENT BROAD BASED ANTI CORRUPTION COMMISSION’ (the IBAC)

I REPEAT: the lockdown of 3,000 citizens in facilities that are not CERTIFIED LEVEL 4 BIO-HAZARD CONTAINMENT & TREATMENT FACILITIES, is a potentially lethal criminal abuse of power and anyone trapped in these building has the right to file a complaint.

Any reader of this posting who knows someone in one of the lockdown towers should contact them and have them read this posting.

The legal reality is that every one of the 3,000 victims of this criminal abuse of power is a victim of blatant civil rights abuses that includes the violation of federal statute laws. and therefore 3,000 people can, and should,  file complaints with the IBAC and also with the Australian Human Rights Commission.

With 541,079  people dead from COVID-19,  to say that the Victorian Government have put these people in DEADLY PERIL is a gross understatement.

REMEMBER:

THESE BUILDINGS ARE NOT CERTIFIED LEVEL 4 BIO-HAZARD CONTAINMENT & TREATMENT FACILITIES 

THEREFORE:

NO COURT ORDER MEANS NO LEGAL RIGHT OF DETENTION.

Ronald Medlicott.

Semi-retired teacher and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.

Posted in abuse of power, burden of proof, Case law, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

COVID 19. The Real Truth. As Australia returns to ‘normal’, the probability of a politically driven 2nd Wave that may kill thousands becomes more likely.

TAKE NOTE: ‘COVID SAFE’ IS A POLITICAL “NON-CORE PROMISE”.

Around the world, where governments have caved into pressure from industry and commerce, the probability of a massive 2nd Wave only gets worse.

The short link to this posting is: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1wW

Here are 3 impartial views on the COVID-19

CASE STUDY #1:2nd wave warning

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/second-wave-covid-19-1.5570905

Now’s no time to become complacent about COVID-19, experts warn

It may seem like things are returning to normal as the unprecedented rules and restrictions that have governed our lives over the past two months are slowly being loosened.

This week, some retailers in Ontario reopened their doors. Golfers and tennis players hit the links and the courts. And even if you can’t get a haircut yourself, your dog can now go in for a trim. In Quebec, police checkpoints have disappeared from bridges and elementary students are back in school.

But epidemiologists are warning it’s still too early to let our guard down as they look ahead to the inevitable second wave of COVID-19 and the surge of sickness and death it could bring.

“Until we get the vaccine, I don’t think we can really avoid the second wave,” said Rama Nair, an expert in epidemiology with 40 years’ experience as a teacher and researcher at the University of Ottawa.
No herd immunity

Nair believes returning too quickly to our pre-COVID-19 lives, when we hugged friends and went hours without washing our hands, could undo the gains we’ve made in containing the novel coronavirus.

“It’s not just going to disappear,” Nair said. “We haven’t reached anywhere near the herd immunity that we require to avoid a second wave.”

CASE STUDY #2:

The Oxford university COVID-19 Government Response Tracker

In Australia, the easing to “STAGE 3′ restrictions may have a deadly cost.

Stringency index

https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/coronavirus-government-response-tracker

Stringency and policy indices

OxCGRT collects publicly available information on 17 indicators of government responses. Eight of the policy indicators (C1-C8) record information on containment and closure policies, such as school closures and restrictions in movement. Four of the indicators (E1-E4) record economic policies, such as income support to citizens or provision of foreign aid. Five of the indicators (H1-H5) record health system policies such as the COVID-19 testing regime or emergency investments into healthcare.

The data from the 17 indicators is aggregated into a set of four common indices, reporting a number between 1 and 100 to reflect the level of government action on the topics in question: an overall government response index (which records how the response of governments has varied over all indicators in the database, becoming stronger or weaker over the course of the outbreak);

[1] a containment and health index (which combines ‘lockdown’ restrictions and closures with measures such as testing policy and contact tracing, short term investment in healthcare, as well investments in vaccine)

[2] an economic support index (which records measures such as income support and debt relief)
as well as the original stringency index (which records the strictness of ‘lockdown style’ policies that primarily restrict people’s behaviour).

[3] Note that these indices simply record the number and strictness of government policies, and should not be interpreted as ‘scoring’ the appropriateness or effectiveness of a country’s response. A higher position in an index does not necessarily mean that a country’s response is ‘better’ than others lower on the index.

 

CASE STUDY #3:  VICTORIA

Is this an example of what happened when ‘Big Business (and ‘Little Business’) tell politicians how to run the COVID-19 Pandemic?

Outbreak soars 2

https://www.warwickdailynews.com.au/news/family-party-sparks-melbourne-cluster/4043992/?utm_campaign=%5B%27alert%27%5D&utm_medium=%5B%27email%27%5D&utm_source=%5B%27Warwick+Daily+News%27%5D

Victoria has recorded 33 new coronavirus cases – marking the state’s ninth consecutive day of double digit increases – and another death.

Seven of those are in hotel quarantine, nine are from known outbreaks, six are from routine testing and 11 are still under investigation.

Premier Dan Andrews said numbers will continue to increase in the coming days as authorities test “entire suburbs” – listing ten suburbs that will be “blitzed”

“We will see these numbers go up in coming days,” he said. “That will be a measure of the work that we’re doing, a measure of the success of this strategy.

Those suburbs are Keilor Downs, Broadmeadows, Maidstone, Sunshine West, Albanvale, Hallam, Brunswick West, Reservoir, Pakenham, Fawkner.

More than 1000 ADF troops are being sent to Victoria to help with hotel quarantine and provide logistical support for testing.

COVID-19 POLITICAL MYTHS THAT CAN KILL YOU:

[1] “The Bubble”

-There is no scientific evidence to support this deadly COVID-19 spreading myth.

[2] “STAY COVID SAFE”

No matter how many times you see or hear about “COVID-19 SAFE” workplaces or shops, or how effective  ‘STAY COVID-SAFE”  personal protection measures are, there is no such thing as ‘COVID SAFE.’

(a) NO VACCINE;

(B) NO PROVEN TREATMENT

(C) SWALLOW COVID-19 CONTAMINATED FOOD AND IT CAN ‘HIDE’  IN A PERSON’S INTESTINES, i.e. in the GUTS, FOR MONTHS.

(D) NO ‘EXPERT’ REALLY KNOWS JUST HOW LONG COVID-19  CAN SURVIVE IN THE HUMAN BODY.

(E) NEARLY HALF OF VICTIMS ARE STILL ILL.

(F) SOME PEOPLE WHO WERE EXPOSED IN MARCH ARE STILL IN HOSPITAL.

29 June deaths

NOTE: JUST 3 DAYS AGO:

26-6-20 Deaths

549,839 more cases in 3 days.

12,890 more dead in 3 days.

 

To survive COVID-19 know the real truth, not the politically motivated hype in the mass media.

Ronald Medlicott Christian volunteer lay advocate

Posted in covid 19, genocide, Human Rights violations, Uncategorized, White Collar Crime | Tagged , | Leave a comment

COVID-19. The Real Truth: Yesterday the Morrison Government did not disclose the Robodebt death toll and today COVID-19 is on the rise again.

If the Morrison Government had been truthful, yesterday afternoon the known death toll linked to the highly illegal Robodebt ‘initiative’ would have been made known in a Federal Court hearing.

The short link URL for this posting is: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1ww

Today, 100,000 Victorian face COVID-19 testing and Sydney residents face the same problem. As I said yesterday, political advertising that touts the COVID-19 SAFE message is a potential killer.

Victoria outbreak

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8457809/Victoria-reports-33-coronavirus-cases-overnight.html

The COVID-19 situation is also getting worse in New South Wales.

Sydney outbreak

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8457793/Another-person-dies-coronavirus-SYDNEY.html

HERE’S HOW TO REALLY HELP PEOPLE?

TELL PEOPLE THE TRUTH

 

[1] The is NO VACCINE for COVID-19.

[2] In the desperate rush to develop a vaccine, the normal safety process of a 10-YEAR TESTING PROGRAM is being skipped., which means an unintended consequence is unintended side effects, e.g. zero resistance to the next COVID outbreak.

[3] NO CURE – ONLY TREATMENT TO STOP ORGANS FROM FAILING.

25-6-20 death toll

[4] Yesterday, there were 484,972 deaths from COVID-19.

26-6-20 Deaths

[5] Today, there are 491,723 deaths from COVID-19, i.e. 6,751 people died since my post yesterday.

[6] Yesterday there were 9,527,124 known COVID-19 cases, but today there are 9,708,312, an increase of 181,188 in just one day.

BEWARE OF THE OFFICIAL ‘ADVICE THAT CAN KILL YOU OR YOUR CHILDREN.

COVID SAFE FALACY

https://www.health.gov.au/news/australian-health-protection-principal-committee-ahppc-advice-on-reducing-the-potential-risk-of-covid-19-transmission-in-schools

The following information was posted on Ronald’s space on the 29th May, i.e. 4 weeks ago.

Just like the NHS, Australian politicians had been so tight-fisted with hospital funding that there were insufficient face masks and other Personal Protective Equipment [PPE] that in order to ensure that face masks could be kept for doctors and nurses, people were told that they did not need masks or gloves.

THAT ADVICE WAS FALSE.

Check out the link below and read the full text of this Harvard/MIT posting – it could possibly save your life.

https://www.broadinstitute.org/news/researchers-identify-cells-likely-targeted-covid-19-virus

Researchers at MIT; the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT, and Harvard; and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard; along with colleagues from around the world have identified specific types of cells that appear to be targets of the coronavirus that is causing the COVID-19 pandemic…

They found subsets of cells in the lung, the nasal passages, and the intestine that express RNA for both of these proteins much more than other cells.

The most effective way to prevent being infected with COVID-19 is SIMPLE:

COVER YOUR MOUTH AND NOSE WITH A HEPA GRADE FACE MASK.

 

HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU SEEN THAT ADVICE ON THE TV?

HOW OFTEN HAVE YOU SEEN THE CURRENT HEALTH WORKER DEATH TOLL BEING REVEALED ON THE TV?

Lost on the front line

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/17/covid-19-coronavirus-healthcare-workers-deaths

Ronald’s space – 28th April

2 months ago, I published this following information about the fact that almost 4 out of 5 people with COVID-19 may not show symptoms of the disease.

Coronavirus: BMJ study suggests 78% don’t show symptoms – here’s what that could mean

The findings are in line with research from an Italian village at the epicentre of the outbreak showing that 50%-75% were asymptomatic, but represented “a formidable source” of contagion. A recent Icelandic study also showed that around 50% of those who tested positive to COVID-19 in a large-scale testing exercise were asymptomatic.

Meanwhile, a WHO report found that:

“80% of infections are mild or asymptomatic,

15% are severe infections

and 5% are critical infections”.

Though we don’t know what proportion of that 80% were purely asymptomatic, or exactly how the cases were counted, it again points to a large majority of cases who are not going into hospital and being tested.

The new BMJ study is seemingly different to the findings of studies from earlier in the pandemic, which suggested that the completely asymptomatic proportion of COVID-19 is small: 17.9% on the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship and 33.3% in Japanese people who were evacuated from Wuhan.

https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-bmj-study-suggests-78-dont-show-symptoms-heres-what-that-could-mean-135732

Cona McKenna was reportedly tested 6 times before being found to be infected.

James Stewart

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-23/2-essendon-players-isolation-conor-mckenna-coronavirus-positive/12383120

4 BASIC COVID-19 SURVIVAL PRINCIPLES.

Early rushed studies into the COVID-19 pandemic got it  wrong.

With the 20-20 vision of hindsight, the only thing that appears to be accurate is the 5% death rate, i.e. 1 person in 20 who gets COVID-19 dies, therefore you should:

[1] WEAR A FACE MASK WHEN USING PUBLIC TRANSPORT  OR IN A CROWDED SPACE SUCH AS A PUB OR CAFE.

[2] KNOW THE REAL FACTS ABOUT THE DANGERS TO YOUR LIFE.

[3] DO NOT TRUST WHAT POLITICIANS WHO REFUSE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE 2,000+ ROBODEBT FRAUD DRIVEN FATALITIES NOW TELL YOU.

[4] CHECK OUT EVERYTHING THAT I TELL YOU BECAUSE I COULD BE WRONG

Ronald Medlicott. Christian volunteer lay-advocate and semi-retired teacher.

 

 

 

 

 

 

w

 

 

23

Posted in abuse of power, burden of proof, covid 19, genocide, Human Rights violations, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

COVID-19. The Real Truth: There is no such thing as “COVID-19 SAFE”. At 4.00 PM today the people responsible for that lie are supposed to reveal to a National Judical Registrar of the Federal Court Registar, the undisclosed details about the Robodebt death toll.

Have you seen the TV adverts promoting the completely false belief that you can be COVID-19 SAFE”? Interestingly, at 4.00 PM today the people responsible for that lie are supposed to reveal to a National Judical Registrar of the Federal Court the undisclosed Robodebt death toll.

NOTE: The short link URL to this posting is: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1w6

Since Scott Morrison and his ruthless band of theives probably do not want to spend the rest of their lives in jail, I believe that it is a sure bet that the death toll from the Robodebt fraud will NOT be revealed to the judge, Justice Murphy. 

FIRST THINGS FIRST – THOSE VERY MISLEADING COVID-19 Safe ADVERTS.

The COVID-19 SCORECARD – 22nd May

22-05-20 334072 deaths

TODAY – 25TH JUNE  2020, 03:10 GMT

25-6-20 death toll

Since the 22nd May, i.e. 33 days ago:

  1. 4.662,054 more people have been infected with COVID-19, and

  2. 150,900 more people have died.

     

If you genuinely believe that COVID-19 is just a mass media con job, or genuinely that you are “COVID-19 SAFE” when you are outside of a Level 4 Bio-Hazard Containment Facility, or that a 2nd ‘wave’ wont affect you, just keep on deceiving yourself until you add yourself to one of the COVID-19 statistics.

Check out the video below and take careful note of the Personal Protective Equipment that is being worn by the experts in bio-hazard protection.

PART: ROBODEBT – SOME HARD TRUTHS

Triple JJJ

Between the 1st July 206 and the 31st October 2018, the now known to be illegal Robodebt ‘initiative’ may have resulted in 2,030 murders, i.e. a death on an average basis of once every 10 hours. 

The Morrison Government’s solution to this massacre of welfare recipients was to keep on running this randomly lethal fraud.

On the 18th October 2019, when Scott Morrison was questioned by Channel 7 Sunrise presenter, David Koch, Scott Morrison made the following “forward leaning” statement:

Well, we want to make that process better, but I think the extent of this has been overstated by the Labour Party for obvious reasons. Umm.

And they used to run the same processes themselves, they just weren’t as, weren’t as forward leaning on ensuring that taxpayer’s money, when it was handed out in welfare and things like this, er, umm, was recovered where it should be.

But the best way to avoid it is making sure that people are always updating their income details through the proper processes.”

The problem with that is that the “proper processes” that Scott Morrison spoke about just happen to involve referring ALLEGED overpayment claims to the Courts. The problem with that is that the Courts are bound by  the 6-Week Statute of Limitations on Centrelink overpayment errors Note that in the information below, there is no mention of these facts in the misleading information below.

Call Lifeline

INCREDIBLE: Even as I was preparing this posting, the Morrison Government is still lying about how ALLEGED DEBTS should be recovered, despite admitting that it had acted illegally with Robodebt!

721 million rip off

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/29/robodebt-government-to-repay-470000-unlawful-centrelink-debts-worth-721m

EVEN MORE INCREDIBLE:

Exactly 1-year after the 2,030 Robodebt linked deaths were exposed by Triple J Hack,  lawyers acting for the Morrison Government told the Federal Court that the government had no duty of care to welfare recipients and therefore could not be held accountable for the harms caused by the Robodebt ‘initiative’.

No duty of care

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/feb/18/coalition-says-it-has-no-duty-of-care-for-welfare-recipients-over-robodebt

NO LEGAL LIABILITY!

The basic fact of the matter is that under a Liberal-National coalition government, some 470,000 people were the target of a criminal abuse of power [ROBODEBT] that defrauded these people of $721 million AND may have resulted in the murders of over 2,000 very vulnerable people.

This is the very same government that is now falsely claiming that you can safely go back to work in your (supposedly) COVID-19 safe place of employment.

THE BRANDIS CONFESSION.

The following statement by Senator George Brandis on the 20th February 2017 should have had every police commissioner in the nation ordering a major crime investigation into Robodebt:

  • Now, this system involves a review of potentially millions of transfer payments,

  • so of course there will be mistakes made,

  • and I agree with what Piers Ackermann said,

  • that when mistakes are made and they have terrible human consequences,

  • then of course that’s a tragedy.

  • But we do have to have appropriate compliance measures

  • and the idea of data matching,

  • introduced by Hawke,

  • and the idea of automated letters being sent to people when there is a discrepancy evident from the data-matching between the ATO data and the Centrelink data;

  • it was introduced by you,

  • is not a bad system.

  • “The methodology that has been used by this government is the same methodology that we inherited from you.

These statements about the now discredited “data matching” scam reveal why the Labor Party has never made any effort to question the massive Robodebt triggered death toll.

Just as the Robodebt data matching is  illegal, so also are the Robodebt triggered deaths that have been occurring  for the last 30-years”, 

MURDER – BENCH NOTES OF THE  VICTORIA COLLEGE OF JUSTICE

READERS TAKE NOTE: .

The benchnotes issued by the Judicial College of Victoria provide guidance to the Victorian judiciary as to what constitutes the crime of Murder. If they are guide used by judges, then they should be a good guide for ordinary people like you and I?

7.2.1 – Intentional or Reckless Murder 7.2.1.1 – Bench Notes
1 Forms of Murder

1. There are three ways in which murder can be committed:

(i) The accused can cause the victim’s death while intending to kill or cause really serious injury, or being reckless as to that result;

(ii) The accused can unintentionally cause the victim’s death in the course or furtherance of certain violent crimes; and

(iii) The accused can unintentionally cause the victim’s death in order to escape arrest.

2. These notes address the first category of murder outlined above.

See Constructive Murder: Bench Notes for information concerning the second and third categories. Overview of Elements

3. Murder is a crime at common law. It has the following four elements, each of which the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt:

i) The accused committed acts which caused the victim’s death;

ii) The accused committed those acts voluntarily;
iii) The accused committed those acts while:

i) intending to kill someone or cause them really serious injury; or

ii) [if reckless murder has been left to the jury] knowing that it was probable that death or really serious injury would result.

iv) The accused did not have a lawful justification or excuse for those acts (such as self-defence, provocation, duress or sudden or extraordinary emergency).

4. Each of these elements is addressed in turn below. Acts which Caused the Victim’s Death

5. The first element that the prosecution must prove is that the accused committed acts which caused the victim’s death. There are three aspects to this element:
i) The accused must have committed the relevant acts;
ii) Those acts must have caused someone to die; and
iii) The victim must have been a human being.

Accused must have Committed the Relevant Acts.
For the accused to be found guilty of murder, the prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that s/he committed the act or acts which are alleged to have caused the victim’s death.

7. In most cases it will be clear which act or acts were the cause of death, and so little time will need to be spent addressing this issue (other than directing the jury that before they can convict the accused, they must be satisfied that s/he committed the relevant act or acts) (Ryan v R (1967) 121 CLR 205).

MY COMMENT: There is a tsunami of evidence that the Federal Government has been defrauding and randomly killing welfare recipients for decades, ably aided and abetted by Federal, State and Territory police commissioners who have failed to acknowledge the reality of these State-sanctioned crimes and to take the appropriate steps to halt the commission of these crimes.

Policeman

WHY  WASTE TIME CALLING THE COPS?

ANSWER: Because you will have vital information, i.e. a police complaint number that can be presented in court if you join the next (inevitable) Robodebt class action.  

MY LATEST RESPONSE TO ROBODEBT:

Below is the text of an email that I am about to sent to the Secretary of the Senate Standing Commitee for Community Affairs. It is posted now so as to avoid being hit with a 4th Parliamentary Privilege Suppression order.

Please read the text of the email very carefully, and if you agree with what I have written, send your own mail and express your own views about this systemic criminal activity:

community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

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

The Secretary
Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
Via email: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au

Dear Secretary,

Re: An FYI communication concerning legal accountability for Australia’s “Appropriate Compliance Measures holocaust”.

As you are no doubt fully aware, on the 27th November 2019, Justice Jennifer Davies ruled in Amato v. Commonwealth that the so-called “Online Compliance Initiative”, colloquially referred to as ‘Robodebt’, was “not lawful”. However, having made that decision, Justice davies then failed to take the next step as is required under Section 5 of the Constitution, i.e. she failed to refer this unlawful activity to the police for investigation of systemic abuses of public office that violate numerous provisions of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), e.g. the Dishonesty, Collusion and Conspiracy provisions in Section 11 of the Act, the Detriment caused by abuse of public office provisions under Section 142.2 of this criminal code and the deaths caused by this systemic criminal activity. Consistent with the High Court’s 20* rulings in the 1986 Boughey appeal, Justice Davies, like every member of the Federal Parliament, “ought to have known” that all deaths triggered by Robodebt (Mark 2) were murders under Sections 268.8 and 474.32 of the criminal code and that collectively, these deaths constitute the crime of Genocide under Section 268.3 of the criminal code. Knowing this, Justice Davies should have requested that the Federal Police investigate to assert the scale of the death toll caused by the unlawful Robodebt ‘initiative’.

It is possible that Justice Davies, unaware of the 7th July 2004 refusal of the Federal Police, wrongly assumed that her decision would automatically trigger a police investigation into Robodebt and its murderously lethal consequences.

Another issue that I suspect that Justice Davies was unaware of was the fact that 8-months before her Amato Decision, on the 27th March 2019, I filed a Genocide & Crimes against Humanity complaint with the International Criminal Court. In making my complaint, I recommended that ICC investigators monitor the proceedings of the Australian Parliament, the Australian mass media, and the Victoria legal Aid case before the Federal Court, i.e. Masterson v. Commonwealth (VID73/2019). On the 30th April 2019, Mr. Mark Dillion, notified me in writing of the acceptance of my complaint, although, at that time no commitment was made as to how the ICC would handle my complaint. As you may be aware, in October 2019, a United Nations draft document, A74/48037, which was Item 72(b) on the Agenda of the 74th Session was tabled in the General Assembly. This document, which was titled “Report of the Special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights”, in the 23rd paragraph described Robodebt as a “fiasco”.
With a mind-bogglingly unbelievable 2,030 fatalities linked to Robodebt in the 753 day period 1st July 2016 to 31st October 2018, and the subsequent Robodebt triggered murder by suicide of 22-year-old Jarrad Madgwick on the May 30th 2019, the word “fiasco” is appropriate, although the word “Genocide” is even more appropriate.

The description of Robodebt as a “fiasco” is just one of many reasons why the ICC may be forced to investigate what I term the “Appropriate Compliance Measures holocaust”.
On the 19th November, 2019, Jonathon Todd, General Counsel for the Australian Taxation Office, sent an email to the ATO Commissioner in which he expressed the legal opinion that Robodebt was not lawful. The next day, the Progodicz class action against Robodebt was filed in the Federal Court, i.e. VID1252/2019.

As mentioned previously, on the 27th November 2019, Justice Davies ruled in Amato that data matching claims were not lawful, decision that echoed Professor Terry Carney’s strongly expressed legal opinion his March 8th 2017 Administrative Appeals Tribunal determination in AAT Review 2016/S104681.

On March 6th 2020, in a hearing of the Prygodicz class action, Justice Murphy issues several directives. Paragraph 5 of these directives stated:

“By 4.00 pm on 25 May 2020, the parties are to meet and confer in the presence of a National Judicial Registrar to endeavour to agree on what, if any further tranches of discovery of documents are required in the proceedings which, having regard to the pleadings filed by the parties, are likely to be directly relevant to the proceeding, and are able to be produced readily and relatively inexpensively by the parties.”

Robodebt triggered deaths are unlawful homicides under Commonwealth, State, Territory AND international laws, e.g. in South Australia all Robodebt triggered suicides are murders under Section 13A(7) of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935), whilst the May 30th 2019 Robodebt triggered suicide of Jarrad Madgwick is almost certainly murder under Section 302(4) of the Queensland Crimes Act (19199). Therefore, the Commonwealth has compelling constitutional and legal obligations to disclose the known death toll caused by the Robodebt (Mark 2) ‘initiative’. I say “known death toll” for the following reasons:

[A] On the 18th May 2010, Assistant Secretary Neil Skilled stated in Centrelink communication C10/18666 that the statistics on post-breaching fatalities were not collected and therefore this information could not be provided.
[B] Exactly 7-years later, on 18th May 2017, Secretary Kathryn Campbell made the following statement, which is recorded on page 48 of Hansard Minutes for the Community Affairs Reference Committee hearing held on that date:

“It is quite difficult if we are not informed that a person has died. We work very diligently with state and territory governments to ensure that we are capturing information about deaths. But, sadly, there are so many recipients in the systems it is the case that sometimes we are writing to people who are no longer alive.”

Both Neil Skill’s written statements and Kathryn campbell’s above statement should be considered in the context of the previously-mentioned High Court Boughey appeal and in the context of this provision from Section 14.1 of the South Australian criminal code:

Division 1A—Criminal neglect 14—Criminal liability for neglect where death or serious harm results from unlawful act
(1) A person (the defendant) is guilty of the offence of criminal neglect if—
(a) a child or a vulnerable adult (the victim) dies or suffers serious harm as a result of an unlawful act; and
(b) the defendant had, at the time of the act, a duty of care to the victim; and
(c) the defendant was, or ought to have been, aware that there was an appreciable risk that serious harm would be caused to the victim by the unlawful act; and
(d) the defendant failed to take steps that he or she could reasonably be expected to have taken in the circumstances to protect the victim from harm and the defendant’s failure to do so was, in the circumstances, so serious that a criminal penalty is warranted.
Maximum penalty:
(a) where the victim dies—imprisonment for 15 years; or
(b) where the victim suffers serious harm—imprisonment for 5 years.

I would make the point that under Division 7, Section 21 of the South Australian criminal code, and similar provisions in every other Stare and territory criminal code, “serious harm” includes a broad range of harms:

Division 7A—Causing physical or mental harm
Section 21 – Interpretations.

cause—a person causes harm if the person’s conduct is the sole cause of the harm or substantially contributes to the harm;

If a victim suffers serious harm as a result of multiple acts of harm and those acts occur in the course of the same incident, or together constitute a single course of conduct, a person who commits any of the acts causing harm is taken to cause serious harm even though the harm caused by the act might not, if considered in isolation, amount to serious harm.

harm means physical or mental harm (whether temporary or permanent)

recklessly—a person is reckless in causing harm or serious harm to another if the person—

(a) is aware of a substantial risk that his or her conduct could result in harm or serious harm (as the case requires); and
(b) engages in the conduct despite the risk and without adequate justification;

serious harm means—

(a) harm that endangers a person’s life; or

(b) harm that consists of, or results in, serious and protracted impairment of a physical or mental function;

Highly misleading information on the Standing Committee’s website re what do when a Centrelink request for information is received, is followed by irrefutable evidence of the violation of the Criminal Neglect and Harm provisions in the South Australian criminal code.
I may be wrong, but I believe that a ‘slam dunk’ mens re example of a reckless indifference to human life is the advice to victims of the Robodebt fraud to “Call Lifeline”.

It would appear that in addition to telling the lawyers who are representing the Morrison Government in the Prygodicz class action that the “appropriate compliance measures” fatalities have been referred to the ICC, someone has apparently forgotten to tell these lawyers that the “Call Lifeline” web page is still on the Internet. The “Call Lifeline” content of this web page totally undermines the ludicrous claim made of behalf of the Morrison Government that Robodebt did not cause any harm>

Oops!

Leaving aside the issue of law that it is impossible to have a data mismatch when Centrelink had no data to mismatch, the most basic fact of the matter concerning the government’s ALLEGED overpayment claims is that no letter should ever be sent unless an appropriately qualified, currently certified auditor who is fully aware of the many possible causes of Commonwealth mistakes that could produce an alleged overpayment error produces an audit report that impartially assesses any information that may indicate an overpayment error. This is especially so given the following statement made by Attorney-General Brandis on the 20th February 2017 during an ABC #QandA segment that was broadcast nation-wide:

The auditor’s report should set out in precise detail the issues involved and the empirically verifiable reasons why the auditor is of the professional opinion that Section 1237A of the Social Security does or does not apply. Any person acting on behalf of the Secretary must then set out their own reasons, based upon the auditor’s report, as to why they believe that a welfare recipient needs to repay an ALLEGED debt. The Secretary, or the Secretary’s representative must point out that if the welfare recipients disputes the claim, the matter MUST be referred to the courts for an impartial evaluation of the facts. Both reports should be provided to the welfare recipient when making any request for information from a welfare recipient.

I would also point out that during any subsequent court hearing, as was the case in Prygodicz at paragraph 5, the welfare recipient make request full and frank timely disclosure of the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll.

These deaths are unreported by Department of Human Services/Services Australia officials, and are the subject of, at minimum, 3 parliamentary privilege non-disclosure orders.

What is now becoming manifestly obvious to ICC investigators, and Australian law enforcement agencies is the fact that since the Liberal-National Coalition won the September 2013 federal election, millions of people have been defrauded of billions of dollars and in the commission of this criminal abuse of public office, thousands of people have been murdered.

The directive order issued by Justice Murphy on March 6th 2020 places both a constitutional and legal obligation up the the Commonwealth, i.e. the Morrison Government MUST disclose the known numbers of fatalities; this is especially so if jurisdiction for the the investigation of these homicides is not to remain with the ICC.

In closing, I make the following recommendations:

[1] Upon checking the following case law citations and videos, IMMEDIATELY forward this email communication to the Solicitor-General.
[2] In order to avoid being prosecuted for collusion, conspiracy or obstruction of justice, only discuss this communication with legal counsel, which does not include representatives of the Attorney-General as Christian Porter, like ALL members of the current Federal Parliament, is co-accused of aiding and abetting the commssion of systemic Genocide and Crimes against Humanity on a holocaust scale.

[3] Watch the following YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reml-kezQEk

[4] Read paragraphs 141 – 143 of ASIC v. Hellicar: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/17.html

[5] Read paragraphs 51 – 53 of Bhardwaj: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/11.html

[6] If you can obtain Centrelink documents C10/1866 and LEX 21021 from Services Australia officials without discussing why these documents are required, do so, and then forward them to your professional or personal legal counsel for advice as to your own legal liability in these matters.

Yours truly,

Ronald Medlicott – ICC plaintiff and Christian volunteer lay advocate.

NOTE TO READERS: The email was posted at 2:03 PM Central Standard time today (25th June 2020.)

25-6-20 Email to Secretary CARC

Posted in abuse of power, burden of proof, Case law, covid 19, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, international criminal court, international law, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

COVID-19. The Real Truth. Here’s why Face masks save lives.

Boris Johnson admission

It wasn’t just the UK Government and the British National Health Service [NHS] that were caught out ‘flat-footed’ by the COVID-19 pandemic.

NOTE: The short link for this posting is: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1vU

Just like the NHS, Australian politicians had been so tight-fisted with hospital funding that there were insufficient face masks and other Personal Protective Equipment [PPE] that in order to ensure that face masks could be kept for doctors and nurses, people were told that they did not need masks or gloves.

THAT ADVICE WAS FALSE.

Check out the link below and read the full text of this Harvard/MIT posting – it could possibly save your life.

https://www.broadinstitute.org/news/researchers-identify-cells-likely-targeted-covid-19-virus

Researchers at MIT; the Ragon Institute of MGH, MIT, and Harvard; and the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard; along with colleagues from around the world have identified specific types of cells that appear to be targets of the coronavirus that is causing the COVID-19 pandemic… They found subsets of cells in the lung, the nasal passages, and the intestine that express RNA for both of these proteins much more than other cells.

SIMPLE LOGIC: To stop the COVID-19 virus from getting into your nose, your lungs, or your intestines (through your mouth) YOU NEED TO WEAR A MASK.

KNOWLEDGE IS LIFE: WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW MAY KILL YOU, SO CHECK OUT THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE MAN WHO WORKED OUT HOW COVID-19 REPLICATES.

SOURCE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMZzYsQwTUQ

Dr. Mark Denison Vanderbilt University Medical Center  Professor of Pediatrics, Professor of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Craig-Weaver Chair in Pediatics

NOTE: Dr. Denison has decades of experience, having researched COVID virus since 1984 and was the first person to identify how this virus replicated itself. In 1995 he wrote a book about  the COVID virus and was involved in the early development and trialling of Remdesvir, which is the only United States Federal Drug Administration approved emergency use treatment for COVID-19.

Although the Broad Institute seminar in the URL below contains complex technical details, “the fine print” of Dr. Denison’s presentation is very easy to comprehend.

I recommend watching the first 3 minutes and if you can, hang tough and watch the entire 61 minute video.

Did you know that Bats make up 20% of all mammals and that the increased contact between bats and people means that there will be MORE of the COVID  pandemics,in the future. Take note that Dr. Denison does not expect a generic cure for these COVID outbreaks to be developed within his lifetime.

PAY ATTENTION:

1.     “We don’t have the data yet…

2.      As a scientist I am cautious, as a physician I am hopeful. As a human being I am emotional…

3.     I live a little bit in hope right now…

4.     We know that antivirals are not the, all of those of us who do  science, medicine and training understand  the word cure is not a word that we can apply to these things.

5.     Our expectation is to able to simply intervene,  prevent severe disease, help those who are in severe disease survive and recover,

6.     and to also, at least at minimum, from the science part, to be able to recognize the potential mechanisms that we can do to really combat this,

7.     and obviously in association with other (causal?) things like vaccines, antibodies,

8.     and obviously the essential need for public health measures.”

[At 5minutes:30 seconds] “Much research based on humanitarian factors that pre-date SARS and MERS, epidemics that demonstrated zoonotic transfer of COVID disease from animals to people.”

“The epidemics SARS- and MERS-Covs in humans  have confirmed the capacity of CoV to emerge from animal reservoirs to cause severe human disease.

SARS-like bat Covs are currently circulating in nature that replicate in human cells, cause disease in mice and are resistant to existing therapeutic antibodies and vaccines.

“With increasing overlap of human and wild animal ecologies, the potential for future severe zoonotic CoV emergence is high.”

Need for Antivirals against CoVs

·       “Broad diversity of CoVs in bats with demonstrated capability to infect human cell animal models-”

·       “Time to develop vaccines differs from trajectory of epidemic.” [Translation: COVID pandemics will spread far faster than cures or treatments can be developed, which means that high death tolls can be expected. It also means that politicians who play politics with COVID could potentially kill lots of people.

·       “Potential for ‘off the shelf’ use toward highly conserved functions – future proof.”

[Translation: Research needs to develop a genetic solution that can be used to treat the naturally modified COVID virus outbreaks that we will face in the future.]

THE MORE YOU KNOW ABOUT COVID-19 THE BETTER YOUR CHANCE OF SURVIVING THIS PANDEMIC:

CHECK OUT THESE LINKS:

https://www.broadinstitute.org/videos/learning-26000-cases-covid-19-wuhan

LEARNING FROM 26,000 CASES OF COVID-19 IN WUHAN (Posted) March 20, 2020

Presenter: Dr. Xihong Lin Professor of Biostatistics, HSPH, Professor of Statistics, Harvard University

IDMP Program Meetings, Spring 2020: COVID-19 Research and Perspectives

The Infectious Disease and Microbiome Program (IDMP) brings together scientists from throughout the Broad, the Harvard/MIT hospitals and institutions, and beyond, to study and understand the role that microbes play in health and disease. IDMP hosts a seminar each Friday morning to showcase the latest research being conducted and encourage collaborations throughout the community. In light of the current COVID-19 outbreak, IDMP has shifted the series to focus on current COVID-19 research, as well as highlight different perspectives surrounding the community’s and the nation’s response to the pandemic. View additional talks from the series on the IDMP meeting page.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

COVID-19: The Real Truth. Is it Russian Roulette or is it Natural Selection when people believe what they want to hear instead of believing the truth.

COVID-19 – NO VACCINE, NO CURE AND OVER 320,000 DEATHS IN JUST 4 MONTHS.

19 May 320,130

The short link URL for this posting is:

FACT #1: In just under 4 months, almost 5 million people have been infected with COVID-19 and over 320,000 people have died from this disease.

FACT #2; There is no vaccine and no cure, and so the death toll keeps rising.

19 May the Curve

SOURCE: [Without ‘Wave of Death” comments}

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-toll/

[NOTE: Click on the above link to keep up-to-date with the death toll statistics. ]

FACT #3: No-one knows if this is this the only ‘Wave of Death”, or just the first of many such ‘waves’ that will sweep around the world until a vaccine or a cure for COVID-19 is developed.

FACT #4: Politicians are people who are experts in telling you what you want to hear, which may not be what you need to hear.  For example, George Bush II, Tony Blair and John Howard convinced people that “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction”. 

  1. That statement was false, i.e Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when Bush, Blair and Howard made that claim.

  2. If the English Privy Council and the Washington Post are correct, since March 2003. hundreds of thousands of people have died because these politicians did not tell us the the real truth.

Washington Post

Trump Warp Speed

‘Star Trek’ is based upon an old television science fiction series. President Donald Trump’s ‘Warp Speed’ plan to produce a COVID-19 vaccine for Christmas is most likely just as fictional as the Star Trek series. The following reality check statements are contained in these informative extracts from The Guardian article mentioned above:

Standing just behind him, Anthony Fauci, an infectious diseases expert wearing a face mask, cast his glance down and reached to adjust his tie. Trump did not wear a face mask.

In testimony to Congress on Tuesday, Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, warned: “There’s no guarantee that the vaccine is actually going to be effective.”

And on Thursday Rick Bright, the ousted head of a government agency seeking a vaccine, told Congress: “Normally, it takes up to 10 years to make a vaccine.

A lot of optimism is swirling around a 12-to-18-month time frame, if everything goes perfectly. We’ve never seen everything go perfectly.”

FACT #5: With the presidential election due in just 6 months, i.e. in November, Donald Trump needs to create the [highly misleading] impression that he is ‘The Man‘ who can fix America’s COVID-19 problem, which 3 months ago he claimed would be over by Easter.

The real truth is that it can take up to 10 years to develop an effective anti-viral vaccine.

For example, it took some of the world’s best scientists 28 months to produce an effective EBOLA vaccine that helped to suppress the South East African Ebola Zaire outbreak. 

 Premier Marshall cropIn my home state of South Australia, Premier Steven Marshall and his government are eqally desperate to create the impression that the COVID-19 crisis is over and therefore it is safe to gradually resume our normal way of life.

The following statements were reportedly made by Steven Marshall during a Radio 5AA broadcast. Readers should note that Steven Marshall places the state’s economy ahead of the welfare of school children or workers who commute to work using public transport. In times past, the emphasis was on stopping the pandemic from killing people; not propping up the economy

Steven Marshall says South Australia is “way further down the track” after NSW placed restrictions on the number of passengers on public transport, (12 per bus) but admits there are still some concerns. Mr Marshall was asked on Tuesday’s FIVEaa breakfast show about NSW’s decision to limit passenger numbers.

“We’re running our own race in South Australia,” Mr Marshall said. “They can make their decisions based on their new cases, the information that their epidemiologists have got, and we’ll make our decisions in South Australia on our situation. “Public transport, road transport, schools and workplaces have always been exempt from the restrictions and for good reasons – you can’t just basically stop your entire economy from working and in South Australia we do have low cases.

But we are still concerned about it and that’s why we’ve asked the AHPPC (Australian Health Protection Principal Committee) to do some work. They did have a meeting on it last week. I think they’ll probably bring back their recommendations on Friday this week…”

Source: https://www.fiveaa.com.au/news/premier-steven-marshall-talks-about-public-transport-in-sa/

READERS PLEASE NOTE: Ricky Bright told Donald Trump the unpleasant truth and was fired for doing so. The message from that was very clear to politically appointed advisors, i.e. tell Donald what he wants to hear or get fired.

In Australia, the AHPPC is a committee of public health administrators who are bureacrats first and medical experts second, who share with Ricky Bright, the problem of accountability to the politicians who approved their appointments. As the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq, the 2014 Home Improvement Program inquiry, the  2017 Financial Sevices inquiry, and the current MV Ruby Princes inquiry, along with a veritable tsunami of other official inquiries over the last 30 years have clearly emphasized, far too many public service committees have a deplorable track record of telling politicians what they want to hear rather than telling the truth. 

Consider the implications in this example:

Over 2,000 people killed by an unlawful ‘alleged debt’ recovery program in 28 months. The problem here is that this program was set up by the Hawke Government some 30 years ago and the constantly rising death toll caused by this unlawful (illegal) activity was simply ignored by the experts, i.e. both Centrelink officals AND by every so-called  expert who has served on the AHPPC panel over the last 30-years.

Such an appallingly pathetic track record on welfare ttriggered fatalities, which is a very public welfare policy driven issue, does not engender a very high degree of confidence in the AHPPC’s ability to act with total impartiality with the current COVID-19 pandemic.

How many patients with chronic pain problems die of Acute Myocarditis or a Stroke whilst waiting for so-called “ELECTIVE SURGERY” that would save their lives? These deaths are GENOCIDE under Artcile 268.5 of the Commonwealth criminal Code Act (1995). However, how many APHHC members have gone on  the public record pointing out that very inconvient fact of law?

Would the answer be ZERO members of the APHHC are on the public record pointing out that saving money by withholding life-saving surgery, i.e. by letting people die, is murder, and not ‘the good government’ that so many politicians believe it is?

NOTE: COVID-19 is like the submarine pictured below, i.e. it can be ‘submerged’ and out of sight for 2 months and then surface again. [How many APHHC members have emphasized that unpleasant fact when strutting their stuff in front of the mass media?]

450px-HMAS_Rankin_2006

HMAS RANKIN: This submarine can submerge for up to 2 months, and so can the Covid-19 virus.  You could be ‘safe’ today and then be fatally’torpedoed’ (infected) by COVID-19 tomorrow.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins-class_submarine

COVID-19 Commuting

Crowded trains

Steven Marshall’s ‘made-for-the-camera’ cheesy grin may not be so big if the crowding on buses and trains causes a rapid blow-out of COVID-19 cases and a high death toll.

7 News crowded trains

The 7 news video shows people who are standing shoulder-to-shoulder in a tightly packed train.

With just 1 infected passenger, once the doors are closed, the air-conditioning system would spread the COVID-19 virus throughout the carriage in minutes. This video, and Donald Trump’s ‘Star Trek vision’ raise a key question that needs to be given serious consideration:

Is it Russian Roulette or is it a real-world example of Natural Selection when people believe what they want to hear instead of believing the truth.

Natural Selection naturally weeds out the foolish, which with COVID-19 means either take care to avoid exposure to the disease or risk a most unpleasant death.

RECOMMENDATION #1:

In order to survive, everyone needs to get the real facts from internationally respected, independent scientists who are acknowledged experts in the treatment of viral plagues.

RECOMMENDATION #2: I believe that smart people will significantly increase their chances of survival if they watch these Harvard University – Massechusetts Institute of Technology sponsored videos: 

https://www.broadinstitute.org/coronavirus/videos-seminars#top

LATE NEWS UPDATE:

CHANNEL 7’s evening news at 6.00 P.M.

[FIRST] The Good News

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/416961/covid-19-vaccine-shows-promise-in-data-from-8-people

Covid-19 vaccine shows promise in data from 8 people

The first hints that a vaccine can train people’s immune system to fight coronavirus have been reported by a company in the US. Novavax labs in Maryland, United States, one of the firms involved in developing a vaccine. Moderna said neutralising antibodies were found in the first eight people who took part in their safety trials. It also said the immune response was similar to people infected with the actual virus. Larger trials to see whether the jab actually protects against infection are expected to start in July.

Work on a coronavirus vaccine has been taking place at unprecedented speed, with around 80 groups around the world working on them. Moderna was the first to test an experimental vaccine, called mRNA-1273, in people. The vaccine is a small snippet of the coronavirus’s genetic code, which is injected into the patient. It is not capable of causing an infection or the symptoms of Covid-19, but is enough to provoke a response from the immune system.

The vaccine trials, run by the US government’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, showed the vaccine led to the production of antibodies which can neutralise the coronavirus. However, testing for these neutralising antibodies has only taken place on the first eight, out of 45, people on the trial.

… Moderna said it was hoping to start a large-scale trial in July, and that it was already investigating how to manufacture the vaccine at scale.

WHEN? Next year, which is good news for those who are still alive in 2021.

[SECOND] The Bad News:

Spurrier 1During the Channel 7 news broadcast, South Australia’s Chief Medical Officer, Professor Nicola Spurrier admitted that she was unaware that the 8th of June was a public holiday. This is the date when the State Government was planning to further cut-back on quarantine restrictions,

OOPS!

Easing the COVID-19 quarantine on a long week end ‘holiday’ was a critical issue for consideration and yet Professor Spurrier had forgotten that the target date was public holiday!

Such a fundamental slip-up by South Australia’s Chief Health Protection Officer is, in 2 words, NOT GOOD.

Dear readers:

  1. Stay informed.

  2. Stay safe.

  3. God bless you all.

Ronald Medlicott. Christian volunteer lay-advocate

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in abuse of power, burden of proof, Case law, covid 19, crimes against humanity, election, European Parliament, genocide, Human Rights violations, international criminal court, international law, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

COVID-19: The Real Truth.Chief Medical Officers, and politicians can be prosecuted if they allow non-medical issues to influence their management of the COVID-19 Crisis.

The text below is about to be emailed to Christopher McGowan, the Chief Executive Officer of SA Health.

The basic message is simple, COVID-19 is a medical problem, not a social or economic problem, and if Dr. Spurrier and Mr. McGowan loose sight of that fact and people die, then the legal consequences could be most serious.

NOTE: The short link URL for this posting is: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1vf

To: Mr Christopher McGowan,  Chief Executive Officer.  SA Health,

CEO Christopher McGowandDear Mr. McGowan,

Re: FYI of email to Premier Steven Marshall concerning the legal risks of playing COVID-19 Russian roulette with the lives of vulnerable South Australians.

When it comes to “vulnerable Australians”, I tick several boxes:

[1] Over 70-years-old.

[2] Pernicious Anaemia

[3] Type 2 Diabetes.

[4] Asthma.

[5] Slowly recovering from Pneumonia that popped up in my right lung 9 days after a pneumonia vaccination. {Hmm!]

Being very obviously a high-risk person when it comes to the issue of COVID-19, I have taken the precaution of keeping myself up-to-date with non-political information about the risks that COVID-19 may pose to my life. The knowledge gained leaves me gravely concerned that social and economic pressures on the Morrison and Marshall governments may have resulted in these considerations being placed ahead of the health, welfare and safety of at-risk South Australians.

The AMATO DECISION – 27th November 2019 jpg030

jpg031

A lay-advocate, exactly 8-months BEFORE Justice Jennifer Davies ruled that the ‘Robo-debt’ alleged debt recovery ‘initiative’ was not lawful, on the 27th March 2019, I filed a Genocide and Crimes against Humanity complaint against the Commonwealth of Australia with the International Criminal Court [the ICC].

It is to the shame of every politician, judge, lawyer, and doctor, within the Commonwealth of Australia that my complaint was tentatively accepted on the 30th April 2019.

Details of this complaint can be found at the following URLs below and I strongly recommend that before reading my email to Steven Marshall, that you take the time to review the content of these web sites, because one of the legal issues for ICC prosecutors to consider is the failure of every doctor in Australia to pick up on the basic fact that saving taxpayers’ money by wrongfully driving emotional vulnerable Australians to commit suicide is murder under Section 268.8 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995).

https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1h5

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reml-kezQEk

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Centrelinkcompliance

Incredibly, despite the High Court ruling in Hellicar, (2012) HCA 17, that any dispute between a regulator and another party that involved pecuniary matters MUST be referred to a court for a determination of the facts, the Federal Government ignored this decision. In Bhardwaj (2002) HCA 11, at paragraphs 51 – 53, the High Court ruled that if there is no jurisdiction to make a legal decision, then in law, no legally valid decision could be made.

Not only have successive Prime Ministers ignored these decisions, as the Centrelink compliance information on the web link above reveals, this information is still withheld and when traumatized victims contemplate suicide, they are being told to call Life Line. Under Section 1A (7) of the SA Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935), these suicides are murders. In addition, under the Commonwealth criminal code, the collective deaths are GENOCIDE under Section 268.3.  If you place the Centrelink deaths in the context of the federal and SA criminal codes, the context of the High Court’s determination in (Dr.) Boughey v. The Queen (1986) HCA 29, becomes very significant for Chief Medical Officers who turn a blind eye to these murders.

(Dr.) Boughey v. The Queen

Whilst having sexual intercourse with Miss Begum Mahjabi Ali, Dr. Boughey applied pressure Miss Ali’s carotid arteries for too long and killed her.

To say that the High Court was not impressed with Dr. Boughey’s excuse, which was effectively a case of ‘Oops! That wasn’t supposed to happen” is an understatement. Not once or twice, but more than 20 times, the presiding judges used the phrase ‘ought to have known’, a phrase that is particularly relevant in the current circumstances where Dr. Nicola Spurrier appears to be disregarding the fact that just one COVIDF-19 infected person can devastate and entire region, as has happened in Hokkaido in Japan. (see Case Study 1 below.)

At 31 – 33, Chief Justice Gibbs.

“The phrase to which I would like to direct your attention mainly here is ‘ought to have known’. Here you consider what in your view the accused ought to have known in all his then relevant circumstances. All his then relevant circumstances would include many factors; (it) would include, for example, the fact that he is a medical practitioner, the nature of his medical practice over the years, his training, his sexual experiences, the extent to which, if any, his medical training and experience should have alerted him to the dangers of applying carotid artery pressure – assuming you accept the medical evidence – or the extent to which, if any, that experience, his experience, should have alerted him to the desirability of studying medical literature in order to acquaint himself with the dangers, if any, of such a practice and the physiological reactions involved and the like. All of those would seem to be relevant factors to the question of what he ought to have known about whether the act – applying the sort of pressure he applied – was likely to cause death in the circumstances. If it was, again an issue for you to decide. I have named only some of the relevant circumstances and it will be for you to consider all the circumstances which you consider relevant in order to decide what he ought to have known.”

  1. The words “ought to have known” are included in s.157(1)(c) as an alternative to “knew”. Reliance upon them is necessary only in a case where it is not positively established that an accused actually knew that his act was likely to cause death. That does not, however, mean that the content of the knowledge laid at the door of an accused is to be assessed by reference to the notional knowledge and capacity of some hypothetical person. The starting point of the inquiry on the question whether an accused ought to have known that his or her actions were likely to cause death must be the knowledge, the intelligence and, where relevant, the expertise which the particular accused actually possessed. The relevant question is not whether some hypothetical reasonable person in the position of the accused would have appreciated the likely consequences of the applicant’s act. It is what the particular accused, with his or her actual knowledge and capacity, ought to have known in the circumstances in which he or she was placed. Inevitably, the word “ought” requires the making of a subjective judgment by a jury. The jury must be persuaded, on the criminal onus in the context of a murder trial, that the established circumstances were such that the particular accused, with the knowledge and the capacity which he or she actually possessed, ought to have thought about the likely consequences of his or her action. They must also be persuaded, again on that onus and in the context of such a trial, that if the particular accused had stopped to think to the extent that he ought to have, the result would, as a matter of fact, have been that he or she would have known or appreciated that the relevant act or acts were likely to cause death.

  1. The learned trial judge’s above direction to the jury adequately conveyed the essence of what was involved in the requirement that the applicant “ought to have known” that his act was likely to cause death in the circumstances. The repeated reference to the applicant, the emphasis which his Honour placed upon factors peculiar to the applicant, and the reference to whether the applicant should, in the circumstances, have been alerted to the dangers of his action, combined to make it clear that what was relevant was what the applicant himself, with his actual knowledge and capacity, ought to have known in the circumstances in which he was placed.

 

If Steven Marshal and Dr. Spurrier wants to play Russian roulette with the lives of vulnerable South Australians, as I point out below, they place themselves at risk of prosecution under not only Commonwealth and State work health and safety laws, but also under Section 13(1), Section 13B and Section 14(1) of the SA criminal code.

A crucial issue to discuss with Dr. Spurrier, especially after Commissioner Bret Walker’s angst about the actions of NSW Health:

Ressler mistake

[Readers note: Ignore my typo above  – the tears do not alter the fact that so far, more than 20 people have died.]

During questioning the inquiry’s Commissioner, Bret Walker, asked Ms Ressler why he shouldn’t rule there had been a reprehensible shortcoming by NSW Health?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-05/inquiry-into-coronavirus-outbreak-from-ruby-princess/12215270

A question that you need to put to Dr. Spurrier is whether or not she is prepared to go to jail for 15-years if just one person contracts a serious case of COVID-19 and requires intensive care treatment? Is she also prepared to spend the rest of her life in jail if a person dies?

I would remind you of Commissioner Ian Hanger’s statement at 14.7.3.2 of the Royal Commission Report into the Home Improvement Program, which is of direct relevance given the staggering death toll caused by COVID-19 since the 22nd January.

14.7.3.1

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. The HIP has been a clear lesson in this respect, and I would hope that this Report will serve to make the lessons to be learned a little clearer and reinforce their importance.

14.7.3.2

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.

14.7.3.2.1

The Australian Government should not seek to abrogate responsibility for identified risk. If another party (for example, a State or Territory Government) is identified as being able to mitigate an identified risk, this does not remove the Department’s responsibility to take the necessary steps to manage the risk and to ensure that others are doing the same. The Australian Government should engage with the identified risk manager to ensure the adequacy of those arrangements for the new circumstance, and consider whether there are additional steps that it could take to complement that action.

In South Australia, Dr. Spurrier and yourself are the identified risk managers, and in the present situation, where you are both playing Russian roulette with the lives of un-numbered thousands of vulnerable people, including my wife and myself, it goes without saying that I am not impressed.

In closing, I remind you that this communication is a legal document that may be tendered in any court or commission of inquiry if Dr. Spurrier and yourself are wrong and more deaths occur because the focus of COVID-19 was wrongly placed on social and economic issues instead of the simple fact that this disease is a medical problem with unbelievably high infection and mortality rates.

NOTE:

[1]  A more visually presentable copy of the email to Steven Marshall was posted at the URL below before the email was sent to Steven Marshall. https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1uW

[2] On Monday, the email to Mr. Marshall will be forwarded to both the ICC and the Ruby Princess Inquiry. (As per my 1st email to Mr. Marshall.)

https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1ul

[3] All Ronald’s space posting form part of my submission to the ICC, as do all of my Emcott report postings on YouTube.

Ronald Medlicott. SA registered teacher and volunteer lay-advocate

==============================================================.

Ronald’s space readers take note:

The remainder of my email to Mr. McGowan can be seen in my previous posting.

Posted in abuse of power, burden of proof, Case law, covid 19, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, international criminal court, international law, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

COVID-19: The Real Truth: Another email to the South Australian Premier outlining why easing the lockdown may bean unlawful act.

If Stephen Marshall, the Premier of South Australia, botches the COVID-19 pandemic as badly as the New Soputh Wales Government and the Morrison Government did with the Ruby Princess, then Premier Marshall could face prosecution under South Australia’s CRIMINAL NEGLECT laws.

NOTE: The short link to this posting is: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1uW

WORLDOMETER

On the 4th May, there were 242,282 deaths. Earlier today the total has risen to 265,056, an increase of almost 23,000 in just 3 days.

THE CURVE

Politicians and ‘experts’ in Australia talk about “The Curve”. Australians need to careful because we may not have yet reached “The Curve” When the COVID-19 lock down is eased back asymptomatic people may infect and possibly kill people who are immunity compromised.

 

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

Below is the text of an email that will be sent to Premier Marshall once I finish posting this preview of the email. Note that Premier Marshall will receive a text only version as his firewall may block emails with graphics due top the embedded virus risk.

Premier Marshall crop

Mr. Stephen Marshall Premier of South Australia

Via email:

Dear Mr. Marshall,

Re: possible criminal negligence by you in winding back COVID-19 restrictions due to social and economic pressures on you.

On Tuesday I visited Lee Odenwalder’s electorate office at the Elizabeth Vale shopping centre to express my outrage at the manner in which Nicola Spurrier and yourself had turned the COVID-19 pandemic into a ‘dog & pony show’ for the mass media. Contrary to what you may believe, this pandemic is a matter of life and death for susceptible people around the world; it is not an opportunity to score political points with the electorate but a matter of survival for those of us who are vulnerable to this terrible disease.

Lee Odenwalder crop

When I pointed to the female office assistant in Lee’s office that I was over 70-years-old, had both diabetes and pernicious anaemia, and was recovering from a recent bout of pneumonia, this resulted in Lee popping up like a Jack-in-a-box from a screen behind the reception desk counter. Lee was visibly perturbed, promptly ordering me to leave his office. He apparently was uncomfortable being just 2 metres from a person who was recovering from a serious respiratory illness and was not keen to share the same space.

The gross hypocrisy in this is that Lee appears to have had no such concerns about allowing school students and school staff to be in close proximity to people who may be asymptomatic when it comes to COVID-19. I would draw your attention to the quote from British Medical Journal in Article 6 below:

78% of COVID-19 victims may not show any symptoms at all. However, being infected, close contact with any one of these people could easily kill any person with a compromised immune system.

Since I have a seriously compromised immune system, I am not impressed with either Scott Morrison or yourself placing social or economic issues ahead of your primary responsibility, i.e. the protection of the health and safety of the people of South Australia. I would remind you that in my email of 28th April 2020, I cited numerous statutes that both you and Scott Morrison need to comply with when dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. Two  additional statutes to keep in mind are the CRIMINAL NEGLECT provisions in 13B and 14 of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935).

13B—Interpretation

(1) In this Division—

act includes—

(a) an omission; and

(b) a course of conduct;

vulnerable adult means a person aged 16 years or above who is significantly impaired through physical disability, cognitive impairment, illness or infirmity.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), in this Division the following terms and phrases have the same meaning as in Division 7A:

(a) cause;

(b) harm.

(3) For the purposes of this Division, a reference to harm will be taken to include detriment caused to the physical, mental or emotional wellbeing or development of a child or vulnerable adult (whether temporary or permanent).

(4) For the purposes of this Division, a defendant has a duty of care to a victim if the defendant is a parent or guardian of the victim or has assumed responsibility for the victim’s care.

14—Criminal neglect

(1) A person (the defendant) is guilty of the offence of criminal neglect if—

(a) a child or a vulnerable adult (the victim) dies or suffers harm as a result of an act; and

(b) the defendant had, at the time of the act, a duty of care to the victim; and

(c)the defendant was, or ought to have been, aware that there was an appreciable risk that harm would be caused to the victim by the act; and

(d) the defendant failed to take steps that he or she could reasonably be expected to have taken in the circumstances to protect the victim from harm and the defendant’s failure to do so was, in the circumstances, so serious that a criminal penalty is warranted.

Maximum penalty:

(a) where the victim dies—imprisonment for life; or

(b) in any other case—imprisonment for 15 years.

I would draw you attention to the bold text phrases in 14(1)(b), 14(1)(c) and 14(1)(d) which set out your duty of care obligations to every person in South Australia who may be vulnerable to a life-threatening risk if they are exposed to COVID-19, which includes thousands of people with immune compromised health issues, including several members of my immediate family and myself.

In order to leave you in no doubt whatsoever about just how legally compromised you may make yourself under the above provisions, e.g. 14(1)(c)  “aware that there was an appreciable risk that harm would be caused to the victim by the act:,  I would draw your attention to the following facts and issues concerning the risks posed by any reduction in the tight COVID-19 quarantine restrictions that apply to the people of South Australia.

As of May 7th 2020 at 02:23 GMT, (today) there were 3,822,001 known cases of CPVID-19 with 265,056 deaths. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-death-toll/

7-5-2020 Death toll

The death toll is constantly rising, e.g. up 42 since I checked 20 minutes ago..

Just 106 days ago, on the 22nd January the were 17 deaths.  Today there are 265,056 dead, which means that since the 22nd January, 265, 039 have died, which is a massive death toll. Whilst 13 out of 14 people may survive COVID-19, almost 1 in 14 (6.95%) of the known victims of this disease have died. In the context of the information that is currently available within the international scientific and medical communities, current control measures are insufficient to suppress COVID-19. What the scientific evidence and the death toll statistics clearly reveal is that easing up on COVID-19 quarantine measures for social or economic reasons needs to recognized for what it is, i.e. in the absence of either a vaccine or a cure, it is reckless game of Russian roulette in which people who are immune compromised may die.

I do fully appreciate and understand that there is enormous social, commercial and budgetary pressure on politicians to kick start the economy and ease back on the COVID-19 restrictions. However, as was the case with the Ebola Zaire outbreak in South West Africa in December 2013, the COVID-19 ‘curve’ may in fact be a ‘staircase’ of Stop-Start outbreaks that will continue to occur until a vaccine is developed and fully deployed.

If the Morrison Government, or your government, violate either federal or state public health and safety laws and ease up on the COVID-19 restrictions and as a result people die, then “Oops! I made a mistake” will not be a legally valid excuse due to the email that I sent you last week. One prime purpose of this email, which provides further insight into the pitfalls of easing restrictions when there is no vaccine to stop the spread of COVID-19, is to undermine any “Oops! ” excuse that you may try to use if more fatalities occur because COVID-19 restrictions were eased .

CASE STUDY ZERO: OOPS! I MADE A MISTAKE.

Tearful apology over Ruby Princess debacle

https://www.dailymercury.com.au/news/tearful-apology-over-ruby-princess-debacle/4009440/

Teaful apology

Yesterday, (6th May 2020) a senior New South Wales Health Department epidemiologist, Ms. Kelly Anne Ressler, was severally criticized by Commissioner Bret Walker SC for having failed to do her duty.

Ressler mistake

During questioning the inquiry’s Commissioner, Bret Walker, asked Ms Ressler why he shouldn’t rule there had been a reprehensible shortcoming by NSW Health. In response, she became emotional, saying it was a challenging time for the department.

“All I can say is that I’m very sorry it turned out the way it did. It was not our intention,” she said. “Myself and my colleagues at the public health unit were working very hard on this. We did what we could. And if we could do it again, it would be very different.

Earlier on Tuesday, the inquiry heard the Ruby Princess was assessed as “low risk” for coronavirus infections based on an outdated log of ill passengers on board. The Carnival vessel became the largest single source of COVID-19 cases in Australia after its 2,700 passengers disembarked at Sydney’s Circular Quay on March 19.

It has so far been linked to more than 660 cases and 21 deaths.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-05/inquiry-into-coronavirus-outbreak-from-ruby-princess/12215270

660 infected people and 21 deaths in Australia, plus 2 more in the United States. Sorry does not constitute grounds for exculpation with so many sick and dead.

The 2 deaths in South Australia that are linked to the MV Ruby Princess ‘debacle’ are either Manslaughter under section 31 of the Commonwealth Work Health & Safety Act (2011), which is binding on every person within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia, or these deaths, like the 2 bushfire deaths on Kangaroo island, come under the previously mentioned Section 13 and Section 14 provisions in the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935).

In considering the content of this communication, please keep the following two key principles in mind.

PRINCIPLE #1: No-one is above the law. Scott Morrison is one of hundreds of federal politicians, pass and present, who may have to account for the deaths of thousands of welfare recipients, either in the International criminal Court or in Australian courts. In the same manner, if you decide to place the lives of vulnerable South Australians at risk, and by doing so, cause one or more fatalities, then you face the risk of being held accountable for your actions under either Commonwealth or South Australian laws.

PRINCIPLE #2: COVID-19 is an RNA based virus that cannot be negotiated with. it is the micro-biological equivalent of a runaway train without a driver that is headed for the twin peak mountain peaks of Sickness and Death.  Although politicians may have the power to ease up restrictions, the counter-balance is that the courts do have the power to punish those politicians who ignore their prime responsibility, i.e. the preservation of life. Get the management of COVID-19 wrong, and if people die, you may wind facing both criminal and civil prosecutions that could kill off your political career.

God willing, there will be no need for a commission of inquiry into your own version of the inquiry into the MV Ruby Princess debacle. With that debacle specifically in mind, the following information is information that, in the event of fatalities, you ought to have been aware that there was an appreciable risk that harm would be caused” by your actions.

 

CASE STUDY 1 – ARTICLE 1

Japanese island suffering second wave of coronavirus after lifting lockdown too early. Experts warn the island of Hokkaido shows the perils of lifting a state of emergency too early

[Source]: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/29/japanese-island-suffering-avoidable-second-wave/ [Julian Ryall Tokyo 29 April 2020]

2nd wave recropA northern region of Japan is experiencing a second wave of coronavirus infections – and deaths – that experts say could have been avoided if the state of emergency had not been lifted too early.

The island of Hokkaido had been held up as a model of how to control the spread of the virus, but it has now become a case study for the impact the disease can have if a lockdown is relaxed too soon.

And experts say they hope that other cities and nations that are toying with the idea of lifting restrictions on travel, work and schools can learn from Hokkaido’s experience.

Naomichi Suzuki, the prefectural governor, on February 29 declared a state of emergency in response to a sharp increase in coronavirus cases, all of which could be traced back to the Sapporo Snow Festival at the beginning of the month. The annual event attracted more than 2 million people to the city, with local health authorities treating a Chinese tourist from Wuhan who had contracted the illness before arriving in Hokkaido.

CASE STUDY 1 – ARTICLE 2

Japanese island is hit by a second wave of coronavirus after ending three-week lockdown when cases fell to single digits – as infections soar to 135 in a week

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8270245/Japanese-island-hit-second-wave-coronavirus-ending-lockdown-early.html

Hokkaido 2nd web site

Dr. Kiyoshi Nagase, chairman of the Hokkaido Medical Association, told TIME: ‘Now I regret it, we should not have lifted the first state of emergency. It really may not be until next year that we can safely lift these lockdowns.’

The local government had assessed the impact immigration would have on the spread of coronavirus on the island but had not taken into account domestic migration.

Yoko Tsukamoto, a professor of infection control at the Health Sciences University of Hokkaido said that with hindsight, the lockdown lift was too early.  [Bullet-pointing emphasis added] 

  • ‘At the time, we didn’t have enough information and we did not have an adequate understanding of this disease.

  • And, given the information that was available – that new cases were down to one or two a day – it could be argued that the governor made the right decision in lifting the state of emergency.

  • We know that was the wrong move now, but then it seemed the best thing to do,’ she told The Telegraph.

She said: ‘These lockdowns and states of emergency will have to be lifted eventually, but the lesson is to wait as long as possible, to get accurate data on infection numbers and to be very, very cautious when the rules are relaxed.

‘And the authorities have to be ready to move quickly and put the restrictions back in place at the first sign of another surge.’

Hokkaido reported 38 new cases on Tuesday, bringing its total number of infections to 688, fifth highest in Japan. One person also died from the virus taking the island’s death toll to 27.

The island of 5.3million people had been a case study in virus-management before they lifted the lockdown, but now experts hope to learn lessons from lifting measures too quickly.

The island’s coronavirus cases can be traced back to its Sapporo Snow Festival in February, before the initial lockdown was in place, which attracted two million people. One Chinese tourist was being treated on the island for coronavirus during the festival after contracting it in Wuhan.

118 people were being treated for the virus by March 12, making Hokkaido the worst-hit of all Japan’s 47 prefectures. Japan has 13,576 cases and 376 deaths and is currently maintaining its lockdown until May 6, but Nikkei business daily reported that the government is planning to extend this by another month.

 

Article 3: WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION – Ebola Virus Disease

https://www.who.int/health-topics/ebola/#tab=tab_1

Ebola

The 2014–2016 outbreak in West Africa was the largest and most complex Ebola outbreak since the virus was first discovered in 1976. There were more cases and deaths in this outbreak than all others combined. It also spread between countries, starting in Guinea then moving across land borders to Sierra Leone and Liberia.

MY COMMENT: Note that Ebola Zaire “stair-cased” several times between December 2013 and March 2016. In all, 11,310 died. COVID-19 is also showing this ‘stair-case’ pattern and, like Ebola Zaire’ will only be controlled once an effective vaccine is developed and deployed world-wide.

Article 4: – South Oz research: Spray drift Up to 70 kilometres

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-02-28/calls-for-crackdown-on-spray-drift-amid-rise-in-sa-reports/9490130

Spraydrift 70Km

[MY COMMENT] Boom spray drift and coughing by a COVID-19 person share one very nasty thing in common, i.e. SPRAY DRIFT. Micro-droplets from boom spray units may drift up to 70 kilometres. The problem with the WHO 1-metre recommendation is that is based upon laboratory experiments that are 70-80 years old. Under ideal conditions of temperature and humidity, COVID-19 micro-droplets may drift for kilometres NASTY!

Article 5: Learning from 26,000 cases of COVID-19 in Wuhan.

https://www.broadinstitute.org/videos/learning-26000-cases-covid-19-wuhan

Huwan seminar

[MY COMMENT] What affects all should be decided by all. I consider this video to be ESSENTIAL VIEWING for everyone

This highly informative 1-hour video presentation by Professor Xihong Lin (Harvard School of Public Health) leaves viewers in no doubt that until a vaccine is developed, controlling COVID-19 is going to a political and medical myth. The only reality about COVID-19 will be the massive death toll.

 Article 6: British Medical  Journal

https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-bmj-study-suggests-78-dont-show-symptoms-heres-what-that-could-mean-135732

BMJ research[Bullet-pointing emphasis added]

·        78% of COVID-19 victims may not show any symptoms at all.

·        However, being infected, close contact with any one of these people could easily kill any person with a compromised immune system.

[MY COMMENT] Given that so many people in South Australia are either senior citizens or have compromised immune systems, the above statements drive home the point that any reduction in COVID-19 restrictions is nothing more than a political and medical game of Russian roulette with the lives of thousands of at-risk South Australians.

Article 7: Journal of the American Medical Association

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2764658

An Pan PhD; Li Liu, MD, PhD; Chaolong Wang, PhD; Huan Guo, MD, PhD; Xingjie Hao, PhD; Qi Wang, MD, PhD; Jiao Huang, PhD; Na He, PhD; Hongjie Yu, PhD; Xihong Lin, PhD; Sheng Wei, MD, PhD; Tangchun Wu, MD, PhD

JAMA

Question  Was there an association of public health interventions with improved control of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China?

Findings  In this cohort study that included 32 583 patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in Wuhan from December 8, 2019, through March 8, 2020, the institution of interventions including:  [Bullet-pointing added]

  • cordons sanitaire,

  • traffic restriction,

  • social distancing,

  • home quarantine,

  • centralized quarantine,

  • and universal symptom survey

was temporally associated with reduced effective reproduction number of SARS-CoV-2 (secondary transmission) and the number of confirmed cases per day across age groups, sex, and geographic regions.

Meaning  A series of multifaceted public health interventions was temporally associated with improved control of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan and may inform public health policy in other countries and regions.

MY COMMENT: the findings back up the findings presented by Dr. Xihong Lin on 19th March 2020 during a Broad Institute on-line seminar, i.e. multifaceted public health interventions temporally improved control of the COVID-19 outbreak   The key phrase to note is “temporally improved control”.

Whatever, Australia’s band of Chief Medical officers, and political leaders may say, home quarantine, social distancing, and other measures, do NOT control COVID-19 to the point of suppression, these measure merely slow the Reproduction Rate (R) down, thus providing the public with the illusion that the government and health authorities have the pandemic under control. That illusion is a killer, and if politicians and health officials do not tell the truth and people die, then there are no shortage of federal and state laws that can be used to enforce accountability for these deaths.

Ronald Medlicott. Semi-retired teacher and volunteer lay-advocate.

 

Postscript: 4:30 PM CST –

[1] The text of this email will now be forwarded to Premier Stephen Marshall.

[2] A few minutes, another COVID-19 case was confirmed in a person who had returned from overseas 6 weeks ago.

Posted in abuse of power, burden of proof, Case law, covid 19, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, international criminal court, international law, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

COVID-19: The Real Truth. Is the potential disaster of sending children back to school too soon about to become a nightmare reality because COVID-19 has ‘teamed up’ with an “as-yet-unidentified infectious pathogen”?

Have Australia’s politically appointed  ‘medical experts’ allowed students to go back to school too soon? Every parent of every school child in Australia should check out the Daily Mail article below.

The short link for this Ronald’s space posting is:    https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1uD

4 year old infected

Below is a live hotlink to this Daily Mail article, which was posted at 8:50 Australian Eastern Standard Time:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8267177/Four-year-old-contracts-COVID-19-NSW-inflammatory-disease-children-linked-virus.html?ito=push-notification&ci=14010&si=1293234

EXTRACTS:

  • Four-year-old among 11 new confirmed cases of coronavirus in New South Wales 

  • Another two cases diagnosed at Anglicare’s Newmarch House in Sydney’s west 

  • The total number of infections at the care home has reached 56 – with 11 deaths

  • Comes amid possible link emerging between virus and inflammation in children

  • UK’s NHS issued alert about ‘another as-yet-unidentified infectious pathogen’ 

READERS NOTE:

  1. I am a semi-retired 71-year-old Technology Studies/Animal Husbandry school teacher.

  2. I now do ‘on-call’ relief teaching in a private school that (very wisely) is providing on-line education at this time.

  3. I am NOT a medical professional. My opinions about keeping schools closed are based upon my assessment of information that is sourced from around the world.

  4. Based upon my research, I believe that sending children to school before the dangers posed by COVID-19 are fully understood, and before each child has been vaccinated, may be a very unprofessional act of reckless endangerment.

  5. My professional viewpoint is simple: NO VACCINE – NO SCHOOL.

  6. I believe that until an effective vaccine has been created and given to every child and every school staff member,  the safest place for children is at home if their families are COVID-19 free.W\

Will “Oops! I made a mistake” be acceptable if children die because they were sent back to school too soon?

Dr Kerry Chant

NSW chief health officer Dr Kerry Chant said the child attended the Bright Minds Academy in Cranebrook in western Sydney for two days while infectious.

It comes as health authorities in Europe discover a potential link between children being taken to hospital with inflammatory symptoms and the coronavirus.

The United Kingdom’s National Health Service has released an alert saying there ‘may be another as-yet-unidentified infectious pathogen associated with these cases’.

The health service said the syndrome only affects about eight in every 100,000 children every year, with most aged under five.

Doctors in northern Italy, one of the world’s hardest-hit areas during the pandemic, have also reported extraordinarily large numbers of children under the age of nine with severe cases of what appears to be Kawasaki disease.

MY COMMENT:

[First] Did Dr. Kerry Chant, and every other Chief Medical Officer in every other State and Territory, consider their legal obligations under Section 31 of the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Act BEFORE recommending that schools be re-opened?

[Second] Did every school principal in every State and Territory, consider their legal obligations under Section 31 of the Commonwealth Work Health and Safety Act BEFORE allowing politicians and politically appointed medical ‘experts’ to re-open schools?

Commonwealth Work Health & Safety Act

TAKE NOTE; This law is BINDING upon everyone in Australia, including each State Premier and each Chief Medical Officer.

Section 31 Reckless conduct—Category 1

(1)        A person commits a Category 1 offence if:

(a)        the person has a health and safety duty; and

(b)        the person, without reasonable excuse, engages in conduct that exposes an individual to whom that duty is owed to a risk of death or serious injury or illness; and

(c)        the person is reckless as to the risk to an individual of death or serious injury or illness.

Penalty:

(a)        In the case of an offence committed by an individual (other than as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking)$300,000 or 5 years imprisonment or both.

(b)        In the case of an offence committed by an individual as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking—$600,000 or 5 years imprisonment or both.

(c)        In the case of an offence committed by a body corporate—

$3,000,000.

 If children die because Chief Medical officers failed to consider all of the risks involved in re-opening schools, how many parents of those children will consider the above penalties to adequate punishment for the death of their child?

 

Ronald Medlicott. SA registered teacher & volunteer lay-advocate.

 

Posted in abuse of power, burden of proof, Case law, covid 19, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, international law, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

COVID-19: The Real Truth. An email to the South Australian Premier, Steven Marshall, pointing out that if people die because he has re-open State schools,then he faces serious criminal charges.

Premier Marshall crop

In what could prove to be an appallingly bad mistake, Steven Marshall, the Premier of South Australia has re-opened schools on the basis that it is safe to do so because of Australia’s relatively low  COVID-19 infection and death rates.

 

What follows is a 12,000 word communication sent in an email at approximately 2.00 P.M. on the 28th April 2020 , in which I point out numerously scientific and legal reasons why re-opening South Australia’s public school may have been a violation of Commonwealth Reckless Conduct’ and South Australian ‘Serious Risk to Public Health’ laws.

  1. Being right is not the issue.

  2. Saving lives is.

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

The short link to this posting is: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1ul

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

Marshall Email

To:       Mr. Steven Marshall MP

             Premier of South Australia

Via email:

 Dear Mr. Marshall,

In the nutshell:

  1. You have misled the people of South Australia; COVID-19 is a Category A virus, which may explain why only Year 12 students in Wuhan may return to school to sit for their exams. All other schools in Wuhan are closed. If anyone in South Australia dies because of your actions, you can be held accountable before the courts.

  2. COVID-19 is so dangerous the federal government wants people to use the COVID APP and Professor Brendan Murphy wants concerts banned until everyone in Australia is vaccinated.

  3. Bush, Blair and Howard lied, both to themselves and to us, with the “Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction” and as a consequence, hundreds of thousands of innocent people have died.

  4. In addition, over a period of decades, federal politicians have blatantly lied and as direct consequence, millions of people have been defrauded of billions of dollars and as yet un-numbered thousands of people have died.

As of 21:59 GMT on the 25th April 2020, the cumulative death toll from COVID-19 stood at 202,936  from cumulatively confirmed 2,912,046 cases of infection. It is also a fact that on the 19th March 2020, when 2,700 passengers were allowed to disembark from the MV Ruby Princess, there were 756 confirmed cases of COVID-19, in Australia. As of  21:59 GMT on the 25th April 2020 was 6,695 confirmed cases. At that point in time, there were also 80 known COVID-19 fatalities in Australia since the January 27th 2020.

Within the following information is the text of an email to the CEO of my 96-year-old mother’s nursing home at Craigmore. The social and economic pressure to re-open schools and to allow access to nursing home residents may result in fatal consequences as a result of what may prove to have been your violation the Reckless Conduct provisions in Section 31 of the Commonwealth Work Health & Safety Act 2011 (which is identical to SA’s Work Health & Safety legislation), and the deliberate violation of the Serious risk to public health provisions contained in Section 58 of the SA Public Health Act 2011. I am of the very public viewpoint that the deliberate violation of these statute laws by re-opening schools before the either a vaccine or a cure for COVID-19 exists may constitute a criminal act of reckless endangerment that is totally inconsistent with the duty of care that every South Australian public official, e.g. you, owes to every person in South Australia.

Therefore, in order to deprive you of plausible deniability, i.e. “I did not know”, these statutes are provided for your consideration.  Section 31 of Commonwealth Work Health & Safety Act, which is binding upon every Australian resident, which of-course includes both you as a politician and myself as a semi-retired teacher. As residents of South Australia, we are both also bound by Sections 57 and 58 of the South Australian Public Health Act 2011, which are also provided to you. [NOTE: Bold and Italic text is used for clarity and emphasis.]

Commonwealth Work Health & Safety Act 2011 (Binding upon everyone in Australia.)

Section 31 Reckless conduct—Category 1

(1)        A person commits a Category 1 offence if:

(a)        the person has a health and safety duty; and

(b)        the person, without reasonable excuse, engages in conduct that exposes an individual to whom that duty is owed to a risk of death or serious injury or illness; and

(c)        the person is reckless as to the risk to an individual of death or serious injury or illness.

Penalty:

(a)        In the case of an offence committed by an individual (other than as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking)—$300,000 or 5 years imprisonment or both.

(b)        In the case of an offence committed by an individual as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking—$600,000 or 5 years imprisonment or both.

(c)        In the case of an offence committed by a body corporate—$3,000,000.

(2)        The prosecution bears the burden of proving that the conduct was engaged in without reasonable excuse.

[MY COMMENT]: With 2,826,035 cases of COVID-19 and 196,931 deaths since the outbreak began in December 2019, finding a legally valid “reasonable excuse” for deliberately violating these statutes and exposing 1,700,000 South Australians to this manifestly obvious life-threatening peril, is not legally possible.

32  Failure to comply with health and safety duty—Category 2

A person commits a Category 2 offence if:

(a)        the person has a health and safety duty; and

(b)        the person fails to comply with that duty; and

(c)        the failure exposes an individual to a risk of death or serious injury or illness.

Penalty:

(a)        In the case of an offence committed by an individual (other than as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking)—$150,000.

(b)       In the case of an offence committed by an individual as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking—$300,000.

(c)        In the case of an offence committed by a body corporate$1,500,000.

South Australia: Public Health Act 2011. (Binding on all persons within South Australia.)

57—Material risk to public health

(1) A person who causes a material risk to public health intentionally or recklessly and with the knowledge that harm to public health will result is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $250,000 or imprisonment for 5 years or both.

(2)A person who causes a material risk to public health in circumstances where the person ought reasonably be expected to know that harm to public health will result is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $120,000 or imprisonment for 2 years or both.

(3)A person who causes a material risk to public health is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $25,000.

Expiation fee: $750.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a material risk to public health occurs if the health of 1 or more persons has been, or might reasonably be expected to be, harmed by an act or omission of another, but does not include a case where the harm, or risk of harm, is trivial or negligible.

58—Serious risk to public health

(1) A person who causes a serious risk to public health intentionally or recklessly and with the knowledge that harm to public health will result is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $1 000 000 or imprisonment for 10 years or both.

 (2) A person who causes a serious risk to public health in circumstances where the person ought reasonably be expected to know that harm to public health will result is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $500 000 or imprisonment for 7 years or both.

(3)A person who causes a serious risk to public health is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: $120 000.

I would also draw your attention to the fact of law that you as a politician, Dr. Spurrier as a member of the medical profession, and myself as a member of the teaching profession, are also bound by the Manslaughter provisions in Section 13(1) of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935):

13—Manslaughter

(1) Any person who is convicted of manslaughter shall be liable to be imprisoned for life or to pay such fine as the court awards or to both such imprisonment and fine.

A member of the teaching profession since 1971, given the above-mentioned statute laws and the professional Duty-of-Care  responsibilities of teachers, I am of the viewpoint that no school principal should allow staff, students, or any other member of the community, into school environments until such time as they can present a COVID-19 vaccination certificate.

The failure to require such a certificate means that the principal would be playing Russian roulette with the health, welfare and the safety of students, staff, and the broader community.

Civil Liability: The Donoghue Decision

“In 1932 Lord Atkin handed down a judgment that would become one of the most significant cases of the common law world, Donoghue v Stevenson. [1932] AC 562

https://legalheritage.sclqld.org.au/donoghue-v-stevenson-1932-ac-562

As the above comment from a Queensland Supreme Court library’s web page makes quite clear, the Donoghue decision established a significant Common Law legal precedent regarding the complex issue of Foreseeability and Accountability. In the context of over 202,000 COVID-19 deaths in just 3 months, the potential legal liability for South Australian taxpayers stemming from fatal errors of judgement by either Dr, Spurrier or yourself, is of mind-boggling enormity.

The US$20 million compensation payment to the family of Justine Damond in May 2019 makes it very clear that it is not ‘good government’ to deliberately expose South Australian taxpayers to such potentially massive legal liabilities by placing the lives of students and staff at risk for the presumed benefit of maintaining the children’s education.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. (Aldus Huxley – 1927)

The following 10 points raise further issues that you most definitely should not ignore:

POINT #1: As stated previously, we are both accountable under the above-mentioned laws as well as Commonwealth and State criminal codes that deal with the legal of mens mala when it comes to the reckless endangerment of life. Whilst I intend to uphold the law, the re-opening of schools may be compelling evidence of your utter contempt for the law.

POINT #2: SEEK LEGAL ADVICE: Your ability as the Premier of South Australia to misuse your lawful authority and by your actions or inactions, exacerbate the life-threatening risk posed by COVID-19, may, in law, constitute reckless conduct by ‘playing’ Russian roulette with the lives of every person in South Australia. However, the power to so recklessly endanger the lives of the people of South Australia does not imply the legal right to do so. If your actions result in serious illness or fatalities as a consequence of the re-opening schools and nursing home access, et cetera, then this email may be used as evidence that deprives you of any plausible deniability in any subsequent criminal or civil proceedings.

POINT #3: As is pointed out in the following text of my email to the CEO of Estia nursing homes, the Commonwealth is facing legal actions in both the Federal Court and in the International Criminal Court (the ICC). Currently, there is about ‘half-a-bus-load’ of South Australian public officials who may face indictment and prosecution in the ICC. These public officials may include people who chose to “see no evil”, e.g. Lee Odenwalder, Commissioner Grant Stevens,  Superintendent Grant Moyle, Chief Inspector Tim Grant, Detective Richard Miles, Sheriff Mark Stokes, Coroner, Mark Johns, and your current Health Minister, Stephen Wade.

It is my belief that all of these people need to be held accountable for their failure to prevent a humanitarian disaster that is quite literally of holocaust proportions and that this accountability should occur under Australia’s judicial system rather than in the ICC.

POINT #4: In view of the repeated failure of Australia’s criminal justice system to prevent what I have chosen to publicly denounce as the “Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders”, I shall continue to press for an ICC investigation into these officially “irrelevant” deaths.

This means that once my email server confirms that your email server has received this email, I shall forward this email to the Information & Evidence gathering Unit of the ICC.

POINT #5: Text to Speech (TTS) and audio-video screen capture are software tools that are built-in to Windows 10. Both the sending of this email communication to you, and the forwarding to the ICC, will be screen-capture-video-recorded. As per my comments in Point #2 above, if required this video may be made available if you face criminal or civil proceedings for violating Commonwealth and State safety laws and/or criminal codes.

POINT #6: In addition, in order to assist the New South Wales Independent Inquiry into the Ruby Princess disaster to gain insight into the mindset of some politicians and senior public health officials who may be prepared to put political and economic agendas ahead of public safety, the text of this email will also be forwarded to Commissioner Bret Walker SC.

Sadly, the inquiry into the deaths of 99 aboriginal people in custody, the HIP inquiry, the Sexual Abuse of Children inquiry, the Nyland Inquiry, the Financial Services Royal Commission inquiry, the 2 Oakden Nursing Home inquiries, and the subsequent Royal Commission  into the abuse of people in aged care facilities, are just a small subset of a very long list of official inquiries over the last 30-years into politically mismanaged blunders that, like the MV Ruby Princess fiasco, have resulted in  fatal consequences.

POINT #7: One recurring feature of this seemingly endless stream of public inquiries is that the politicians and public officials who were most responsible for these fiascos invariably attempt to distance themselves from any responsibility or accountability for their negligence. For example, consider the excuse used by SACON and DECS officials in the following redacted minutes of a December 1993 meeting that DECS officials subsequently denied any knowledge of:

Minutes-forming Enclosure to

CC:       MANAGER – REGIONAL SERVICES MANAGER – MINERAL FIBRES

RE:       PUBLIC SECTOR AUDITS

Following initial audits carried out in this Region from the <Content deleted > list of <deleted> sections of the public sector, the Education Department has raised questions on requirements of certain aspects of our demands following <deleted> by Inspectors on <deleted> noted in some of the schools. One particular area of their concern has been the necessity to have in place where applicable an asbestos register. 

Their claim was that they had five years to comply.

A meeting was held on Wednesday 23 December 1992 in the Conference Room on the 5th level of Natwest building to discuss these issues.

D L Blacker Regional Manager – Southern 4th January 1993

TAKE NOTE:

  • Circa 1990, an SA Health report in the media revealed that by 2020, an estimated 20,000 people in South Australia would either be dead, or dying of asbestos related illness. However, SA Health could not explain the primary source of the asbestos contamination.

  • In November 2005, whilst speaking on ABC Radio 891, Nick Xenophon described South Australia as the “Asbestos capital of the world”. However, he also could not explain why this was so.

  • In 1993, just months, after the secret meeting mentioned above, some of the DECS and SACON officials who were involved in that meeting participated in the rigging of safety tests of dust and fume extraction equipment at Cleve Area School. Graphic video of some of the “next door to useless” dust extraction equipment installed in the school’s Technical Studies classroom can be seen at the following URL:

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

Similar denial-of-accountability-deficiencies can be identified in the following statement, which was made by Senator Brandis during an ABC #QandA broadcast on the 20th February 2017:

“Now, this system involves a review of potentially millions of transfer payments, so of course there will be mistakes made, and I agree with what Piers Ackermann said, that when mistakes are made and they have terrible human consequences, then off course that’s a tragedy. But we do have to have appropriate compliance measures and the idea of data matching, introduced by Hawke and the idea of automated letters being sent to people when there is a discrepancy evident from the data-matching between the ATO data and the Centrelink data; it was introduced by you, is not a bad system. The methodology that has been used by this government is the same methodology that we inherited from you.”

In just 8-months, Centrelink’s fatal “mistakes”, which were justified on the basis of the need for “appropriate compliance measures” that had originally been introduced by the Hawke government, may have resulted in the deaths of some 630 welfare recipients. The failure to of any federal, state or territory law enforcement agency to investigate the “terrible human consequences” of Centrelink’s mistakes then resulted in another 1,400 fatalities over the next 20-months that were dismissed by as being of no significance because these deaths represented only 0.21% of the number of people who had received the now known to be unlawful ‘Robo-debt’ claims.

On the 18th September 2019, when speaking to David Koch on the Channel 7 Sunrise program, Scott Morrison made the following statement: Well, we want to make that process better, but I think the extent of this has been overstated by the Labour Party for obvious reasons.

Umm. And they used to run the same processes themselves, they just weren’t as, weren’t as forward leaning on ensuring that taxpayer’s money, when it was handed out in welfare and things like this, er, umm, was recovered where it should be.

The they used to run the same processes themselves”  statement by Scott Morrison confirmed the statement made by Senator Brandis in February 2017, i.e. that the now know to be unlawful, randomly lethal, Robo-debt ‘initiative’ had been set up the Labor Party. Whilst buck-passing the blame for initiating this brutally vicious traumatic fraud, Scott Morrison totally ignored both the known high error rate , which violated Section 142.2 of the Commonwealth criminal code, and, by his silence, he also abrogated  a death toll that exceeded 2,000 since the 1st July 2016.

Commissioner Ian Hanger left readers of his report in no doubt about the inadequate leadership of Ms. Janine Leake in fatal fiasco that resulted in the 4 Home improvement Program fatalities. His comments in Sections 6.8 – 6.10 and his scathing criticism in Section 6.11, i.e.  It is a shame that those entrusted with the implementation of the HIP did not adhere to these principles” now raises serious questions concerning the adequacy, and merit of the information that has been provided by Commonwealth, State and Territory Chief Medical Officers to their respective governments?   It is also important to note the legal implications in the following statements by Commissioner Hanger:

14.6.6  The APS ought to reinvigorate its willingness to provide, in writing, advice that is as frank and robust as the advice it is willing to give verbally. This requires cultural change of two kinds:

14.6.6.1 “senior officials and Ministers being aware they are entitled to act contrary to advice. The fact they received advice contrary to the way in which they act is no necessary or automatic basis to impugn the decision…”\

Quite clearly, when public officials provide “frank and robust advice” advice that is inconsistent with the real-world situation, or the government’s statutory or Common Law obligations, then Ministers are under no obligation to comply with that advice.  Ministers have a sworn obligation to uphold the law and therefore  legal responsibility and accountability for decisions that have fatal consequences rests with the Minister, not the advisor; a legal reality that every politician at every level of politics should never forget.

POINT #8: Consider the following report, which was posted on the Internet on the 17th April 2020: Coronavirus: Deputy Chief Medical Officer insists schools are safe to remain open

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/coronavirus-deputy-chief-medical-officer-insists-schools-are-safe-to-remain-open/vi-BB12NP3m

Precisely what was the Biometric Risk Assessment [BRA] made by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer that underpinned the rationality of that medical opinion, especially given that 9-days earlier the BMJ had indicated that the asymptomatic infection rates may be as high as 78% and, on the 10th April 2020, researchers published the following Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) article concerning the impact of COVID-19 in Wuhan.

Association of Public Health Interventions With the Epidemiology of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Wuhan, China. An Pan, PhD1; Li Liu, MD, PhD1; Chaolong Wang, PhD1; et al

JAMA. Published online April 10, 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.6130

Results  Among 32 583 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases, the median patient age was 56.7 years (range, 0-103; interquartile range, 43.4-66.8) and 16 817 (51.6%) were women. The daily confirmed case rate peaked in the third period and declined afterward across geographic regions and sex and age groups, except for children and adolescents, whose rate of confirmed cases continued to increase. The daily confirmed case rate over the whole period in local health care workers (130.5 per million people [95% CI, 123.9-137.2]) was higher than that in the general population (41.5 per million people [95% CI, 41.0-41.9]). The proportion of severe and critical cases decreased from 53.1% to 10.3% over the 5 periods. The severity risk increased with age: compared with those aged 20 to 39 years (proportion of severe and critical cases, 12.1%), elderly people (≥80 years) had a higher risk of having severe or critical disease (proportion, 41.3%; risk ratio, 3.61 [95% CI, 3.31-3.95]) while younger people (<20 years) had a lower risk (proportion, 4.1%; risk ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.31-0.70]). The effective reproduction number fluctuated above 3.0 before January 26, decreased to below 1.0 after February 6, and decreased further to less than 0.3 after March 1.

Conclusions and Relevance  A series of multifaceted public health interventions was temporally associated with improved control of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China. These findings may inform public health policy in other countries and regions.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2764658

The following information was published by Lia Lin Thomola on the 24th April 2020:

As of April 24, 2020, the novel coronavirus COVID-19 that originated in Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province in China, had infected over 84 thousand people and killed around 4,600 in the country. No death cases had been registered in the country for eight consecutive days. On April 17, 2020, health authorities in Wuhan revised its death toll, adding 50 percent more fatalities. After quarantine measures were implemented, the country reported no new local coronavirus COVID-19 transmissions for the first time on March 18, 2020. Over 90 percent of the patients had recovered.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1092918/china-wuhan-coronavirus-2019ncov-confirmed-and-deceased-number/\

Moving beyond the technical complexity of the above research findings, the core facts concerning COVID-19 are not difficult for the average person to understand:

[A] There is no known cure or vaccine for Coronavirus.

[B] World-wide, on the 17th April, the day when NSW Deputy Chief Medical officer made that statement, 8,347 people reportedly died of COVID-19 infection.

[C] Young people may not suffer serious harm but old people had a very high death rate.

[D} Almost 1 in  infected people may be asymptomatic and not show symptoms.

[E] In the period Midnight on the morning of the 17th April to Midnight on the evening of the 24th April,  a period of 8 calendar days, the COVID-19 death toll rose from 145,574 to 197,091.

[F] The death toll had increased by 51,527, i.e. an average of 6,439 deaths per day or 264 deaths per hour.

What these death statistics reveal is that until such time as the national community is immunized against COVID-19, the political push to re-open schools is the biological equivalent of Russian roulette, especially for the grandparents of school students who may provide after-school-care.

COMMUNITY RISK FACTORS:

Covid-19 research data from sources around the world draws attention to the impossible to define community risk factors, which may be unique to specific individuals. For example, I will be 72 years old in May; have both Diabetes and Pernicious Anaemia, and I am currently recovering from a bout of X-ray confirmed Pneumonia. Together, these 4 risk factors make it abundantly clear that if I come into contact with a student or fellow teacher who has an asymptomatic  COVID-19 infection, the most likely outcome is that I will die.  The same outcome is likely for any vulnerable person, e.g. a student with diabetes and/or asthma, or a staff member with an undiagnosed immune system problem.

The problem with schools is that they are a foreseeable concentration point for both the source of COVID-19 infection and potential victims of COVID-19 infection.

POINT #9: At 14.6.9 and 14.6.10 of the HIP Report, Commissioner Ian Hanger stated that Good advice from the APS is unbiased and objective… 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’.

Those comments reflect the role of experts who advice the Courts on technical issues that jurists may not appropriately qualified to make informed legal judgements about. In the United States, the Federal Judicial Center produces a reference text that is used by United States courts as a guide to dealing with complex technical issues such as ‘expert’ evidence.

“First published in 1994 by the Federal Judicial Center, the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence has been relied upon in the legal and academic communities and is often cited by various courts and others. Judges faced with disputes over the admissibility of scientific and technical evidence refer to the manual to help them better understand and evaluate the relevance, reliability and usefulness of the evidence being proffered. The manual is not intended to tell judges what is good science and what is not. Instead, it serves to help judges identify issues on which experts are likely to differ and to guide the inquiry of the court in seeking an informed resolution of the conflict.

The above statement can be found at the following URL, which also contains a hyper-link to a free download of the Scientific Reference manual:

https://www.fjc.gov/content/reference-manual-scientific-evidence-third-edition-1

Pages 22 – 23 and contains the following statements,  concerning the question as to whether or not a person may be regarded as an “expert”:

“As a threshold matter, the witness must be qualified as an expert to present expert opinion testimony. An expert needs more than proper credentials, whether grounded in “skill, experience, training or education” as set forth in Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. A proposed expert must also have “knowledge. For example, an expert who seeks to testify about the findings of epidemiological studies must be knowledgeable about the results of the studies and must take into account those studies that reach conclusions contrary to the position the expert seeks to advocate.”

This definition of an expert is consistent with the views expressed by Commissioner Ian Hanger that the advice provided by senior Australian Public Service advisors should be unbiased and objective, frank, honest, comprehensive, accurate and evidence-based.

POINT #10: Both the statistical evidence concerning the lethal spread of COVID-19 and the evidence-based opinions of highly respected independent non-government experts, e.g. Professor Xihong Lin [Biometrics; Harvard School of Public Health] and an April 7th British Medical Journal [BMJ] article seriously call into question potentially biased medical opinions that present only a carefully selected facts intended to justify the re-opening of schools.

Published on the Internet at April 8, 2020 12.45am AEST  a BMJ article revealed that up to 78% of people with COVID-19 do not show symptoms:

Coronavirus: BMJ study suggests 78% don’t show symptoms – here’s what that could mean

The findings are in line with research from an Italian village at the epicentre of the outbreak showing that 50%-75% were asymptomatic, but represented “a formidable source” of contagion. A recent Icelandic study also showed that around 50% of those who tested positive to COVID-19 in a large-scale testing exercise were asymptomatic.

Meanwhile, a WHO report found that “80% of infections are mild or asymptomatic, 15% are severe infections and 5% are critical infections”. Though we don’t know what proportion of that 80% were purely asymptomatic, or exactly how the cases were counted, it again points to a large majority of cases who are not going into hospital and being tested.

The new BMJ study is seemingly different to the findings of studies from earlier in the pandemic, which suggested that the completely asymptomatic proportion of COVID-19 is small: 17.9% on the Diamond Princess Cruise Ship and 33.3% in Japanese people who were evacuated from Wuhan.

https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-bmj-study-suggests-78-dont-show-symptoms-heres-what-that-could-mean-135732

POINT #11: The public officials who allowed 2,700 people to disembark from the MV Ruby Princess never expected 22 people to die of COVID-19. Neither did they anticipate being the subject of a criminal investigation, a public commission of inquiry and a class action law suit.

In view of the life-threatening risk to vulnerable individuals in the Australian community, I believe that it is appropriate to vigorously challenge and question the views of government officials who may be misusing their professional and official status to promote the views of the government rather than presenting impartial ‘black hat’ facts . For example, how can any federal, state or territory government appointed expert claim that schools are safe when there is no cure and no vaccine for COVID-19, and asymptomatic rates amongst people who do not seek testing or medical support may be in the range 50-80% of community infection rates? With worldwide death rates daily being measured in thousands this is a compelling question as is the question as to how , with the re-opening of schools, or aged care facilities, are federal and state medical advisors able to justify their opinions in the face of these empirical facts the divergent opinions of internationally respected experts, and clearly worded statute law obligations such as Section 31 of the Commonwealth Work health & Safety Act and Sections 57 and 58 of the South Australian Public Health Act?

POINT #12: Politicians lie, and far too often, people die.

The Privy Council’s report to the English Parliament (HC 264, 6th July 2016) makes it very clear that the Coalition of the Willing lied their way into the war by falsely claiming to have ‘evidence’ that did not exist:

  • [Section 4.4 at paragraph 899] Reporting to President Bush, the Commission stated that “the [US] Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgments about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. This was a major intelligence failure.”

  • [At 900]. The evidence in this Section shows that, after the invasion, the UK Government, including the intelligence community, was reluctant to admit, and to recognise publicly, the mounting evidence that there had been failings in the UK’s pre-conflict collection, validation, analysis and presentation of intelligence on Iraq’s WMD.

If a March 2018 report by the Washington Post is accurate, around the world the cumulative death toll from the “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” lie is, at minimum around 600,000, or possibly in excess of 750,000:

Tens of thousands of people died fighting in the Iraq War, which began 15 years ago Tuesday. Nearly 5,000 of them were U.S. service members. Tens of thousands were insurgents battling the transitional Iraqi government put in place after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

But that figure obscures the actual number of deaths attributable to the conflict. During the war and during the Islamic State militant group’s occupation of as much as a third of the country in recent years, the number of deaths runs into the hundreds of thousands, including civilians killed as a result of violence and, more broadly, those who died because of the collapse of infrastructure and services in Iraq resulting from the ongoing conflict.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/03/20/15-years-after-it-began-the-death-toll-from-the-iraq-war-is-still-murky/

I believe that it is a statement of fact that a former South Australian resident, Kirsty Boden, died because John Howard and General Peter Cosgrove lied to the people of Australia.  Had both men told the truth, i.e. that there was no “irrefutable evidence” that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; merely their personal opinion that Iraq might have such weapons. The brazen lies and very public deceits surrounding the illegal invasion of Iraq, and the studious disregard by federal and state politicians for the lethal dangers posed by asbestos, and the more current problem of global warming, when combined with the massive deaths tolls that are measured in the hundreds of thousands, does not engender any high degree of confidence in the validity or integrity of politicians such as yourself and your post-election appointment of a  ‘Yes Team’ of advisors, especially on the issue of COVID-19 and  public safety.  I would remind you that during the last South Australian election, you made a commitment to the people of South Australia not to further privatize the South Australian public transport, a promise that you recently broke.

I would point out that “non-core promises” contained in election policy statements are actually a criminal offence under the following SA Criminal Law Consolidation Act provision:

140—Dishonest dealings with documents

(1) For the purposes of this section, a document is false if the document gives a misleading impression about—

(a) the nature, validity or effect of the document; or

(b) any fact (such as, for example, the identity, capacity or official position of an apparent signatory to the document) on which its validity or effect may be dependent; or

(c) the existence or terms of a transaction to which the document appears to relate. by yourself.

The one upside to the life-threatening problem of COVID-19 is that it does focus people’s attention on the issue of survival and the need for informed responsible decisions by those appointed to deal with the problem. The text of a recent email to the CEO of Estia aged care homes is provided to underscore the fact that any decision-making on your part may be subject to the crucible of both public scrutiny and courtroom scrutiny. If nursing home operators allow people who have asymptomatic COVID-19 into nursing homes, the legal ramifications of multiple fatalities will be profound. The Amato decision, the Prygodicz class action and COVID-19 have all introduced new paradigms that politicians and public servants must now deal with. Parents of school-aged children, nursing home operators simply cannot take the risk that your decisions will place lives in danger. If you wish to flout the law and deliberately place lives in danger for your own politically motivated ends, as happened with the murderous Robo-dent ‘initiative’, then you can reasonably expect to held accountable in the courts rather than the polling booth.

POINT #12(a): COVID-19 IS A CATEGORY A VIRUS – REALM RINOVIRA

Dealing with COVID-19 is not about maintaining education standards or the prevention of an economic meltdown. It is solely about the survival of the species. The COVID-19 virus may have been a man-made virus that escaped from a Level 4 containment facility at the Wuhan Biological Research Centre, or it may be an ‘in-the-wild’ mutation of the SARS virus. Right now, the source of the virus is irrelevant. What matters is that COVID-19 is a Category A virus of the biological realm Ribovira, which is the same realm of virus as Ebola Zaire and Nile River Fever. In an ideal world, all persons who may be infected with COVID-19 would be treated in Level 4 negative pressure medical containment facilities.

“Murphy’s Law’: Professor Brandon Murphy is on the public record advising that concerts and hotel buffet meals are out until a vaccine is developed. It is therefore no great leap of logic that until a vaccine is developed, schools should also be ‘out’, i.e. NO VACCINE – NO SCHOOL. By promoting the false belief that ‘schools are safe’ you may have unleashed a Level 4 bio-hazard into the South Australian school system that could potentially kill thousands of people in South Australia.

Finally, are you able to provide parents and teachers with a copy of a World Health Organization document that independently substantiates your “schools are safe” claim?

Ronald Medlicott. Semi-retired teacher & volunteer lay-advocate.

EMAIL TO MR. IAN THORLEY, CEO OF ESTIA NURSING HOMES

Re: possibly premature winding back of COVID-19 restrictions by the federal government.

Estia

Dear Sir,

There is  intense political, social and economic pressure upon governments around the world to wind back the very severe COVID-19 restrictions. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 virus, which is a Category A virus in the same class as Ebola Zaire, is totally insensitive to the pressures being placed upon governments and it is my recommendation that you seek independent advice concerning the appropriateness of relaxing the COVID-19 quarantine in Estia homes.

Death Toll Update Summary: In the 118 hours and 12 minutes of the period from Midnight on the evening of Saturday, 18th April to 22:12 PM on Thursday, 23rd April, there were 30,148 deaths, i.e. an overall average of 225 deaths per hour, or a death every 16 seconds. 

[1] 27th January 2020 – 17 deaths

[2] 17th March 2020 – 7,979 deaths (An increase of 7,952 deaths in 50 days – approximately 160 deaths per day.)

[3] 18th March 2020 – 8,591 deaths (612 more deaths – now at 25+ deaths PER HOUR)

NOTE: The MV Ruby Princess, after having “notified authorities” that some passengers had COVID-19, with at least 1 requiring hospital treatment and, incredibly, both the Federal Government and the New South Wales Government, in violation of long-standing Commonwealth and State quarantine laws, AND the Section 31 of the Commonwealth Work Health & Safety Act of 2011, allowed the MV Ruby Princess to not only dock, but to also freely disembark 2,700 passengers who were not placed in quarantine as per the cased with overseas airline passengers!

[4] 19th March 2020 – 10,030 dead by the end of the day.

[5] 20th March 2020 – 13,011 dead. (An increase of 2,981 deaths in 1 day – approximately 124 deaths per hour.)

APRIL 2020: 18th April datum point – 160,047

[6]  19th April 2020 – 165,031  ( 4,984 deaths at an average of 207 per hour.)

[7]  20th April 2020 – 170,379  ( 5,348 deaths at an average of 223 per hour.)

[8]  21st April 2020 – 177,459  ( 7,080 deaths at an average of 295 per hour.)

[9]  22nd April 2020 – 184,066  ( 6,607 deaths at an average of 275 per hour.)

[10] 23rd April 2020 – 190,195 as of 22:12 Greenwich Mean Time.  ( 6,129 deaths at an average of 276 deaths per hour.) 2,712,091 confirmed cases

Adding complexity is the radically changing circumstances caused by evidence being presented to the NSW Independent Inquiry into the MV Ruby Princess fiasco. Since the ship was allowed to dock and disembark passengers on the 19th March 2020, 21 people have died, (19 in Australia and 2 in the USA) and a reported 600 more people have been confirmed as COVID-19 cases.

Legal action has already been started in the USA and a class action is likely in Australia that is likely to highly successful due to the appalling ineptitude in the management of the COVID-19 crisis by Commonwealth and State governments.

[1] On the 24th March 2020, Australia’s Border protection agency blamed the NSW Government for the unresisted disembarkation of 2,700 passengers from the MV Ruby Princess: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/25/border-force-blames-nsw-health-for-letting-ruby-princess-dock-without-coronavirus-checks

Border Force blames NSW Health for letting Ruby Princess dock without coronavirus checks.

Australian Border Force has blamed New South Wales Health for giving the Ruby Princess the green light to dock in Sydney saying it was state authorities who decided not to send any health officers to the ship to check passengers for Covid-19.

In a forthright press conference, the force’s commissioner, Michael Outram, said ABF’s responsibilities for border control did not extend to health checks. But the NSW government is still insisting it was federal authorities who categorised the cruise ship carrying 2,700 people as “low risk”, resulting in the release of a major wave of 133 infections in the Australian community. In what is proving a catastrophe amid efforts to curb the spread of Covid-19 in Australia, politicians have expressed outrage that the system failed to isolate the Ruby Princess passengers and crew.

[2]  THE FLIP SIDE:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/23/ruby-princess-hotel-manager-does-not-recall-if-border-force-involved-in-cruise-ship-disembarkation

Ruby Princess hotel manager ‘does not recall’ if Border Force involved in cruise ship disembarkation

The hotel manager on the Ruby Princess cruise ship has told an inquiry he “does not recall” the Australian Border Force being involved in the cruise ship’s docking and disembarkation in Sydney. Charles Verwall told the special commission of inquiry into the cruise ship that New South Wales Health had been involved, and had told the ship’s staff to ask sick passengers to present to the ship’s doctors, but did not want to conduct an on-board assessment before docking. Verwall also echoed the comments of the ship’s senior doctor, who told the inquiry yesterday that she was “surprised” passengers were allowed off the ship before coronavirus test results had come back.

On Thursday, Verwall told the inquiry that NSW Health officials boarded the ship on 8 March to conduct an assessment, but was surprised they did not do the same on the 18th or 19th. “We were expecting the same treatment from NSW Health as we received on the 8th,” he said. The manager said he was “surprised we were not screened by NSW Health in the morning [of the 19th]” even though swabs to be tested for Covid-19 had been taken.

Commissioner Bret Walker SC asked Verwall whether he observed any Australian Border Force officers having “any involvement of any kind in the disembarkation”.
“I do not recall that at all,” Verwall said.“You did not observe any ABF involvement at all?” Walker asked. “That is correct,” he said.  Verwall also told the inquiry on Thursday that the cruise ship had been sailing “in the red zone” of the cruise company’s infectious disease scale for the entirety of the trip between 8 March and 18 March. Counsel assisting the inquiry, Richard Beasley SC, told the inquiry that the “infectious diseases policy of Princess Cruises has levels in green and red. “What level were you in when you docked on the 8th of March?” he asked Verwall. “We operated in the red level,” the hotel manager replied.

“Did the ship retain in that red zone through the voyage of 8th to 18th of March?”

“Yes.” Internal logs from the ship showed that more than 100 passengers had been ill when the ship docked in Sydney on 8 March. 2,700 passengers then boarded the ship that same day for a second cruise, which returned to Sydney on 18 March.Verwall told the inquiry that passengers were asked on the 16th and 17th to present to on-board medical staff if they had health issues, “at the request of NSW public health”. He then told the inquiry he did not observe any involvement of the Border Force in disembarkation. Walker asked the hotel manager: “Does it follow then, that there was nothing done to check passports? “I saw border patrol force was at the end of the terminal when guests were leaving, but I don’t think that was for guests, it was for crew,” he said.

He said he did not have any communication with managers or executives of the cruise ship’s operating company between 18 March and disembarkation on the 19th. The hotel manager also said they instituted an “elevated level of hygiene”, and this commenced before the second boatload of passengers boarded on 8 March. He said staff conducted “a complete sanitisation of all public areas and cabins”. However, he confirmed there were “dancers” and “a nightclub” on the ship and there “were no social distancing protocols” for those activities, or for the ship’s on-board cinema.

In Canberra, the commonwealth chief medical officer, Brendan Murphy, told a Senate committee into Covid-19 that he was “not directly involved” and “operational decisions” were made by state and territory human biosecurity officers.

TAKE NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING EXTRACTS FROM THE REPORT 2014 HOME IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM – MISMANAGING COVID-19 APPEARS TO BE A CASE OF HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF ON A VASTLY LARGER SCALE THAN THE HIP DISASTER.

The Report of the Royal Commission into the Home Improvement Program

175 years after the 1839 Royal Commission report to the English Parliament that Justice Brooking cited in Faure v. The Queen (see below), on the 31st August 2014, Commissioner Ian Hanger QC presented his report into the Home Improvement Program to the Governor-General. Some of the comments in what is now referred to as ‘The HIP Report’ are essentially a 21st century variation on the views expressed by the Royal commission in 1839.

ABROGATION OF RISK: Personal Abrogation of Risk – Ms. Janine Leake.

[At 7.12.207] Ms Leake said she had no part in the preparation of the Gantt charts but was ‘sure’ she would have had input into whether the times were realistic. She also consulted on the project schedule. She felt herself ‘one of the team’ rather than an expert providing advice. Doing so was a complete misunderstanding of her role. It meant that she abrogated responsibility for project management activities that the Program sorely required and which, no doubt, was one of the main reasons that the services of Everything Infrastructure had been retained in the first place.

[At 7.12.208] Her own evidence which I summarise below establishes that she did not take an interest in the matters in which a diligent project manager would have involved herself.

[7.12.209] At the 16 April PCG meeting, Ms Leake was given an ‘action item’ to work with Ms Murray-Pearce on the Risk Register. She worked, she thought, on the template, and how to calculate the significance of risk. She attended a working group meeting on 22 April 2009. Ms Leake was also given a task to set up bilateral meetings with Ms Kaminski and others. It is obvious that she did more than just set up the meeting, by looking at documents and so forth.

[7.12.210] On 22 April 2009, Ms Leake is recorded as having provided a Risk Summary and detailed Risk Analysis sheet prepared using Minter Ellison’s initial risk assessment. Ms Leake had no recollection of her having given any assistance in connection with the document or the meeting at which it was discussed. Nor could she remember anything material about exchanges that took place on about 22 April 2009 concerning training.

[7.12.211]  Ms Leake also attended the PCG meeting on 8 May 2009 and the training workshop that also took place on that day. She did not know why. She thought she was there ‘as one of the direct reports to Kevin Keeffe’. Again these responses are highly unsatisfactory.

[At 7.12.214] The Government, Ms Leake said, would not have direct control over the program (including as to safety). She said she had these concerns ‘early on’ and raised them with Kevin Keeffe. She said that his response was that he would flag it ‘up the line’. This was insufficient. It was her responsibility to see such matters pursued.

[At 7.12.215] She knew that the full compliance program could not be put in place by 1 July 2009 and despite this, did not suggest putting back the HIP’s start date from 1 July 2009 to a later time. She made no inquiries about why the commencement date was apparently immovable. She thought the reason was that a ‘politician had made the announcement.’ One would expect that if she is involved with the HIP to provide “strategic management services” one would expect her to provide written advice to the effect: This can’t be done in the time allocated.

[At 7.12.216] I do not accept that Ms Leake’s role was as limited, peripheral and inconsequential as she said it was. She certainly sought to make it less significant than it ought, on any reasonable view, to have been, in both her statement and her oral evidence.

[At 7.12.217] Ms Leake declined an offer by the Commission to provide a further statement to deal with the matters which were the subject of her oral examination.

SYSTEMIC ABROGATION OF RISK: Governments Cannot Abrogate Risk .

[At 14.7.1 The identification and management of risks under the HIP was seriously deficient.

The risk of death and serious injury to installers, among the most serious of all the risks that might eventuate, was identified in working groups and in the risk identification process, but not recorded in the Risk Register and did not appear there until a death had occurred. This is the polar opposite of how a risk management process is supposed to work.

[At 14.7.3.2] 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.

[At 14.7.3.2.1] The Australian Government should not seek to abrogate responsibility for identified risk.

If another party (for example, a State or Territory Government) is identified as being able to mitigate an identified risk, this does not remove the Department’s responsibility to take the necessary steps to manage the risk and to ensure that others are doing the same.

The Australian Government should engage with the identified risk manager to ensure the adequacy of those arrangements for the new circumstance, and consider whether there are additional steps that it could take to complement that action.

SYSTEMIC FAILURE – WHY THE HIP WAS A DISASTER

[At 14.6.4] Public servants, like most people, are reluctant to jeopardise their employment in their chosen career.

[At 14.6.5] The solution is not to reinstate security of tenure. There are other means by which the importance of frank and fearless advice might be reinforced and, hopefully, made more common. I discuss them below.

[At 14.6.6] The APS ought to reinvigorate its willingness to provide, in writing, advice that is as frank and robust as the advice it is willing to give verbally. This requires cultural change of two kinds:

[14.6.6.1] senior officials and Ministers being aware they are entitled to act contrary to advice. The fact they received advice contrary to the way in which they act is no necessary or automatic basis to impugn the decision;

[At 14.6.6.2] public officials giving advice must be encouraged to think clearly, to free themselves as much as possible of institutional biases and taboos, and to have courage when giving advice.

[At 14.6.7] 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.

This could be done by including a section in the briefing template which requires the author to air risks relevant to the proposal (a ‘devil’s advocate’ section)—this would provide Ministers with an opportunity to make decisions fully informed about the implications and consequences thereof.

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 therein. Ministers and their advisers must not, by subtle suggestion or otherwise, dictate what advice they receive.

[At 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. For example a relevant consideration should have been the fact that at the end of the HIP (had it been successful) there would have been a lack of employment for those involved.

[At 14.6.9] As explained in Chapter 2 of the APSC Guide:

The APS works within, and to implement, the elected government’s policies and outcomes . . . Good advice from the APS is unbiased and objective. It is politically neutral but not naïve, and is developed and offered with an understanding of its implications and of the broader policy directions set by government. 

[At 14.6.10] it is also said:

  • 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’.

  • Responsiveness demands a close and cooperative relationship with Ministers and their employees.

  • The policy advisory process is an iterative one, which may involve frequent feedback between the APS and the Minister and his or her office.

  • Responsive implementation of the government’s policies and programmes (APS Values (f)) is achieved through a close and cooperative relationship with Ministers and their employees.

Ministers may make decisions, and issue policy guidelines with which decisions made by APS employees must comply.

[At 14.6.11] It is a shame that those entrusted with the implementation of the HIP did not adhere to these principles.

[MY COMMENT] The Home Improvement Program was literally a lethal disaster because it was government economic policy driven rather than a safety driven government policy. Government advisors told the government what the government ministers wanted to hear instead of telling Ministers what they needed to hear. As the example above of Ms. Janine Leake reveals, when the process failed and people died, Rule 101 was deny any responsibility for causing the disaster. 

CAVEAT EMPTOR: 6 years on and nothing has changed: Border force boss, Commissioner Michael Outram, and the Commonwealth’s Chief Medical Officer, Brendan Murphy are now making the same sort of excuses that Ms. Leake used in 2014 in order to abrogate any responsibility for this fatal fiasco.

Good decision-making on your part for the purpose of protecting Estia Homes clients requires the access to very best impartial, and objective inputs. I therefore strongly recommend that you consider watching the extremely informative, independent COVID-19 seminar hosted by the Broad Institute, an entity established by Harvard University and the MIT Schools of Public Health:

https://www.broadinstitute.org/videos/learning-26000-cases-covid-19-wuhan
Infectious Disease & Microbiome Program Meeting, Broad Institute. March 20, 2020
PRESENTER; Dr.Xihong Lin – Professor of Biostatistics, HSPH,  Professor of Statistics, Harvard University

The title is drop-dead boring, i.e. Evolving Epidemiology and Impact of Non-pharmaceutical Interventions on the Outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Wuhan, China. However, Dr. Lin presents recent research, which the WHO used, when analyzing some 25,000+ lab-confirmed COVID-19 cases in Wuhan until February 18, 2020. The research findings could provide timely information on strategy development on controlling the outbreak in US and other countries. For CEO’s of aged care facilities, I would suggest that what Dr. Lin reveals about the impact of COVID-19 on senior citizens aged 60+ makes this 58 minute video compulsory viewing.

In making this recommendation, I would draw your attention to the following matters of fact:

[1] The Commonwealth is facing a class action law suit in the Federal court for ripping off 900,000 people with the Robo-debt “initiative”

[2] As the information in the URLs below reveal, the Commonwealth is facing the possibility of a Genocide & Crimes against Humanity investigation for the unreported, officially “irrelevant” death toll caused by 30-years of Robo-debt fraud and other systemic human rights violations that have caused thousands of preventable deaths.

ROBO DEBT – 2,030 dead Shalialah Medora

 https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/2030-people-have-died-after-receiving-centrelink-robodebt-notice/10821272

PEDESTRIAN TV: new data reveals over 2000 died after getting a Centrelink robodebt

 https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/centrelink-robo-debt-deaths-data/

SYDNEY CRIMINAL LAWYERS – Centrelink’s flawed Robo-debt is killing our most vulnerable.

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/centrelinks-flawed-robo-debt-system-is-killing-our-most-vulnerable/

Ronald’s space :  International Criminal Court:  https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1h5

The Massacreshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLMYv4EXDD4

Due to a Senate  “confidential” classification, very few people in Australia are aware that in November 2005 the Senate’s Legal & Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee secretly classified  Submission 287 to the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry as “confidential” because this submission challenged the legality of the unreported welfare penalties triggered death toll.

https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Legal_and_Constitutional_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2004-07/terrorism/submissions/sublist

Given the choice between making correct decisions that save lives, or making decisions that are politically popular, politicians have a deplorable track record of putting populism ahead of public safety, a fact underscored in the USA by Georgia’s government ignoring the COVID-19 threat by re-opening businesses tomorrow! Under Crown Law, such cavalier political populist decisions are a crime, but the law is not being enforced today as strictly as it was just 20 years ago; a fact underscored by the following 1999 Victorian supreme court decision, which predates the HIP Report by 15-years. Note that some of  the precedents used by Justice Brooking data back to an 1839 Royal Commission report to the English Parliament that contains precedents that underpinned the 2014 HIP Report:

R v Faure [1999] VSCA 166 (24 September 1999)

This appeal dealt with an appeal by a person who had engaged in a “game” of Russian roulette that resulted in a fatality. Crucial points of law cited by Justice Brooking in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the appeal concerning ‘mens mala’, i.e. deliberate intent, are based upon knowledge of the fact that an act could be dangerous to human life:

  1. ”The crime requires knowledge that it is probable that death or grievous bodily harm will result from the act.”

  2. “It is the wilful exposure of life to peril that constitutes the crime.”

  3. “Whether such a peril be wilfully occasioned is a question not of law but of fact, depending on a consideration of the nature of the act done, the circumstances under which it was done, the probability that the act under those circumstances would be fatal to life, and the consciousness on the part of the offender that such peril would ensue.”

  4. “Malice, in the legal sense of the word, means, according to Mr Justice Foster, the mala mens, the heart bent upon mischief, as evidenced by general symptoms and circumstances.”

  5. “[T]he question is properly one of fact, as dependent on the existence of peril, and the design to expose to peril.”

  6. The state of the offender’s mind in thus exposing life to danger seems clearly to fall within the legal notion of mens rea for all purposes of plenary responsibility.”

  7. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had no hesitation in affirming the conviction, observing (at 449) that the act had been done “in reckless and wanton disregard of the consequences

Justice Brooking’s findings:

[At 29] The second additional point worth mentioning concerns the case of reckless murder. The crime requires knowledge that it is probable that death or grievous bodily harm will result from the act. The requisite state of mind is predicated upon an objective fact – a probability.

It is regarded as “dangerous” for present purposes the pulling of a trigger even though the probability of the discharge of the firearm was mathematically quite low. As long ago as 1839 it was accepted by the distinguished English Royal Commissioners inquiring into the criminal law (Holdsworth, History of English Law, vol.15, p.143) that it would be murder if, knowing that one only of two (or three or four) pistols set before him was loaded, but not

knowing which one, the accused, for the pleasure of it, picked up one pistol, put it to another person’s head and pulled the trigger with fatal results. It is for this and another reason worth quoting at length from the Commissioners’ fourth report, contained in (1839) 19 Parliamentary Papers, pp.23-25:

“We proceed to offer some observations and illustrations, with a view to show that in the ordinary case where death is occasioned by the doing an act attended with manifest peril to life, the conclusion is properly not one of law but of fact, and that it is for the jury to decide whether the offender wilfully exposed life to manifest peril. Upon their affirming or negativing this proposition, the question whether he be guilty or not of murder, ought, we think, to depend. The ‘mens mala’, – the heart regardless of social duty, – are figurative expressions used to denote the criminal apathy or indifference with which an act is wilfully done which puts human life in peril.

Whether such a peril be wilfully occasioned is a question not of law but of fact, depending on a consideration of the nature of the act done, the circumstances under which it was done, the probability that the act under those circumstances would be fatal to life, and the consciousness on the part of the offender that such peril would ensue.

If A, knowing that one of two pistols was loaded with ball, but without knowing which, took one, and applying the muzzle to the head of B, pulled the trigger and shot him, having by chance taken the loaded one, this would be murder; for A wilfully placed B’s life in peril by his act. Here it was an even chance whether B was killed or not, – but it is evidence that the principle and the law founded upon it must be the same, even although the probability were less; as for instance, though the selection were made from three or four (one only being loaded) instead of two; although no doubt the degree of probability may be an important circumstance in ascertaining the fact of the intention of the offender to put in danger.

Neither the nature nor the degree of peril can possibly be the subject of legal definition; as well the knowledge of the offender that such peril exists, as the wilfulness of his act in proceeding notwithstanding that knowledge, are necessarily matters of fact, the existence of which is for the consideration of the jury. It may no doubt frequently appear, from the particular facts found by the jury, that the offender did wilfully expose human life to manifest peril, but still, as in numerous instances the court may be unable to draw the conclusion from the mere facts, it seems to be clear, as a general position, that the question is one of fact for the jury. In particular, it may be noticed that the fact of knowledge on the part of the accused, of the peril he was about to occasion by his act, must very frequently depend upon mere circumstantial evidence, upon the effect of which it is the province of a jury to decide. Malice, in the legal sense of the word, means, according to Mr Justice Foster, the mala mens, the heart bent upon mischief, as evidenced by general symptoms and circumstances.

When this definition is applied to an ordinary case of implied malice, as where a man throws a heavy stone over a wall into a street, through which many persons are likely to be passing, malice thus defined assumes a more precise meaning. The offender in such case does not intend the death or hurt of any one in particular, – the act may kill a stranger or may do no hurt at all: there is nothing, therefore, to make it criminal, and so to constitute implied malice, but the peril of destroying life wilfully occasioned. The ‘heart bent on mischief’ must in this case, and it is apprehended in all others, in the absence of a special definite rule of law which defines what is meant by implied malice, consist simply in the disregard of life manifested by exposing life to peril, although no malice in the popular sense of the term exist against any individual. It is the wilful exposure of life to peril that constitutes the crime. If one, knowing cakes to contain deadly poison, were to scatter them in a public street, and death were the consequence, the act would be murder, for the offender knew that what he did was likely to occasion loss of life; but if one did the same act without knowing or suspecting that the cakes contained poison he would be innocent in law as well as in morals, for, although the act be in truth equally dangerous whether knowledge exist or not, in the one case great peril to life is wilfully occasioned, and in the other not. And so in all cases it is essential to the criminality of the act, both in law and morals, not only that the act should in its own nature under the circumstances be attended with peril to life, but that the offender should be aware of such peril. Where the offender does an act attended with manifest danger to life wilfully, that is with knowledge of the consequences, he may properly be said to have the ‘mens mala, or heart bent upon mischief’; but if he does an act, however dangerous it be in its own nature, without any knowledge or suspicion of its tendency, that is, if he does not wilfully place life in peril, he cannot be said to show the mens mala, or heart bent on mischief. In such cases, therefore, it is plain that implied malice in law, according to Mr Justice Foster’s notion, means nothing more than the state or disposition of the offender’s mind when he wilfully does an act likely to kill or wilfully intends to put life in peril; but this is a conclusion to be drawn from the facts, viz., the probability that death will result from the act under the particular circumstances of the case, and the intention of the offender to occasion the peril regardless of consequences. …

In so atrocious a case as that of scattering poison, above, supposed, no doubt could well be entertained as to the guilt of the offender, dependent as it is on the circumstances of the act being in its own nature attended with manifest peril to life, and of the criminal intention on the part of the offender wilfully to place life in peril. In other instances, although the evidence be not so cogent, it will be found that the difficulties arise not from the necessity of calling in aid the operation of any new principle, or the applicability of those adverted to, but merely from doubt arising upon the matter of fact. The degree of probability that death will ensue from the act is susceptible of every variety from moral certainty to the remotest possibility; – the intention of the actor is also capable of degrees, closely indeed dependent on the greater or less degree of probability of mischief, from a direct intention to destroy life, to perfect innocence.

And such varieties, it may be observed, are not merely in proportion to the risk, but depend also on the knowledge and consciousness of the risk to life.

These elements are obviously matters of fact, to be decided as facts; they are beyond the reach of definition, and when probability of loss of life from doing the act, the knowledge of that probability on the part of the offender, and his criminal intention to occasion the risk have been determined in fact, the principle of law applies.

It is upon these principles that the different degrees of legal guilt, in the absence of a direct intention to kill, depend.

If poison instead of being, as in the case above supposed, used in such a manner as to occasion manifest danger to life, and with consciousness and knowledge of such danger, were to be used for the destruction of rats by placing it in a closet locked for greater precaution, the loss of human life would still be a barely possible, although most improbable, result from the act; a thief might by possibility break open the closet, and mistaking the poison for food, eat it and die. Here the fatal result would occur without the least blame, legal or moral, on the part of him who thus laid the poison. But between these two extreme cases lie an infinity of others, in respect of which important legal distinctions are requisite, although they may vary almost imperceptibly from each other, and particularly as to the degree of risk to human life which may be incurred. …

[T]he question is properly one of fact, as dependent on the existence of peril, and the design to expose to peril.”

  1. The example of playing with pistols was given again by the Commissioners in their seventh report, printed in (1843) 19 Parliamentary Papers, p.24:

“[L]et it be supposed that a person knowing that one of two pistols is loaded, without knowing which, points one of them at the head of another person and draws the trigger, and (the loaded pistol having in fact been taken) shoots that person, the offender (consistently with the foregoing principles) ought to be deemed as fully responsible for the consequences as he would have been had he been aware that he took the loaded pistol, the fatal result being the same, and the mens rea existing in the one case as well as the other, without any such difference as to afford any substantial distinction for legal purposes. It seems to be clear that the application of the same principles would tend to the same conclusion, if instead of taking at hazard one of two pistols, one of three or of four, or of any other definite number, were taken, one only of that number being loaded. The probability of a fatal result would be diminished as the number from which the selection was made was increased, but still there would be a wilful risking of life attended with a fatal result, and as it seems a total absence of any intelligible principle of distinction for penal purposes. The state of the offender’s mind in thus exposing life to danger seems clearly to fall within the legal notion of mens rea for all purposes of plenary responsibility.”

[At 31] In 1946 the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had before it an appeal by a young man of 17 convicted of the reckless murder of a 13-year-old boy with whom he had played “Russian poker”: Commonwealth v. Malone 354 Pa. 180; 47 A. 2d 445(1946). In Pennsylvania murder was divided into degrees by a statute which did not modify the common law rules defining murder, and in Malone the law was said to require for reckless murder an act of gross recklessness from which the defendant must reasonably anticipate death as likely to result.

The youth had placed a single cartridge in one of the five chambers of a revolver – he swore it was the chamber immediately to the right of the firing chamber – and placed the revolver against the boy’s side. He had then, without any spinning of the chamber, pulled the trigger three times, the third pull resulting in a fatal wound. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had no hesitation in affirming the conviction, observing (at 449) that the act had been done “in reckless and wanton disregard of the consequences which were at least sixty per cent certain from his thrice attempted discharge of a gun known to contain one bullet and aimed at a vital part of Long’s body”.

 

Ronald Medlicott. Registered teacher and volunteer lay-advocate

Posted in abuse of power, burden of proof, Case law, covid 19, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, international criminal court, international law, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment