Part 52i Australia’s “Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders” – Does the landmark 1935 “Golden Thread” decision ‘hang’ the lethal Robo Debt fraud?

Does the landmark 1935 “Golden Thread” decision ‘hang’ the lethal Robo Debt fraud and leave the politicians, public servants and lawyers responsible for this randomly lethal fraud accountable for what may prove to be the worst serial murders since Federation in 1901?

Note the case law texts below were sourced from: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1935/1.html

© Source: British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) 

HOUSE OF LORDS. 1935] AC462  WOOLMINGTON APPELLANT; AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS RESPONDENT 5TH APIL 1935

The URL Short link for this posting is: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1g9

A quick overview of this Landmark decision, which any person with an Australian university law degree should know about, especially politicians, is available at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolmington_v_DPP

Please note that the paragraph numbers used in the following extracts from Woolmington were not used in the original published findings by the House of Lords:

POINTS OF LAW FROM WOOLMINGTON v. DPP;  HOUSE OF LORDS. AC462 on the 5th April 1935 that highlight the fact of law that the “terrible human consequences’ of Robo Debt are HOMICIDES and also that this “initiative” violates “The Golden Thread”, i.e. the BURDEN OF PROOF  upon the Crown to prove any claims made against a citizen.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1935/1.html

© British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) 

THE GOLDEN THREAD

“… if conviction there is to be, the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

 “Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception.”

“No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.”

“We were then asked to follow the Court of Criminal Appeal and to apply the proviso of s. 4 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, which says: “the Court may,notwithstanding that they are of opinion that the point raised in the appeal might be decided in favour of the appellant, dismiss the appeal if they consider that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.”

Paragraph 24: The presumption of innocence in a criminal case is strong: see Taylor On Evidence 11th Ed (1920), ss 113, 114, Vol 1, pp 107, 108; 12th Ed (1931), Vol 1, pp 107, 108

 Paragraph 26: “… at the end of the evidence it is not for the prisoner to establish his innocence, but for the prosecution to establish his guilt. Just as there is evidence on behalf of the prosecution so there may be evidence on behalf of the prisoner which may cause a doubt as to his guilt. In either case, he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. But while the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner, there is no such burden laid on the prisoner to prove his innocence and it is sufficient for him to raise a doubt as to his guilt; he is not bound to satisfy the jury of his innocence.

Paragraph 28: “Juries are always told that, if conviction there is to be, the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. This statement cannot mean that in order to be acquitted the prisoner must “satisfy” the jury.”

Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law ONE GOLDEN THREAD IS ALWAYS TO BE SEEN,

  • that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception.

  • If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention,

  •  the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal.

HELLICAR AND THE GOLDEN THREAD.

At paragraph 141 , 142 and 143 in the High Court’s decision the judges applied the Golden Thread Rule:

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

[142] First, the proposition ignores that even a criminal trial “is not, and does not purport to be, an examination and assessment of all the information and evidence that exists, bearing upon the question of guilt or innocence” Each side in a criminal trial “is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue, the evidence which it or he will call, and what questions whether in chief or in cross-examination shall be asked; always, of course, subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility”. Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent requirements.”

“Second, the proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory agency relies must be facts that “actually  occurred” appears to require the regulatory agency to make some final judgment about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence.”

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

  • Centrelink is a Crown agency and IN ALL Robo Debt CLAIMS, once a Centrelink claim is challenged, “THE CROWN’, i.e. Centrelink, has to prove that ‘ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITY’ that the Crown’s tort claim is legally valid.

  • Welfare recipients do NOT have to prove that they are at fault, or even prove that Centrelink is a fault.

  • Once a welfare recipient says, “it is not my fault”, or “you have made a mistake”, consistent with Hellicar, the determination of the facts is a matter for the courts, not Centrelink, or even the AAT.

  • The court decides the facts and then Centrelink acts in accordance with whatever determination the court has made of Centrelink’s claim.

  • If Centrelink officials ignore the court decision, then a welfare recipient can appeal to the AAT for a review of the court’s decision.

  • This is a complex legal exercise that, 2014,  cost an average of $25,000 per court case, hence the financial advantage of ‘skipping the courts’ and requiring welfare recipients to prove the that Centrelink had made a mistake.

  • That has been virtually impossible to do; however, the findings in AATA 904 (2014), the public admission of Attorney-General Brandis that “Of course there will be mistakes”, and the listing of over 30 causes of these sometimes fatal mistakes in the Statement of Facts & Issues for AAT 2016/5334 (2nd appeal), add to the legal obligation upon the Crown, i.e. Centrelink, to prove the merits of its claim.

  • Because of the “terrible human consequences” referred to by Attorney-General Brandis, i.e. mistake triggered fatalities that the Secretary of the Department of Social Services has not disputed may exceed 100,000 in number, the Standard of Proof that the court should be required  should be “Beyond reasonable doubt” rather than “on the balance of probability” .

Woolmington at Paragraph 20:

‘Presumptions’ of guilt and ‘prima facie’ cases of guilt in the trial of a party charged with crime mean no more than that from the proof of certain facts the jury will be warranted in convicting the accused of the offence with which he is charged.”

Woolmington at 24: THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE CROWN (PROSECUTION or CENTRELINK)

“In Hawkins’ Pleas of the Crown 8th Ed (Curwood), 1824, Vol 1, p 88, s 25 : “It is also agreed, that no one can excuse the killing another, by setting forth in a special plea, that he did it by misadventure, or se defendendo, but that he must plead ‘not guilty,’ and give the special matter in evidence. 

“This points to the fact that the verdict must be given not on any special pleading given by the prisoner but upon and as the result of the whole of the case, and it nowhere suggests that the burden of proof either at the  beginning or at the end of a case is not on the prosecution.”

  • Justice Gaudron’s findings at 9 add weight to the need for “Beyond reasonable doubt” to be the appropriate Standard of Proof, i.e. “ In re a Judgment Summons; Ex parte Henleys Ltd. (1953) Ch 195, on my reading of the relevant cases there is no basis for characterising a purpose as improper unless it involves a demand made without right or claim of right, or unless IT ENTAILS SOME CONSEQUENCE which is unrelated to or is NOT PROPORTIONATE with the right, interest or wrong asserted in the proceedings or by the process which is said to have been abused.”

[B]  Note the last sentence above “IT ENTAILS SOME CONSEQUENCE which is unrelated to or is NOT PROPORTIONATE with the right, interest or wrong asserted…”

THE “APPROPRIATE COMPLIANCE MEASURES” MURDERS

The unreported death toll that Attorney-General Brandis tried to justify as being acceptable because of the need for so-called“APPROPRIATE COMPLIANCE MEASURES” are murders as is clearly indicated in the Woolmington decision:

6th paragraph: “The killing of a human being is homicide, however he may be killed, and all homicide is presumed to be malicious and murder, unless the contrary appears from circumstances of alleviation, excuse, or justification.”

“Once it is shown to a jury that somebody has died through the act of another, that is presumed to be murder, unless the person who has been guilty of the act which causes the death can satisfy a jury that what happened was something less, something which might be alleviated, something which might be reduced to a charge of manslaughter, or was something which was accidental, or was something which could be justified.”

“ At the end of his summing-up he added: “The Crown has got to satisfy you that this woman, Violet Woolmington, died at the prisoner’s hands. If they must satisfy you of that beyond any reasonable doubt. If they satisfy you of that, then he has to show that there are circumstances to be found in the evidence which has been given from the witness-box in this case which alleviate the crime so that it is only manslaughter or which excuse the homicide altogether by showing that it was a pure accident.”

9th paragraph: When it has been proved that one person’s death has been caused by another, there is a prima facie presumption of law that the act of the person causing the death is murder, unless the contrary appears from the evidence either for the prosecution or for the defence. The onus is upon such person when accused to show that his act did not amount to murder.”

[MY COMMENT:] The last sentence,  was not accepted by the House of Lords for in the next paragraph, which I have bullet-pointed for clarity, are these BURDEN OF PROOF statements:

  • The question arises, Is that statement correct law?

  • Is it correct to say, and does Sir Michael Foster mean to lay down, that there may arise in the course of a criminal trial a situation at which it is incumbent upon the accused to prove his innocence?

  • To begin with, if that is what Sir Michael Foster meant, there is no previous authority for his proposition, and I am confirmed in this opinion by the fact that in all the text-books no earlier authority is cited for it.

Paragraph 17 – ACTS OF MALICE: “The Courts were already considering cases of express or implied malice, and the passage in Coke appears simply to mean that if a man does acts calculated to kill, and actually does kill, that is evidence of malice or intent; in other words, evidence of one of the ingredients of murder…”

The House of Lords findings above are totally consistent with the Australian High Court’s decision in Patel v the Queen, HCA 29 on 24th August 2012:

At paragraph 11: “Under the Criminal Code, a person who causes the death of another is deemed to have killed that other person (s 293).  A person who unlawfully kills another in circumstances which do not constitute murder is guilty of manslaughter (s303).  A person who kills another does so unlawfully unless the killing is authorised, justified or excused by law (s291).  In the present case, for convictions on the counts of manslaughter to be returned it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the appellant caused the death of the three patients, thereby killing them (s 293). For a conviction on the count of grievous bodily harm, it was necessary to prove that the appellant had done grievous bodily harm to another and that the doing of it was unlawful (s 320).”

“OOPS! – I MADE A MISTAKE IS NOT A LEGALLY VALID EXCUSE FOR CENTRELINK’S ‘SKIP-THE-COURTS’ FATALITIES, WHICH MAY NOW NUMBER MORE THAN 100,000 OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS!

THESE DEATHS ARE, IN LAW  MURDERS, WHICH MEANS THAT THE
APPROPRIATE COMPLIANCE MEASURES ARE THE POINT OF VULNERABILITY IN ROBO DEBT. ANYONE  CAN DEMAND TO KNOWN HOW MANY FATAL MISTAKES CENTRELINK HAS MADE  SINCE THIS PARTICULAR DELIBERATE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS  WAS INTRODUCED BY BOB HAWKE?

Ron Medlicott – Registered teacher and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate

Advertisements
Posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, burden of proof, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Part 52H Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. “COPS INVESTIGATE MINISTER” – Page 1 banner heading of The Advertiser

Chapman-gate is being investigated and Commissioner Grant Stevens is trying to keep a tight lid on the investigation.

Cops Probe

THE ADVERTISER – PAGE 1 on the 15TH NOVEMBER 2018

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

See Part 52 of this Ronald’s space posting, on the 19th October 2018, for the 1st Emcott Report complaint.

Below is the next installment of the Emcott Report Complaint to Commissioner Stevens:

IP 43 image

 

2nd track code

NOTE: At the time posting this tracking receipt, Commissioner Stevens has not yet received this 2nd submission, i.e. as of 17 November, this is a ‘live’ tracking live number.

 

CHAPMAN-GATE COMPLAINT #2

ATTENTION – ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT OFFICER

THIS IS A PC&DA SECTION 41 COMPLAINT

I am well aware that Commissioner Stevens has ASO support staff whose duties include the processing of correspondence from the public. However, this is a complaint against at least 3 SAPOL officers under Section 41 of the Police Complaints & Discipline Act, “the PC&DA Act,” that could potentially result in each of these officers facing serious criminal charges.

It is my statutory obligation under Section 5AA, sub-paragraph 2 of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935) to file this compliant and it also my right to decide which police officer I submit my complaint to for investigation.

Since at least two very senior SAPOL officers are implicated in what could prove to be the worst case of serial murder since Federation in 1901, that police officer is Commissioner Grant Stevens. Given the extreme gravity of the systemic issues involved, and the scale of the officially “irrelevant” death toll, from my perspective, Commissioner Stevens is the most logical choice. Any subordinate police officer or ASO who prevents Commissioner Stevens from receiving this complaint risks, at the very least, being charged with obstruction of justice.

Ronald Medlicott – Plaintiff.

(Registered teacher and volunteer Christian lay-advocate.)
Ronald Medlicott

40 Siddall Road, Elizabeth Vale SA 5112. Ph: (08) 8255 3638, Mobile: 04386 26811

14th November 2018

 

Attn:                Commissioner Grant Stevens

South Australia Police

100 Carrington Street

ADELAIDE SA 5000

Dear Commissioner Stevens,

Re: The contents of Express Post envelope, 605 37830526 094 which constitute a Police Complaints & Discipline Act Section 41 complaint against SAPOL officers implicated in what, once investigated, is likely to prove to be the worst cases of systemized mass fraud and serial murder since Federation in 1901. It is also a request to consider the role played by national leaders and other public officials in deceiving and exposing Australia’s population to random  life-threatening harms. In filing these complaints, it is my belief that it would be an aggravated offence under Section 5AA (2) of the South Australian Criminal Code if I failed to file these complaints with you. Please note that this is a public complaint and in order to assist any person who may require access to the documents submitted to you, including the video recording, the following envelope contents list is provided:

  1. This cover letter;
  2. A statutory declaration, dated 8th November 2018 that contains 4 witness statements that provide insight into how the Federal Government has been systematically defrauding and randomly murdering welfare recipients who are unaware of the extremely dangerous, randomly lethal violations of their civil rights that are occurring;
  3. A 1-page letter, reference AG-MC11/0915, dated 9 September 2011, which was signed by Matt Hall, Assistance Secretary, Human Rights Policy Branch, Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department;
  4. A 1-page letter, reference number 10/48553 and dated 11 May 2010, which was signed by G. Hansen, Complaints and Misconduct (Section) of the Australian Crime Commission;
  5. A 1-page letter from the Office of the South Australian Director of Public Prosecutions, reference number 02/000362910), dated 14 December 2012, and signed by Dianne Flynn, Executive Assistant to Adam Kimber SC, the (SA) Director of Public Prosecutions;
  6. A redacted, unsigned 1-page letter from Centrelink, dated 11 December 2015, that contains an aggravated threat to my life that violates Section 172 (2) (2) of the South Australian criminal code.
  7. Page 605 of ‘The Report of the Iraq Inquiry.’ British Parliament: House of Commons-HC264 “the [US] Intelligence Community was dead wrong…”
  8. A 15 Minute Emcott Report DVD, titled “Australia’s Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders” and sub-tiled “See No Evil: The Grant Stevens Factor”.

Preamble: There is nothing unique about those who rule a nation exercising the power to menace, intimidate, mislead, exploit, defraud, recklessly endanger and even randomly kill innocent people. As a nation, we certainly do not expect the Australian Federal Parliament to engage in such tactics, nor do we expect the police to conceal these crimes. However, as the appended information reveals, the Federal Parliament has been getting away with these crimes for decades, primarily because Australia’s criminal justice system, and the mass media, have allowed politicians and public servants to commit these crimes with impunity.

 Background Issues:

The Rule of Law beyond the Law of Rules was the title of a speech presented by the Hon. Michael Kirby to the 15th Malaysian Bar Association Conference on 29th July 2010 in which he addressed some of the issues that arise when the Rule of Power usurps Rule of Law:

 “The actions of the so-called “Coalition of the Willing” in invading Iraq would appear to have been a more modern instance of the rule of power in place of the rule of law, and one affecting a number of countries, including Australia… The rule of law is a principle that provides a public place and largely transparent processes to resolve the most heated and significant of disputes. It affords a mechanism for establishing and clarifying the rules by which the people live together in relative peace. It recognises that the only alternatives to the rule of law are the power of money, influence and guns. Those forms of power are generally viewed as defective when compared to the invocation and application of written rules that pre-exist events or which can be derived by logical reasoning from earlier expositions of the common law. This is so because experience of humanity has been that, in the absence of law, and effective enforcement of the law, corrupting influences tend to rush, like quicksilver, to fill the gaps.”

 In the lead up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, Prime Minister John Howard and General Peter Cosgrove violated South Australia’s ‘Dishonesty with Documents’ law by falsely claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. On the 6th July 2016, the English Parliament was presented with the Privy Council’s report of the 7-year-long inquiry into the illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003. This report can be downloaded from the British National Archives at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20171123122743/http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/the-report/

Sisto Malaspina’s murder is the latest in a series of Islamic State motivated murders and yet in all of the hype and hysteria surrounding this terrorist attack, it is already very apparent that the catalytic cause of this latest terrorist attack is yet again being overlooked by law enforcement agencies who “ought to know better” than to make ill-informed judgements and public statements that only service to deflect the public’s attention away from the underlying issues that are the catalytic cause of recent Islamic Fundamentalist attacks.

The Event Cascade catalyst for the latest Bourke Street terrorist attack: This attack involved a disastrous series of events that are concisely encapsulated in the lethal reality of “Yesterday’s political lies, today’s public deaths,” i.e. John Howard and Peter Cosgrove misled the people of Australia when seeking to create public support for the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. On the 9th November 2018, two of the consequences of those deceptions were the deaths of Sisto Malaspina and Hassan Khalif Shire Ali. The deaths of Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak, Katrina Dawson, Tori Johnson, Faysal Ishak Ahmed, Curtis Cheng and Kia Hoa also share the same catalytic cause, i.e. the Howard-Cosgrove deceits that resulted in the unplanned, but not unforeseen, growth and development of a powerful Islamic terrorist organization that, without warning, commits lethal attacks against vulnerable targets of opportunity. When the search for weapons of mass destruction proved fruitless, politicians in the Unites States, Great Britain and Australia conspired to ‘downplay’ this fact, a tactic that is still evidence in this on-line news report of the latest Bourke Street terrorist attack:

Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton has pleaded with Australians to help close a “black spot” in the country’s ability to detect terror threats in the wake of the Bourke Street attack. “There is a real black spot for us, and that is a vulnerabilty,” Mr Dutton admitted today, citing comments from Duncan Lewis, the Director-General of Security at ASIO, who said potential terrorists were using encrypted apps so their messages couldn’t be discovered.“It is even more difficult today than it was five or ten years ago to try to deal with some of these cases,” Mr Dutton said. “The police can’t contemplate every circumstance[1].

A far more honest request by Peter Dutton would have been to help close a “black spot” in the country’s ability to detect terror threats in the wake of the illegal Iraq invasion.”

 The deaths of Sisto Malaspina and Hassan Khalif Shire Ali constitute indisputable evidence that when politicians are allowed to deceive the nation, innocent people may die as a direct consequence. This is a politically sensitive reality that needs to be addressed in order to minimize further fatalities from other potentially fatal deceptions. It is therefore in the national interest that the appropriate starting point for the Victorian coroners’ court inquest(s) into the Event Cascade, i.e. the disastrous chain of linked events that eventually resulted in the deaths of both Sisto Malaspina and Hassan Khalif Shire Ali, is a detailed forensic scrutiny of the underlying causes that led to the establishment and subsequent growth and development of Islamic State as a terrorist group that has world wide support from people who are prepared to commit individual or small group terrorist attacks that may be impossible for law enforcement authorities to either predict or to halt. With the wisdom of 20-20 hindsight, the impartial views expressed by Commissioner Mick Keelty and Lieutenant-Colonel Andrew Wilkie prior to the illegal invasion of Iraq need to be forensically scrutinized and the actions of the politicians and military leaders who chose to ignore those views must also be forensically scrutinized. It is quite possible that if the opinions of Commissioner Keelty and Lieutenant-Colonel Wilkie had been heeded and Australia had then actively opposed the invasion of Iraq, the Coalition of the Willing would not have been formed and the subsequent invasion of Iraq would probably have not occurred. Without the illegal insurgency in March 2003 and the horrific casualties caused by this brute-force invasion, the founders of Islamic State would not have been provided with a both world-wide ‘Environment of Hate’ and have gained access to unguarded Iraqi military arsenals.

Allowing unrestricted access to unguarded Iraqi arsenals was a strategic blunder. This weaponry eventually led to the capture of oil wells and sales of crude oil amounting to as yet undetermined billions of dollars that have financed the growth and development of Islamic State into an ‘underground’ global terrorist organization with a world-wide grass roots support base that may outnumber Australia’s population of 25 million people.

These political and military blunders make it essential that once the pro forma procedures for a public inquiry are finalized, the first priority of the inquiry must be to forensically evaluate the Privy Council’s July 2016 Report of the Iraq Inquiry – HC264, (House of Commons Report 264), “the Chilton Report”, and apply the report’s findings to the complex event cascade that led to the deaths of both Sisto Malaspina and Hassan Khalif Shire Ali.

Peter Dutton’s statement that “It is even more difficult today than it was five or ten years ago to try to deal with some of these cases, the police can’t contemplate every circumstance” is a very blunt reality that must be faced in what may well prove to a religious extremist terrorist campaign that could last for centuries, a frightening fact alluded to in statements 859 and 860 of the executive summary of the Chilton Report:

[859] In any undertaking of this kind, certain fundamental elements are of vital importance: the best possible appreciation of the theatre of operations, including the political, cultural and ethnic background, and the state of society, the economy and infrastructure;

  • a hard‑headed assessment of risks;
  • objectives which are realistic within that context, and if necessary limited – rather than idealistic and based on optimistic assumptions; and
  • allocation of the resources necessary for the task – both military and civil.

[860] All of these elements were lacking in the UK’s approach to its role in post‑conflict Iraq.

How applicable are the above statements and the following extracts from that report to Australia’s involvement in the illegal invasion of Iraq. The issue of the potentially lethal perfidy of Australian politicians who, in the lead up to the illegal invasion of Iraq, were prepared to place Rule of Power ahead of our nation’s constitutional commitment to Rule of Law and the obligation to avoid making foreseeably dangerous, irresponsible decisions that may have long term consequences for Australia’s population is an issue that can be ignored.

When John Howard claimed to have irrefutable proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, he did not disclose this proof, claiming that it was a security issue. That claim needs to be scrutinized in the context of statement 462 of Section 4.4 of the Chilton Report:

[462] Mr Scarlett advised that an ISG report along those lines, however interim, would raise difficult questions. That underlined the need to ensure it was handled correctly, with US and Australian agreement in advance. Mr Scarlett recommended publication of a short executive summary, with the full Interim Report being treated as a “classified stocktake for intelligence experts”. [Underline emphasis added.]

What statement 462 reveals is evidence of collusion to deceive the public in the United States, Great Britain, and in Australia, concerning what a monumental stuff-up the illegal invasion of Iraq had been by declaring the truth of the matter to be “classified stocktake”.

The following statements from pages 604 – 605 of Section 4.4 of the Chilton Report also prove insight into this monumental disaster and the attempt to cover up the truth.

. Statements 899, 900, 902, 910 and 911.

[In 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.”

[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.

[902] Almost immediately after the start of the invasion, UK Ministers and officials sought to lower public expectations of immediate or significant finds of WMD in Iraq.

[910] The lack of evidence to support pre-conflict claims about Iraq’s WMD challenged the credibility of the Government and the intelligence community, and the legitimacy of the war.

[911]The Government and the intelligence community were both concerned about the consequences of the presentational aspects of their pre-war assessments being discredited.

Although the report focuses upon the actions of the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and the British military command, the scope of the report leaves no doubt that the Howard Government and the ADF, under the leadership of General Peter Cosgrove, misled the Australian public.  The deaths of Kirsty Boden, Sara Zelenak, Katrina Dawson, Tori Johnson, Faysal Ishak Ahmed, Curtis Cheng, Kia Hoa Sisto Malaspina and Hassan Khalif Shire Ali are all ‘fatal downstream consequences’ arising from those deceptions.

A Washington Post news article published on the Internet on March 20th 2018, was titled “15 years after the Iraq War began, the death toll is still murky[2] placed the estimated death toll somewhere within the broad range of 48,000 – 751,000 “excess deaths”, with the following statement making it clear that a establishing a definitive death toll is unlikely”

“It seems likely that the death toll in the past 15 years easily exceeded half a million Iraqis, but how much higher is hard to determine.”

Speaking to the media, Scott Morrison said,

“Here in Australia we would be kidding ourselves if we did not call out the fact that the greatest threat of religious extremism in this country is the radical and dangerous ideology of extremist Islam. There is a special responsibility on religious leaders to protect their religious communities and to ensure dangerous teachings and ideologies do not take root here.”

Scott Morrison’s statement was an example of the proverbial “3-fingers-pointing backwards,” for it completely ignored the underlying matter of fact that the Howard Government’s obligation to the people of Australia was to take no recklessly dangerous, unsubstantiated action that would pose a long-term danger to Australia’s population. If the Liberal-National Coalition had not so dogmatically and blindly supported the illegal invasion of Iraq, and the Queen’s Loyal Opposition had done it job, Islamic State and its extremist supporter networks would not exist. As the following extracts from the Chilton Report further make clear, assumptions, not the “irrefutable evidence” that John Howard falsely claimed to have, was the actual basis for the illegal invasion of Iraq:

[25] The UK shared the broad objective of finding a way to deal with Saddam Hussein’s defiance of UN Security Council resolutions and his assumed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programmes[3]. (Bold underlined emphasis added.)

The gross incompetence and deceitfulness of Australia’s populist driven political and military leadership is likely to have deadly consequences for decades to come for having created an enduring climate of hatred that may last for centuries. In the minutiae of a tsunami of issues to be considered in the coroner’s inquest and in the Victorian police and ASIO investigations, it is important not to omit or ignore the catalytic roles played by john Howard  and General Peter Cosgrove. Statement 822 on page 584 of Section 4.4 of the Chilton Report contains an objective assessment of the so-called “irrefutable evidence” used by the Howard Government and the ADF leadership to justify the illegal invasion of Iraq:

  • On 9 July, the Senate Committee on Intelligence published its report on the S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq.459 The main conclusions included: Most of the key judgements in the October 2002 US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ‘Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction’, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting. A series of failures, particularly in analytic tradecraft, led to the mischaracterisation of the intelligence.
  • The intelligence community did not accurately or adequately explain to policy-makers the uncertainties behind the judgements in the October 2002 NIE.
  • The intelligence community suffered from a collective presumption that Iraq had an active and growing WMD programme. This “group think” led intelligence community analysts, collectors and managers both to interpret ambiguous evidence as conclusively indicative of a WMD programme and to ignore or minimise evidence that Iraq did not have active and expanding weapons of mass destruction programmes. This presumption was so strong that formal mechanisms established to challenge assumptions and group think were not used.

In the context of the false claims about “irrefutable evidence”, the statements above about ignoring or minimizing evidence that Iraq did not have an active WMD program call into question the criminal law Duty of Care owed by national leaders to the nation’s population.

All members of the Howard Government administration and the Australian Defence Force leadership team need to be held accountable to the full extent of the law for these manifestly lethal errors of judgement, which have exposed our nation to the possibility of a millennium of Fundamentalist Islamic terrorist attacks.  A legal issue of significance in South Australia’s criminal justice system is the status of Kirsty Boden’s Electoral Role registration at the time of her murder. If Ms. Boden  was listed as an Elector on the Wakefield electoral role on 3rd June 2017, then both the South Australian Coroner and SAPOL have a legal obligation to conduct inquiries into the circumstances that led to her death, including the determination as to whether or not the conduct of John Howard and Peter Cosgrove when justifying the illegal invasion of Iraq was a criminal abuse of public office that resulted in the unintended death of Ms. Boden? If so, then a relevant question of is whether or not one or more of the provisions contained in Section 115 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act were violated?

115.1  Murder of an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia

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

(a)        the person engages in conduct outside Australia; and

(b)        the conduct causes the death of another person; and

(c)        the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia; and

(d)        the first‑mentioned person intends to cause, or is reckless as to causing, the death of the Australian citizen or resident of Australia or any other person by the conduct.

Penalty:           Imprisonment for life.

(2)        Absolute liability applies to paragraph (1)(c).

Alternately, an inquiry should be held to determine if John Howard and Peter Cosgrove can be held accountable for Ms. Boden’s death under Section 115.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, i.e. 115.2 Manslaughter of an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia

As mentioned previously, in his speech to the Malaysian Bar Association, Michael Kirby stated:

 “…in the absence of law, and effective enforcement of the law, corrupting influences tend to rush, like quicksilver, to fill the gaps.”

Commissioner Stevens, in my first communication to you on the 19th October 2018, I conveyed to you my belief that there is credible evidence that the Australian Parliament, which may not have been constitutionally elected since the 2004 federal election, has abandoned compliance with the Constitution and has been enforcing using unconstitutional laws, policies and practice that have recklessly endangered the lives of millions of innocent, vulnerable people. My views, and the information/evidence submitted in that communication was consistent with both Michael Kirby’s comments about the Coalition of the Willing, which did not have the legal right, or even the moral justification, to illegally invade Iraq, but did so in March 2003. This Rule of Power, “Might is right” mindset is also very apparent in another statement made by the (then) Immigration Minister, Scott Morrison, during parliamentary debate on the 25th September 2014:

‘This parliament should decide what our obligations are under these conventions – not those who seek to direct us otherwise from places outside this country, such as foreign courts or the United Nations[4]’ 

The fallacy of this arrogant viewpoint was driven home by Justice Terrance Higgins, a former Australian Federal Court judge and the former Chief Justice of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court when the Papua-New Guinea Supreme Court handed down the its Manus Island decision (SC1497) on April 25th 2016. Justice Higgins ruled:

“Treating those required to remain in the relocation centre as prisoners irrespective of their circumstances or status … is to offend against their rights and freedoms.”

 The Full Bench determination in SC1497 included the following ruling:

“Both the Australian and Papua New Guinea governments shall forthwith take all steps necessary to cease and prevent the continued unconstitutional and illegal detention of the asylum seekers or transferees at the relocation centre on Manus Island and the continued breach of the asylum seekers or transferees constitutional and human rights.”

 In June last year, rather than have its track-record of human rights violations put on public display in a Victorian Court, the Turnbull Government used $90 million of taxpayers’ money to settle a class-action human rights violations claim by some 1,900 of the Manus Island detainees.  The Manus Island human rights fiasco was itself a spin-off from the High Court’s Malaysian Solution decision in August 2012, a decision that also sheds lights on the fallacy of Scott’s Morrison’s claim that “This parliament should decide what our obligations are under these conventions”.

Just as federal politicians ‘got it wrong’ with the illegal invasion of Iraq and the human rights violating Manus Island policies and practices, the politicians in the Federal Parliament have also ‘got it wrong’ when it comes to assumptions-based, unconstitutional welfare policies that are, under international laws and Australian State and Territory laws, nothing more than recklessly dangerous criminal abuses of power.  The lethal consequences of allowing unconstitutionally elected politicians in the Federal Parliament to use parliamentary privilege powers set out in the Constitution to conceal the defrauding and random murder of welfare recipients is emphatically underscored in the statements contained in the statutory declaration that accompanies this complaint. Sourced from pages 1, 2, 12, 13 and 14 of the Hansard Minutes for the Community Affairs Reference Committee hearing held on the 8th March 2017, in law, these witness statements constitute reasonable grounds that provide probable cause for an investigation into the terrible human consequences of the Federal Parliament’s randomly lethal ‘skip-due-process-of-law’ approach to dealing with ALLEGED welfare overpayments and challenges to Centrelink’s decisions that are rightfully matters for the courts, not politicians.

The ‘why did these happen’ thrust of Commissioner Hayne’s interim report is equally applicable to the issues raised in the Community Affairs Reference Committee hearings held on the 8th March 2017 and the 18th May 2017.   It is a matter of fact that on the 31st August 1920 in the ‘Engineers’ case, HCA 54, the High Court ruled that its decisions were binding on the Federal and State Parliaments and the Executive of these parliaments, i.e.

“… the Commonwealth and State Parliaments and Executives are themselves bound by the declarations of this Court as to their powers inter se, our responsibility is so much the greater to give the true effect to the relevant constitutional provisions.”

ASIC v. Hellicar & Ors; HCA 17 on 3rd May 2012:

With the caveat that bold and italic text emphasizes key points of law, paragraphs 141 to 143 of the High Court’s Hellicar decision are cited as handed down by the High Court:

 The Court of Appeal recorded [128] that ASIC accepted that it had “an obligation to act fairly with respect to the conduct of the proceedings” but ASIC did not accept that its obligation to act fairly required it to call Mr Robb as its witness. The Court of Appeal concluded [129], however, that Mr Robb should have been called by ASIC. The Court said[130]:

“A body in the position of ASIC, owing the obligation of fairness to which it was subject, was obliged to call a witness of such central significance to critical issues that had arisen in the proceedings. The scope of its powers and the public interest dimensions of its functions, most relevantly with respect to ensuring proper internal governance of corporations and that the market for securities in shares was fully informed, was such that resolution of the civil penalty proceedings required it to call, if only with a view to showing (if it were the case) that he could not in fact recall anything on the factual issues and for cross examination by the [defendants], a witness of such potential importance.”

 How this duty which the Court of Appeal identified ASIC as having differs in any relevant respect from the duty of a Crown prosecutor considered in Whitehorn and in Apostilides was not examined[131]. And insofar as the duty was said[132] to stem from a proposition “that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth, in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred”, that premise is false for at least two reasons.

 First, the proposition ignores that even a criminal trial “is not, and does not purport to be, an examination and assessment of all the information and evidence that exists, bearing upon the question of guilt or innocence”[133]. Each side in a criminal trial “is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue, the evidence which it or he will call, and what questions whether in chief or in cross-examination shall be asked; always, of course, subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility”[134]. Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent requirements.

  1. Second, the proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory agency relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require the regulatory agency to make some final judgment about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.

The last statement contains a binding limitation that all Commonwealth departments and contracted agencies, must comply with, i.e. once a regulator’s decision is challenged, there is no valid jurisdiction to make and enforce a decision until such time as a court has determined the facts upon which a fair and just decision can be made.

This ruling is further reinforced by other High Court decisions, e.g. the High Court’s Bhardwaj decision.

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v. Bhardwaj, HCA 11; on 14 March 2002.

At paragraphs 51 to 53, Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron emphasized that if there is no legally valid jurisdiction to make a legal decision, then in law, no legally valid decision has been made:

Decisions involving jurisdictional error: the general law

  1. There is, in our view, no reason in principle why the general law should treat administrative decisions involving jurisdictional error as binding or having legal effect unless and until set aside. A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all[33]. Further, there is a certain illogicality in the notion that, although a decision involves jurisdictional error, the law requires that, until the decision is set aside, the rights of the individual to whom the decision relates are or, perhaps, are deemed to be other than as recognised by the law that will be applied if and when the decision is challenged. A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.
  2. The view that a decision involving jurisdictional error does not prevent the decision-maker from correcting that error by making a later decision has been accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada. Thus, in Chandler v Alberta Association of Architects, Sopinka J, with whom Dickson CJ and Wilson J concurred, said:

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

To this extent, the principle of functus officio applies. It is based, however, on the policy ground which favours finality of proceedings rather than the rule which was developed with respect to formal judgments of a court whose decision was subject to a full appeal. For this reason I am of the opinion that its application must be more flexible and less formalistic in respect to the decisions of administrative tribunals which are subject to appeal only on a point of law.”[34]

 In the same case, his Lordship cited[35] with approval a statement by McLachlin J that:

“as a matter of logic and on the authorities … a tribunal which makes a decision in the purported exercise of its power which is a nullity, may thereafter enter upon a proper hearing and render a valid decision”[36].

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

These are decisions that place binding restrictions on how the Federal Parliament, and by extension, the Department of Human Services, a.k.a. “Centrelink”, engages in tortious conduct actions against welfare recipients. The most obvious matter of fact to be adduced from the Community Affairs Reference Committee hearings on the 8th March 2017 and the 18th May 2017 is that both Hellicar and Bhardwaj are two binding High Court decisions that are being totally ignored by Australia’s unconstitutionally elected 45th Federal Parliament. This is a criminal abuse of power and the deaths caused by these criminal abuses of power are not lawfully justifiable fatalities; they are deaths caused by the commission of a crime.

I would point out that these are not the only binding High Court decisions that the 45th Parliament is still deliberately ignoring. Williams v Spautz; HCA 34 on the 27th July 1992 is a case law precedent I n which the High Court gave close attention to the issue of procedural fairness issues and the need to establish a legitimate right of claim. Justice Gaudron’s findings include the following findings:

[At paragraph 5 of Justice Gaudron’s findings:]

Notwithstanding my view that improper purpose is sufficient to justify a stay, it is necessary to have regard to the cases involving an improper act for, otherwise, very little useful guidance is to be had.

[At 6:] “The cases in which abuse of process has been established have usually involved an act described in terms such as “extortion“(139) Gilding v. Eyre (1861) 10 CB(NS), at p 605 (142 ER, at p 590). See also Guilford Industries (1974) 40 DLR (3d), at p 405, where the act was described as obtaining “a settlement by means of legal ‘blackmail‘”, “coercion“(140) Dishaw v. Wadleigh (1897) 44 NYS, at p 210 or “bring(ing) pressure to bear … to force (a result)(141) QIW Retailers Limited v. Felview (1989) 2 Qd R, at p 258. These terms signify a claim or demand made without right and without claim of right.

 And without going to the detail of the cases in which those expressions were used, it is fair to say that, save in the case of Gilding v. Eyre, what was demanded was unrelated to the right, interest or wrong asserted in the proceedings which were held to constitute an abuse of process or, in the case of ancillary proceedings, the right, interest or wrong asserted by the particular process involved.”

At paragraph 9, Justice Gaudron stated:

The purpose suggested by Kirby P in Hanrahan v. Ainsworth is one which, prima facie, is wrongful in itself. Obviously and as recognized by Lord Denning M.R. in Goldsmith v. Sperrings Ltd.(144) (1977) 1 WLR, at p 490, a purpose which is wrongful in itself is an improper purpose justifying a stay.”

[At 9] “But leaving that aside and without going to other cases in the area in which there has been held to be an abuse(145) See, for example, In re a Debtor (1928) Ch 199; In re a Judgment Summons; Ex parte Henleys Ltd. (1953) Ch 195, on my reading of the relevant cases there is no basis for characterising a purpose as improper unless it involves a demand made without right or claim of right, or unless it entails some consequence which is unrelated to or is not proportionate with the right, interest or wrong asserted in the proceedings or by the process which is said to have been abused. And, in my view, one or other of those features must be present or the purpose must itself be wrongful if a purpose is to be held an improper purpose justifying a stay.”

I am of the view that failing to establish a valid right of claim in ALLEGED Robo-Debt claims by deliberately not conducting a forensic audit and then ‘skipping-the-courts’ in order to avoid a fair and just determination of the facts are actions that most definitely constitute an “improper purpose.” In addition, I further content that when this process “entails some consequence” that randomly kills innocent people, it is not unreasonable to consider that the process has “been abused”.

At paragraph 2 of his findings, Justice Brennan held that deliberately violating due process may be for an unlawful purpose:

  1. As I said in Jago (62) (1989) 168 CLR, at pp 47-48.

An abuse of process occurs when the process of the court is put in motion for a purpose which, in the eye of the law, it is not intended to serve or when the process is incapable of serving the purpose it is intended to serve. … Although it is not possible to state exhaustively all the categories of abuse of process, it will generally be found in the use of criminal process inconsistently with some aspect of its true purpose, whether relating to the hearing and determination, its finality, the reason for examining the accused’s conduct or the exoneration of the accused from liability to punishment for the conduct alleged against him. When process is abused, the unfairness against which a litigant is entitled to protection is his subjection to process which is not intended to serve or which is not capable of serving its true purpose.

As George Brandis openly admitted, Robo-Debt randomly kills innocent people and, as the High Court made clear in Patel, these deaths are either murder or manslaughter.

‘Skipping due process of law’ is itself an abuse of process and in the case of Robo-Debt, it is a known-to-be-fatal-process that George Brandis described as “not a bad system” that had been introduced by the Hawke Government decades earlier. Failing to establish a legitimate right of claim, which, in the absence of a properly conducted forensic audit by an appropriately qualified auditor, is a criminal abuse of power that violates section 142 (2) of the Commonwealth criminal code and State and Territory criminal codes, e.g. ‘Dishonest dealings with documents’ in Section 140, of the South Australian criminal Code.  In addition, when it comes to criminal violations of procedural fairness, ‘skipping-the-courts’ and making random “mistakes” that randomly results in error-driven fatalities that are then concealed and dismissed as “irrelevant”, the issue of “unfairness against which a litigant is entitled to protection” takes the Robo-Debt laws, policies and practices deep into the realm of statutory provisions of criminal law that are commonly referred to as “major crimes.”

The attempt by Senator Brandis to justify ‘skip-due-process-of-law’ triggered fatalities as the lawful consequences of “appropriate compliance measures” was a brazenly criminal abuse of public office as there is neither any statute law in Australia nor any case law in Australia that specifies that “appropriate compliance measures” fatalities are justifiable homicides.

Patel v The Queen; HCA 29 on the 24th August 2012 is a relatively recent High Court case that contains numerous determinations, based upon Queensland’s criminal code, that provide very clear insight into the legal status of Centrelink’s supposedly lawful “appropriate compliance measures” triggered fatalities:

  • Under the Criminal Code, a person who causes the death of another is deemed to have killed that other person (s 293). A person who unlawfully kills another in circumstances which do not constitute murder is guilty of manslaughter (s 303).  A person who kills another does so unlawfully unless the killing is authorised, justified or excused by law (s 291).  In the present case, for convictions on the counts of manslaughter to be returned it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the appellant caused the death of the three patients, thereby killing them (s 293).  For a conviction on the count of grievous bodily harm, it was necessary to prove that the appellant had done grievous bodily harm to another and that the doing of it was unlawful (s 320).
  • Section 282 is an exculpatory provision which may apply in the case of a surgical procedure.  At the relevant time, it provided:

“A person is not criminally responsible for performing in good faith and with reasonable care and skill a surgical operation upon any person for the patient’s benefit, or upon an unborn child for the preservation of the mother’s life, if the performance of the operation is reasonable, having regard to the patient’s state at the time and to all circumstances of the case.”

  • Section 288 appears in Ch 27 of the Criminal Code, which is entitled “DUTIES RELATING TO THE PRESERVATION OF HUMAN LIFE”.  The section provides:

“It is the duty of every person who, except in a case of necessity, undertakes to administer surgical or medical treatment to any other person, or to do any other lawful act which is or may be dangerous to human life or health, to have reasonable skill and to use reasonable care in doing such act, and the person is held to have caused any consequences which result to the life or health of any person by reason of any omission to observe or perform that duty.”    

  • Section 288 is not expressed in terms of criminal responsibility[5], but in terms of duty and causation. In R v Stott and Van Embden[6], McPherson JA observed that the provisions of Ch 27 were probably originally designed to cater for questions of causation arising out of cases of “‘pure’ omission or failure to act.”  Generally speaking, the law does not render a person liable for the consequences of such an omission where there is no obligation to act[7].  However, provisions of the Chapter came to be recognised as operating in relation to criminally negligent acts which might found a conviction for manslaughter.”

  • The decision in Callaghan v The Queen explains how a provision like s 288 operates. That decision was concerned with a provision equivalent to s 289 of the Criminal Code, which also appears in Ch 27.  Section 289 imposes a duty on persons in charge of dangerous things to use reasonable care and take reasonable precautions to avoid danger to life, safety and health.  It operates in a way similar to s 288.

The above statements in paragraph 15 of the High Court’s decision contained the following citation in reference to Callaghan v The Queen:

“It is the duty of every person who has in the person’s charge or under the person’s control anything, whether living or inanimate, and whether moving or stationary, of such a nature that, in the absence of care or precaution in its use or management, the life, safety, or health, of any person may be endangered, to use reasonable care and take reasonable precautions to avoid such danger, and the person is held to have caused any consequences which result to the life or health of any person by reason of any omission to perform that duty.”

Whatever else Centrelink’s fatal mistakes may be, they are not homicides justified by “appropriate compliance measures”; at best these officially “irrelevant” deaths are, in law, the crime of Manslaughter. It is my contention that because the deaths are un-monitored, unreported, “confidential” and “irrelevant”, regardless of the actual cause of these fatalities, in law, the manner of these deaths is Depraved Heart-Reckless Indifference Murder.

Pages 1 and 2, appended, of the Community Affairs Reference Committee hearing on the 8th March 2017 provide insight into the massive scope of this recklessly dangerous fraud, i.e. 20,000 potential victims per week with an admitted administrative error rate of 20% that is known to be the reaction trigger for suicides, which, I would again remind both you and other readers of this communication, are murders under Section  13A, sub-section 7 of the South Australian criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935):

(Section) 13A—Criminal liability in relation to suicide

[Sub paragraph (7)] A person who, by fraud, duress or undue influence, procures the suicide of another or an attempt by another to commit suicide shall (whether or not he was a party to a suicide pact with the other person) be guilty of murder or attempted murder, as the case may require.

WHO KNEW?

The question as to who knew about the secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll and what did they do to prevent further fatalities is a major question of law; a fact evidenced in South Australia by the 2005 prosecution of 17-year-old Josiah Finch on the charge of Felony Murder.

In April and May 2011, Detective Superintendent Grant Moyle failed to conduct an investigation in accordance with the Rules of Investigation, which includes interviewing the plaintiff in a murder case! In May 2011, Superintendent Moyle wrote a letter to me claiming to have found no evidence of any crime. In the light of the facts presented by 4 independent witnesses to the Community Affairs Reference Committee hearing on the 8th March 2017 and the failure in AAT 201/5334, 2nd appeal, to content an estimated cumulative death toll that may now exceed 100,000, it is an understatement to say that crucial questions of law pertaining to the numbers of people who were terrorized, intimidated, blackmailed, exploited, defrauded and recklessly endangered need to be answered. However, a very important question of law that urgently needs to be determined is just how many people are dead because Grant Moyle faked an investigation? Just how many other investigations conducted by Grant Moyle were not conducted in strict accordance with the Rules of Investigation?

The failure to follow the Rules of Investigation is equally valid for Detective Inspector Stuart McIntyre’s failure to call me back after our phone conversation was suddenly swamped with static after I asked him if he knew what “Breaching” was? Immediately after he responded to that question by saying “No”, the call was disrupted by very load static. Although I waited for Inspector McIntyre to call me back, this never happened; the “terrible human  consequences” mentioned by George Brandis, and other fatalities that I am personally aware of, are some of the downstream consequences of Stuart McIntyre failing to call me back.

Shortly before 11.00 AM on the 17th October 2017, I presented myself at the Hindley Street police station and attempted to report what I firmly believe was a section 13A (7) murder by suicide to the female Senior Constable on duty. This officer ‘blew up like Mt. Saint Helens, verbally attacking me without reasonable cause and  adamantly refusing to look at the video and documentary evidence that I had brought with me to substantiate my claims that the Federal Government had been defrauding and randomly killing vulnerable welfare recipients. The officer terminated my efforts to report these alleged murders by telling me that she was not going to waste her time by listening to what I had to say and then walking out of the police station’s reception area.

How many at-risk people have been traumatized, defrauded, or are now dead because of that grossly inappropriate response to an attempt by a member of the public to report a murder?

The question as to how many people are the victims of Australia’s worst cases of mass fraud and serial murder is directly linked to the questions as to who knew about these State-sanctioned murders and did nothing to prevent further loss of life?

The appended letters from the Australian Crime Commission (2010), the federal Attorney-general’s department (2011) and the Office of the South Australian Director of Public Prosecutions (2012) are from people who, like Dr. Boughey (R v Boughey, HCA 29 [1986]) “ought to have known” that the welfare policies and practices that I was writing about could cause death.

At paragraph 10 of his findings, Justice Brennan stated:

 Omitting reference to omissions, par.(c) of s.157(1) applies only to culpable homicide by an unlawful act – the category prescribed by par.(c) of s.156(2). If the fatal act falls into that category, it amounts to murder if the offender actually knows that the act is likely to cause death in the circumstances or if the offender ought to know that the act is likely to cause death in the circumstances (s.157(1)(c)). The elements of murder drawn from par.(c) of s.156(2) and from par.(c) of s.157(1) are the elements on which the submissions of counsel for the applicant have focused. Those elements would have fallen for consideration by the jury if they were not satisfied that the applicant had a specific intent to kill the deceased woman when he did the fatal act.”

How well does George Brandis’ comment about “mistakes-terrible human consequences-appropriate compliance measure’” match up with Section 157(1)(c) of the Tasmanian Criminal Code? It does not do so.

What is manifestly obvious is that George Brandis confessed to fraud and murder on a nationally broadcast ABC television program and not one police officer in the nation queried the statements made. Why was this so? In addition, Julian Burnside QC, who was in that TV studio at the time, “ought to have known” that skipping due process of law could place vulnerable people under extreme duress and that that could have fatal consequences. Why did he not point out at that time that the “terrible human consequences” were likely to be unlawful homicides?

In a similar manner, “Breaching” is the unconstitutional, human rights violating, statutory practice of deliberately depriving people of their sole means to survive, an inhumane, amoral action that was likely to result in ‘a terminal outcome’, i.e. the victim of this recklessly dangerous violation of human rights could die.

A question of law: Why have the Blackmail provisions in Section 172 (2) (2) of the SA criminal code if SAPOL rarely enforces this law? The appended redacted copy of a letter from Centrelink, date 11th December 2015, contained an aggravated threat to my life that was never justifiable as the actions Centrelink wanted me to comply with were already being complied with. The precise wording of that aggravated threat to my life was/is:

“If you do not contact us by 15 January 2016 your payment(s) may be stopped.”

This was a very credible threat, made in writing, to cut-off my Age Pension, which the Federal Government has an obligation to provide under S. 51 (xxiii) of the Australian Constitution, if I did not phone Centrelink before the 16th January 2016.

Although the Commonwealth Evidence Act of 1975 does not require that motive for a crime be adduced, statements made by Secretary Kathryn Campbell on the 19th August 2015, i.e. just 16 weeks before Centrelink’s aggravated threat to my life was written, provide insight into why this systemic threat was made. Secretary Campbell reportedly made the following statements in a speech outlining her opinions on changes made to the Department of Human Services[8]:

  1. “[Citizens] should tell us their circumstances and we should be able to tell them what support we can provide to them. Our current systems don’t allow us to do that. They were very siloed; they were built in the 1980s, and they need replacing.”
  2. a lot of our technology hasn’t been updated for a little while.”
  3. So we also had overstaffed at that point, and we had to reduce by about $200 million in staffing as well. That meant 10% had to be cut overall in 18 months, which saw 4000 staff leave, although none through forced redundancy.
  4. We do a lot of work on claims that are never granted,” she explained.
  5. “So people will chance their arm, try their luck. … I think there might be some ways that we could probably give them the bad news earlier, that they haven’t met one of those eligibility thresholds, but we are required to process claims that are submitted under the legislation.”

Points #1, 2 & 3: The computer system used by the Department of Human Services, known as the Integrated Social Infrastructure System, a.k.a. the ‘ISIS’ database, is a 35-year-old State-of-the-Ark database system that was never not fit for its intended purpose. The reference to data being siloed refers to the fact that the ISIS database is a sequential database system that, as SAPOL’s cyber-crimes experts will confirm, unlike a Relational database, requires manually entered Queries in order to produce Reports about information in the database.  This labour-intensive task was rendered ineffective by reducing staffing levels by 4,000 in just 18 months, i.e. Centrelink simply did not have adequate staffing levels to manually query a database that contained the financial details of over 7 million welfare recipients and other clients receiving Family Tax Benefit allowances.

The administrative solution to this problem, which was apparently introduced by Bob Hawke, was to skip querying the database and engage in a range of criminal abuses of power, i.e. blackmail people into explaining database mismatches that may be computational or database errors. In my own case, there was no database query to determine whether or not I was reporting my spouse’s income. Had a manual query of the ISIS database been undertaken, my compliance with my legal obligations would have been noted and no letter threatening to deprive me of my constitutional right to an Age Pension would have been computer generated and sent to me. That this computer-generated letter was created and sent to me is an example of a serious cyber-crime being committed using the ISIS computer network.

The ‘Blackmail’ provisions in sections 171 and 172 of the South Australian criminal code, define serious and unwarranted blackmail threats and it is my contention that the threat to deprive me of my Age Pension entitlements constituted a credible, serious and unwarranted threat.

 172—Blackmail

    (1)      A person who menaces another intending to get the other to submit to a demand is guilty of blackmail.

Maximum penalty:

    (a) for a basic offence—imprisonment for 15 years;

    (b) for an aggravated offence—imprisonment for 20 years.

    (2)      The object of the demand is irrelevant.

Examples—

1  The person who makes the demand may be demanding marriage or access to children.

The person who makes the demand may be seeking to influence the performance of a public duty. [Bold underlined emphasis added.]

Note the statement in s. 172(2)(2) above, i.e. “the person who makes the demand may be seeking to influence the performance of a public duty.” Secretary Campbell may have had that in mind by allowing the ISIS database to automatically issue Aggravated Threats to Life, but ignorance of this law is no excuse, a fact of law confirmed by the High Court’s finding in paragraph 48 of Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Keating; HCA 20 on the 8th May 2013:

“A person cannot rely on ignorance of the law and is required to obey the law.

That person includes Secretary Kathryn Campbell, who, during the period March 2011 until September 2017, had the legal responsibility, and therefore legal accountability for the issuing of perhaps as many as 20 million or more computer generated threats every year, i.e. “Do as I say, or I will deprive you of your welfare allowance”.

Point #4: Secretary Campbell should be investigated in regard to her comment re claims that are never granted”.  As the High Court ruled in Hellicar, once a decision is challenged “It is a matter for the courts.” However, as I know from first-hand experience as a lay advocate, some government and some AAT conference registrars will ignore the Hellicar ruling if welfare recipients are unaware of this legally binding decision. Deliberately ignoring Hellicar is blatant fraud, and when fatalities occur, they are deaths caused by the commission of a crime, which means that in South Australia, any ‘skip-the-courts’ fraud triggered suicides are murders under Section 13A (7) of South Australia’s criminal code.

Point #5:So people will chance their arm…”  If Secretary Campbell were to testify in the prosecution of a welfare recipient, any court that was asked by defence counsel to rule that Ms. Campbell was a biased witness whose evidence was unreliable and should not be admitted into evidence, may have no option but to consent to that request for it is manifestly obvious that she believes that many welfare recipients, who have a constitutional right to a welfare benefit, are attempting to rort the system.

If asked how many times a court had agreed with her arbitrary decisions in possibly more than a million disputed decisions, Ms. Campbell’s ‘skip-the-courts’ approach to determining eligibility for a welfare benefit would leave a court with no option but to refer her management technique to the police for investigation.

In FY 2000-01, a decade before Ms. Campbell was appointed, the Howard Government issued 346,078 breaching penalties for ALLEGED breach of contract by welfare recipients. A significant number of those penalties were for alleged failures to comply with Work-for-the-Dole “obligations”. The problem with that penalty is that the linking of welfare payments to Work-for-the-Dole activities is a specifically proscribed activity under Section 51, sub-paragraph xxiiiA of the Australian Constitution:

[At 51] The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:

[At xxiiiA] “the provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances;

Since unemployment benefits are a constitutional right that cannot be linked civil conscription, the Federal Parliament has no legal jurisdiction to enact and enforce “No show, no pay” laws. The constitutional illegality of these laws is underscored by the previously-mentioned determination of Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron at paragraph 51 of Bhardwaj:

  there is a certain illogicality in the notion that, although a decision involves jurisdictional error, the law requires that, until the decision is set aside, the rights of the individual to whom the decision relates are or, perhaps, are deemed to be other than as recognised by the law that will be applied if and when the decision is challenged. A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.”

Unemployed people have a constitutional right to a welfare allowance that cannot be linked to “civil conscription”, i.e. Work for the Dole. How then can anyone explain either these penalties, or the reprehensible use of Parliamentary Privilege to deliberately conceal fatalities caused by the abuse of power violations of these constitutional rights? How also do you also explain the “terrible human consequences” of skipping due process of law in un-audited Robo-Debt claims that are unlikely to be upheld in court due to the unreliability of the Crown’s evidence? Despite what the Senate’s EWRE Reference Committee and AAT Conference Registrar Walsh may have decided, there is no such thing as an “irrelevant” homicide.

Whilst the statistical probability of a fatality is not credible evidence in court, the existence of statistics concerning fatalities that may involve specific abuses of power, e.g. ‘skipping-due-process-of-law,’ or deliberate violations of constitutional rights, constitutes significant and relevant, credible evidence that provides reasonable grounds for probable cause for the conduct of a criminal investigation to identify the precise number of fatalities that are the “terrible human consequences” of criminal abuses of public office.

At paragraph 15 of his findings in Boughey v R, Chief Justice Gibbs stated:

“…it would seem plain enough that the words “likely to cause death” in s.156(2)(a) are not used in a sense which would exclude from “culpable homicide” an intentional act which obviously involved a substantial risk of death or bodily harm to another unless the act was also “commonly known” to be more likely than not, in the sense of an “odds on chance”, to cause such death or bodily harm. In our view, the word “likely” is used in both ss.156(2)(a) and 157(1) with what we apprehend to be its ordinary meaning, namely, to convey the notion of a substantial – a “real and not remote” – chance regardless of whether it is less or more than fifty percent”

Robo-Debt is not about the ‘probability’ of a fatality; it is about a known-to-be-lethal, fraudulent ‘skip-the-courts’ systemic scam that is currently being implemented by an unconstitutionally elected government.

Knowing of this lethal fraud and doing nothing to shut this mega-organized crime scam is simply not an option for any SAPOL officer, i.e. you. I would reiterate the High Court’s ruling at paragraph 142 of Hellicar:

Each side in a criminal trial “is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue, the evidence which it or he will call, and what questions whether in chief or in cross-examination shall be asked; always, of course, subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility.”

At this point in time, any person accused of a serious crime can table both my previous correspondence to you along with this communication and, if you have not taken the appropriate measures to investigate the issues raised in this Issues Paper, any accused person, including already convicted criminals,  can justifiably claim that over a period measured in decades, SAPOL and the SA DPP, along with every other police force and every other Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions throughout Australia, has been criminally negligent by ignored what are likely to prove to be the worst cases of mass fraud and serial murder in Australia since Federation in 1901. As the information provided to you reveals, either by voluntary acts of omission or by voluntary acts of commission, or both, some very senior law enforcement officials have been doing nothing about these randomly lethal crimes since Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister.

VISUALIZATION: BEYOND CHAPMAN-GATE: Visualization is a very powerful way to convey an important message; the Chapman-gate Complaint can be likened to the sudden, overwhelming eruption of Mount Saint Helens. The US Geographic Service has a visually powerful video of the 18th May 1980 eruption that killed 57 people, including a USGS volcanologist, David Johnson, who was filming Mount Saint Helens when it blew up. “Vancouver, Vancouver, This is it” he radioed, and then died as the 700KPH pyroclastic blast of superheated dust and steam roared into him. You may wish to watch this video and then translate this eruption to the slowly building pressure in the national community for a return to honest government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP2dreOI8gI

Your personal “This is it” moment may occur when you are asked during cross-examination to explain why a very senior SAPOL officer actively covered up what I believe will prove to be the worst case of serial murder since Federation? If ABS statistics are a reliable guide, the so-called “irrelevant” murders in South Australia that have been somehow concealed or overlooked may be in the range of 7,000 – 10,000.

Even if my estimate, like that of the Iraqi invasion body count, were to only be 5% accurate, that would still represent 350 -500 ‘Bretang’ murders that have s slipped ‘under-the-radar’.

Across Australia, how many Department of Human Services “mistakes” that have killed an innocent welfare recipient constitute one-fatal-mistake-too-many?

One, i.e. the first fatality was one too many.

 All subsequent fatalities are one-more-too-many!

My Chapman-gate complaint on the 19th October 2018 was not my first preference option for an investigation into the SAPOL officers and other public officials involved in the cover-up of why I believe should be considered the ‘Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders’.

In law, there is nothing “APPROPRIATE” about supposedly saving taxpayers’ money by randomly killing innocent people. Every public official implicated in the causation or the cover-up of these brutal killings needs to be held accountable before the courts.

“Every public official” includes Governor-Generals, Prime Ministers, Cabinet members, Heads of Government Departments, judges, lawyers and police officers. It also includes  politicians Chiefs-of-Staff and electorate office support staff who took it upon themselves to make sure that the politicians that employed them were not informed about a politically driven humanitarian disaster that in 2018 has blown out to holocaust proportions with an uncontested death toll estimate, that once quantified, may be found to currently exceed 100,000 deaths from a diverse range of foreseeable causes.

I therefore again conclude with the challenge that I put to you in my first Chapman-gate Complaint of 19th October 2018; either prosecute me for possible violations of the criminal defamation provisions in Section 257 of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act, and/or possible violations of Section 42 of the Police Complaints & Discipline Act.

 Alternately, you can investigate the Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders and an excellent starting point for that is ‘Scomo-gate’, i.e. Scott Morrison’s role in the AAT2014/2456 “go to trial” fraud that can be heard on the appended ‘See No Evil: Grant Stevens Factor’ DVD. Because of the unique circumstances of ‘Scomo-gate’, it is a fraud in which the AFP, WAPOL and SAPOL all share jurisdiction.

Yours truly,

Ronald Medlicott – Plaintiff/Material Witness: Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders

APPENDIX

  1. A statutory declaration, dated 8th November 2018 that contains 4 witness statements that provide insight into how the Federal Government has been systematically defrauding and randomly murdering welfare recipients who are unaware of the extremely dangerous, randomly lethal violations of their civil rights that are occurring;
  2. A 1-page letter, reference AG-MC11/0915, dated 9 September 2011, which was signed by Matt Hall, Assistance Secretary, Human Rights Policy Branch, Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department;
  3. A 1-page letter, reference number 10/48553 and dated 11 May 2010, which was signed by G. Hansen, Complaints and Misconduct (Section) of the Australian Crime Commission;
  4. A 1-page letter from the Office of the South Australian Director of Public Prosecutions, reference number 02/000362910), dated 14 December 2012, and signed by Dianne Flynn, Executive Assistant to Adam Kimber SC, the (SA) Director of Public Prosecutions;
  5. A redacted, unsigned 1-page letter from Centrelink, dated 11 December 2015, that contains an aggravated threat to my life that violates Section 172 (2) (2) of the South Australian criminal code.
  6. Page 605 of ‘The Report of the Iraq Inquiry.’ British Parliament: House of Commons-HC264 “the [US] Intelligence Community was dead wrong…”
  7. A 15 Minute Emcott Report DVD, titled “Australia’s Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders” and sub-tiled “See No Evil: The Grant Stevens Factor”.

[1] https://www.news.com.au/news/national/melbourne-stabbing-attack-was-terrorism-incident-police-say-as-islamic-state-claims-it/news-story/95ad6cca7af9e87528d814a6b96f693e

[2] 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/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2ea416de4fc6

[3] Report of the Iraq Inquiry -HC264: Executive Summary, page 6, statement 25.

[4] Scott Morrison: Migration & Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylums Legacy caseload) Bill 2014 – Debate 25-9-2014

[5]              Which is defined by s 1 to mean liability to punishment as for an offence.

[6]              [2002] 2 Qd R 313 at 319 [16].

[7]              Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Poniatowska (2011) 244 CLR 408 at 421 [29]; [2011] HCA 43.

[8] https://www.themandarin.com.au/49014-kathryn-campbell-human-services-merger/

Kathryn Campbell: DHS service delivery reform a success, all things considered

THE APPENDED DOCUMENTS

These documents were included with this second complaint to Commissioner Stevens. They identify people who knew about Centrelink’s fatal frauds.

Stat Dec 5 lower res

Matt Hall

ACC

 

SA DPP

A Centrelink ‘blackmail email that is good for a 20-year jail term for each offence; IF SAPOLand the SA Director of Public Prosecutions should ever stop ignoring these deadly threat-to-life-letters/emails.

Bl;ackmail email

NOTE: As per the High Court’s Hellicar decision, only a court can order that a welfare payment that is a constitutional right can be stopped.

THE COVER-UP: PAGE 517 OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL REPORT INTO THE ILLEGAL INVASION OF IRAQ IN 2003

Mentioned in the report to Commissioner Stevens, paragraph 462 on page 517 of Section 4.4. of the Chilton Report should be read very carefully for it provides insight into the collusion between the governments of United States, Great Britain and Australia to hide the truth about the illegal invasion of Iraq in March 2003:

Chilton cover up

Note: I have underlined the relevant paragraph for emphasis; what is quite emphatic is conclusion to conceal the unpleasant truth that is to be found in 899  – 909 of the Chilton Report, i.e. there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction so 500,000 people have died for a lie.

PARAGRAPH 899 – DEAD WRONG

Chilton page 605

“… The [US] Intelligence Community was dead wrong in almost all of its pre-war judgements about Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. This was a major intelligence failure”

The above statement needs to read in the context of this Washington Post report, published in March 2018:

“It seems likely that the death toll in the past 15 years easily exceeded half a million Iraqis, but how much higher is hard to determine.”

[Source] 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/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.2ea416de4fc6

See No Evil: The Grant Stevens Factor:

Stevens DVD

The URL for this video is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ0gXlDiGwQ

 

See No Evil: The Hansard Minutes

The following Hansard Minutes provide insight into the administrative processes and mindsets of people who commit genocide and crimes against Humanity. Not that because of constitutional ‘Parliamentary Privilege’, these Minutes cannot be tabled in a court until the Australian High Court rules that the July 2016 Federal election was legally invalid and therefore parliamentary privilege does not apply.

Please note that the Hansard Minutes below should be read in the context of the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions:

Emcott V3

8-3-18 CARC crop

Page 1 and 2 were not included in the first Chapman-gate complaint but were inserted in the 2nd complaint. Pages 12, 13 and 14 were in the first complaint and are shown below to provide an overview of how Genocide works on a Holocaust scale in Australia. It is important to realize that the 4 testimonies presented should have been made to the police or to a State or Territory  anti-corruption commission. By testifying at a Senate Hearing, this crucial evidence will not be admissible in an Australian Court until the 2016 election is ruled invalid by the High Court, which may never happen.

8-3-17 page 1

8-3-18 page 2

8-3-17 page 12

8-3-17 page 13

8-3-17 page 14

Readers Note: Although I have an unconfirmed report that at least one law firm is looking at helping people to prepare a class action law suit. my attitude to the problem of Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity is simple:

Policeman

Call the Cops.

Ron Medlicott – A Christian volunteer lay-advocate

Posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 52F. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Glimpses of how Genocide works in Australia.

This posting is intended to provide insight into why millions of unsuspecting welfare recipients can be terrorized, exploited, defrauded and randomly murdered by unconstitutionally elected parliaments that have created genocidal laws.

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

GLIMPSE #1 – The Mindset of Centrelink’s Bureaucrats.

The following statements were made by Kathryn Campbell, the former Secretary (CEO) of the Department of Human Services in a 2015 speech titled DHS service delivery reform a success, all things considered”

[1] “The auditor-general’s report suggests the relevant KPI — an average waiting time of 16 minutes or less — is setting a low bar compared to other DHS telephone lines and other large Australian call centres. A simple average wait time is also not very meaningful, compared to the more complex KPIs used by other call centres.

[MY COMMENT: Waiting one or two hours to get through to Centrelink is extremely meaningful to those waiting but was quite clearly not very meaningful to Secretary Campbell, who never has to wait that long when phoning her staff.]

[2] “I came from an enemy location — the Department of Finance … so I wasn’t seen to be doing any of the ‘takeover’ business. But even today I’m sure if you discussed it with some of our staff, they would say one took over the other.”

[MY COMMENT: “I came from an enemy location…” Secretary Campbell’s mind was clearly focused upon internal bureaucratic politics and not on the life-saving function of her job, i.e. stopping vulnerable Australians from slipping through the welfare safety net and possibly dying as a result.

[3] “We believe that we have continued to deliver positive outcomes for both customers and our staff during this period, and that it was essential to do service delivery reform so that we would continue to be able to do that,”

[MY COMMENT: the civil rights of millions of vulnerable people have been violated and in February 2017, Secretary Campbell was unable to either confirm or deny a death toll that may exceed 100,000.

[4] “We do a lot of work on claims that are never granted, So people will chance their arm, try their luck. … I think there might be some ways that we could probably give them the bad news earlier, that they haven’t met one of those eligibility thresholds, but we are required to process claims that are submitted under the legislation.”

[MY COMMENT: “We do a lot of work on claims that are never granted.” It is very obvious that Secretary Campbell believed that her job was to save money, not the lives of very vulnerable people who, for a variety of reasons, are at risk because they lack adequate means to support themselves, e.g. the Liberal party destroying the national car manufacturing industry and having no immediate jobs to replace the jobs destroyed.

Check out this citizens-rights violating statement: “we could probably give them the bad news earlier.” It is glaringly obvious that Secretary Campbell was totally unaware of the binding High Court decision in ASIC v Hellicar that once a Centrelink decision was challenged by a welfare recipient, that Centrelink had to take the issue to court and get a court determination of the facts before any further action could be taken on the withholding of welfare payments.

ASIC v Hellicar:

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/17.html

At paragraph 141 to 143:

And insofar as the duty was said to stem from a proposition “that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth, in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred”, that premise is false for at least two reasons.

  1. First, the proposition ignores that even a criminal trial “is not, and does not purport to be, an examination and assessment of all the information and evidence that exists, bearing upon the question of guilt or innocence”. Each side in a criminal trial “is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue, the evidence which it or he will call, and what questions whether in chief or in cross-examination shall be asked; always, of course, subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility”. Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent requirements.
  2. Second, the proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory agency relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require the regulatory agency to make some final judgment about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.

No court decision, then no legally valid decision by Secretary Campbell and her 25,000 minions.

GLIMPSE #2 – THE ROLE OF THE MASS MEDIA

The double standards of the mass media, especially News Corporation newspapers are beyond belief:

Treasurer for sale

Joe Hockey sued Fairfax Media for a 3-word tweet, “Treasurer for sale” and won $200,000 in compensation, not for the news item above which the Federal Court agreed was fair and accurate comment but for the 3-word tweet that promoted this news article.

Now, keeping in mind that until a court decides the merit of any decision to withhold a welfare payment, which is a constitutional right, Centrelink cannot make any legally valid decision in the matter, check out these two News Corporation articles:

Bludgers

“No show, no pay” violates t Genocide and Crimes against Humanity provisions in articles 6 and 7 of the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute, a law that has applied to the Commonwealth of Australia since about July 2002.

News Ltd Dole cheats

In addition to violating the genocide and crimes against humanity provisions in the Rome Statute of the International criminal Court, this news article, like the 1st article, also violates South Australia’s criminal defamation law:

257—Criminal defamation
(1) A person who, without lawful excuse, publishes defamatory matter concerning another living person—
(a) knowing the matter to be false or being recklessly indifferent as to whether the matter is true or false; and
(b) intending to cause serious harm, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether the publication of the defamatory matter will cause serious harm, to a person (whether the person defamed or not),
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

Civil action is also possible if enough welfare recipients decide to sue newspapers for defamation and violation of civil rights, a fact made quite clear by the June 2017 Manus Island class action:

Manus 70 million compo

When paid out in June 2017, this was the largest every class action payout. However, with the Civil Rights of millions of people having been violated and Secretary Campbell unable to either confirm or deny a secretly classified, officially “irrelevant'” death toll that, after decades of recklessly ignoring these fatalities, may now be somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000, the $70 million may be ‘small change” once welfare recipients follow the Manus Island lead and sue the Commonwealth and mass media supporters of genocide and crimes against humanity.

OOPS! – Scott Morrison said:

‘This parliament should decide what our obligations are under these conventions – not those who seek to direct us otherwise from places outside this country, such as foreign courts or the United Nations*’ 

Scott Morrison: Migration & Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylums Legacy caseload) Bill 2014 – Debate 25-9-2014

Mr. Morrison’s comment cost us taxpayers $90 MILLION in compensation for a decision made by the Papua-New Guinea Supreme Court on the 25th April, 2016. Both the Australian and New Guinea governments had violated the human rights of the Manus Island detainees and had the case gone to court, we taxpayers could have been hit with a much larger bill for Scott Morrison’s bad judgement.

In the meantime, ALTHOUGH DOING SO MAY BE USELESS, my advice to victims of Centrelink’s randomly lethal criminal abuses of power remains the same:

CALL THE COPS!

Policeman

Austrack Comm Stevens

The tracking slip above was for my Express Post letter to the South Australian Police commissioner, Grant Stevens.

Austrack Coroner

The tracking slip above was for my Express Post letter to the South Australian Coroner, Mark Johns.

 

At this time, neither Commissioner Stevens nor Coroner Johns has contacted me for details of deaths that I am aware of. Until sufficient pressure by victims of Centrelink’s ‘skip due process of law’, which can be randomly lethal, are willing to call the cops, no police force in Australia is likely to act until intense pressure to do something is applied. Until that happens, the status quo will apply, i.e. every police force in Australia probably just stonewall and, by doing nothing, help to conceal these State Sanctioned Crimes against Humanity.

Ron Medlicott. Registered teacher and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate

Posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 52E. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. The 4 statutory declarations with the large text see ease of reading by mobile phone users.

The 4 statutory declarations that South Australia’s Police Commissioner and State Coroner are studiously ignoring, are reprinted with large text under each image for reading on mobile phones.

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

The Brandis ConfessionTHE TEXT:

The following Matters of Fact are independently verifiable truths.

1 On January 27th 2008, Mr. Ian Ward, an Aboriginal elder died from heatstroke after being transported from Laverton to Kalgoorlie in the back of a van in which the air conditioning was either faulty or not working. In May 2011, the State of Western Australia, Department of Corrective Services, pleaded guilty to failing to ensure that persons who were not employees were not exposed to hazards and, by that failure, causing the death of Mr. Ian Ward. On July 7th 2011, in the Kalgoorlie Magistrates Court, the Department of Corrective Services was fined $2850,000 for its role in the death of Mr. Ian Ward.

 2 Custodial Officers were prosecuted, Graham Kenneth Powell, KA324/11 on 7th September 2011, and Nina Mary Stokoe, KA325/11 on 5th October 2011. Both pleaded Guilty to the charge of “Being an employee failed to take reasonable care to avoid adversely affecting the safety or health of any other person through an act or omission at work and by that contravention caused the death of, or serious harm to Ian Ward.” On 12th August 2011 G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd (ACN 050 069 255) was prosecuted, KA327/11 and pleaded Guilty to “Being an employer, failed so far as was practical , to ensure that the safety or health of a person not being its employee, was not adversely affected wholly or in part as a result of any hazard that arose from or was increased by the system of work that had been or was being operated by the accused, and by that contravention caused the death of, or serious harm, to Ian Ward”.

 On 20th February 2017, Senator George Brandis made the following statements during the broadcast of an Australian Broadcasting Commission program, #Qand A. “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.”

 On 21st February 2017, the Statement of Facts & Issues was lodged for AAT case 5334 of 2016, 2nd appeal. An issue raised was the unreported, classified death toll caused by unconstitutional welfare penalties, i.e. an estimated a cumulative death toll of approximately 100,000, or even higher. Rather than contest details of the “irrelevant’ deaths, the Department of Social Services issued a proffer, which was accepted, that reinstated the Applicant’s disability pension. Consequently, at this point in time, the precise death toll caused by unconstitutional tortious conduct actions remains undisclosed.

And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of the Oaths Act 1936.

s

Case Law and the “approriate compliance measures’ deaths:

THE TEXT:

The following Matters of Fact are independently verifiable truths.

 At paragraph 6 of Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1981] HCA 26, (5 June 1981), Chief Justice Gibbs ruled: It is an elementary and fundamental principle that the object of the court, in interpreting a statute, “is to see what is the intention expressed by the words used”: River Wear Commissioners versus Adamson (in)1877 at paragraph 763. It is only by considering the meaning of the words used by the legislature that the court can ascertain its intention. And it is not unduly pedantic to begin with the assumption that words mean what they say…”

 On the 24th August 2012, at paragraph 11 in Patel versus the Queen, HCA 29, Chief Justice French and Justices, Hayne, Kiefel and Bell ruled that: “Under the Criminal Code, a person who causes the death of another is deemed to have killed that other person (section 293). A person who unlawfully kills another in circumstances which do not constitute murder is guilty of manslaughter (section 303). A person who kills another does so unlawfully unless the killing is authorised, justified or excused by law (section 291). At paragraph 18, these judges also ruled: Criminal responsibility therefore attaches only if there has been “criminal” or “gross” negligence.  In Bateman, Hewart LCJ said that whatever epithet be used, the standard of conduct must go beyond that relevant to a matter of compensation; it must be such as to show such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and to be conduct deserving punishment.  In Nydam v The Queen, the requisite standard was said to involve “such a great falling short of the standard of care which a reasonable man would have exercised and which involved such a high risk that death or grievous bodily harm would follow that the doing of the act merited criminal punishment.”

 On 20th February 2017, Senator George Brandis made the following statements during the broadcast of an Australian Broadcasting Commission program, #Qand A. “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.”

 On 21st February 2017, the Statement of Facts & Issues was lodged for AAT case 5334 of 2016, 2nd appeal. An issue raised was the unreported, classified death toll caused by unconstitutional welfare penalties, i.e. an estimated a cumulative death toll of approximately 100,000, or even higher. This statement was not challenged at that time.

3 months later, on the 18th May 2017, the Secretary of the Department of Human Services, Kathryn Campbell, told the Community Affairs Reference Committee, “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.” ”. Consequently, at this point in time, the precise scale of the unlawful death toll caused by recklessly dangerous, “compliance measures”  remains unknown to both Secretary Campbell and the Federal Parliament.

 

Case Law and Matters of Fact:

THE TEXT:

The issues raised in this declaration are ‘Matters of Fact’, here after “MoF”, that are of grave national significance and as such, require urgent
consideration by all Australian citizens and also by those lawfully appointed persons or authorities with the appropriate legal jurisdiction and/or lawful
responsibility to deal with the legal ramifications of the issues raised in the six MoF statements below.

MoF #1: Commencing with the High Court’s ruling in Re v Culleton, HCA 4, on the 3rd February 2017, numerous High Court decisions have resulted
in the dismissal or resignation from the Federal Parliament of 16 people who were constitutionally disqualified to serve as Members of the Federal
Parliament. In law, these dismissals and resignations constitute evidence of the fact that in 2016, the Australian Electoral Commission, here after the
AEC, had conducted an unconstitutional ‘Hybrid Election’ by allowing a still unknown number of disqualified people to contest this federal election.

MoF #2: On the 14th March 2002, in paragraph 51of Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj, HCA 11, Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron ruled that “A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all”. Their Honours also emphasized the fact that such jurisdictional errors are “A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.” At paragraph 53 of Bhardwaj, Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron further emphasized their rulings in paragraph 51, i.e. “As already pointed out, a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all. Once that is accepted, it follows that, if the duty of the decision-maker is to make a decision with respect to a person’s rights but, because of jurisdictional error, he or she proceeds to make what is, in law, no decision at all, then, in law, the duty to make a decision remains unperformed. Thus, not only is there no legal impediment under the general law to a decision-maker making such a decision but, as a matter of strict legal principle, he or she is required to do so. And that is so, regardless of s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act.”

MoF #3: The AEC does not have the constitutional authority to conduct hybrid elections. Likewise, I was one of almost 15 million Electors who cast
literally hundreds of millions of preferential ballots in the 2016 hybrid election, however none of us had the constitutional right to cast ballots in a
hybrid election. Therefore, consistent with the above Bhardwaj rulings at paragraphs 51 and 53, the AEC’s Declarations of Results for all 226
vacancies were constitutionally invalid declarations, i.e. they were/are, “in law, no decision at all.” Constitutionally, a valid Declaration of Results for the 2016 Election Writ cannot be made, and a constitutionally valid government formed, until such time as the AEC conducts a constitutionally compliant federal election.

MoF# 4: Under the leadership of Malcolm Turnbull, the unconstitutionally elected 45th Federal Parliament allegedly began violating the civil rights of as many as 20,000 people per week with unsubstantiated ‘alleged debt’ claims that lacked legal validity as no forensic audits were undertaken by appropriately qualified and certified auditors for the purpose of establishing a valid Right of Claim by objectively ensuring that Commonwealth errors, which includes possible violations of Commonwealth, State or Territory Data Protections laws, were not the cause of the alleged data mismatches.

MoF #5: On the 3rd May 2012 in ASIC v Hellicar and Ors, HCA 17, at paragraph 141 the High Court ruled that “And insofar as the duty was said to stem from a proposition “that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth, in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred”, that premise is false for at least two reasons”. At paragraph 142 the Court ruled that in criminal cases and in civil cases that involve pecuniary issues, both sides, subject to the rules of procedural fairness, could determine what issues be raised and what were relevant questions to ask. In paragraph 143, the High Court then ruled that “the proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory agency relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require the regulatory agency to make some final
judgment about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.”

MoF #6: On the 21st February 2017, the Statement of facts and Issues for AAT 2016/5334, 2nd appeal was lodged via email and the estimated toll of 100,000 or more deaths caused by fraudulent tort actions contained in these documents was not contested by the lawyer representing the government.

 

The Unconstitutional Royal Commission:

THE TEXT:

On the 28th September 2018, Commissioner Kenneth Hayne QC delivered the interim report of the Financial Services Royal Commission of Inquiry, hereafter the SFRC, to the Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove. Whilst the question of law in the report, “How did this happen?” is a legally valid question, in law, the report itself is not because the Financial Services Royal Commission of Inquiry and its interim findings are “The fruit of the poisoned tree.” Due diligence obligations now requires the Boards of Directors, Chief Executive Officers and legal counsel for each of the financial services organizations accused of misconduct in the interim report of the Financial Services Royal Commission to test the legality of the FSRC interim report by undertaking a comprehensive legal evaluation of the possibility that the report is legally invalid and that all the sworn testimony given during the inquiry is, in law, “fruit of the poisoned tree” that cannot be used by regulators when imposing fines or alleging criminal misconduct. 

 Whilst the idea that the FSRC interim report is legally invalid “poisoned fruit” may, on first consideration, appear to be spurious, there are numerous case law precedents that have profound implications that need to be considered before any reasonable determination of the issue can be made, e.g.  Keating v Morris & Ors; Leck v Morris & Ors [2005] QSC 243, (1 September 2005). At paragraph 36 of his Findings, Justice Moynihan stated:

 “It is of “fundamental importance” that parties and the general public have full confidence in the fairness of decisions and the impartiality of decision makers to whom the rules of procedural fairness apply. Condemnation without a proper hearing or by an apparently biased tribunal is unacceptable; exoneration by such a tribunal may be worthless.”

 At paragraph 6 in the majority decision of Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd HCA 54, (31 August 1920), Justice Isaacs stated: “When a State attempts to give to its legislative or executive authority an operation which, if valid, would fetter, control, or interfere with, the free exercise of the legislative or executive power of the Commonwealth, the attempt, unless expressly authorized by the Constitution, to that extent invalid and inoperative.” At paragraph 9 of his findings in this case, Justice Higgins stated: “Once we find a valid Federal law—say, a law as to trade and commerce with other countries—the Courts and Judges and people of every State must obey it, whatever the State laws may say to the contrary.”

 Note the phrase “Once we find a valid law…”: Effective as of the federal election in 2004, the Australian Federal Parliament has not enacted any valid federal law and the Executive of the governments appointed in 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 and 2016 have not made legally valid decisions because of defective administrative by the Australian Electoral Commission, which had failed to uphold the Constitution by conducted ‘hybrid elections’ in which an unknown number of constitutionally ineligible candidates participated. On the 14th March 2002, in paragraph 51of Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj, HCA 11, Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron ruled that “A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all”. Their Honours also emphasized the fact that such jurisdictional errors are “A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.”  At paragraph 53 Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron further emphasized their rulings in paragraph 51, i.e. “As already pointed out, a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all. Once that is accepted, it follows that, if the duty of the decision-maker is to make a decision with respect to a person’s rights but, because of jurisdictional error, he or she proceeds to make what is, in law, no decision at all, then, in law, the duty to make a decision remains unperformed. Thus, not only is there no legal impediment under the general law to a decision-maker making such a decision but, as a matter of strict legal principle, he or she is required to do so. And that is so, regardless of s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act.”

 Neither the AEC nor almost 15 million Electors who cast hundreds of millions of preferential ballots in the 2016 hybrid election had the constitutional right to be participate in hybrid elections. Therefore, the AEC’s Declarations of Results for all 226 vacancies were constitutionally invalid declarations, i.e. they were/are, “in law, no decision at all.” The determinations of Justices Gummow and Gaudron at 51 – 53 in Bhardwaj mean that, in law, all legislative and executive decisions made by the current Federal Parliament are “no decision at”, e.g. the establishment of the FSRC.

The Implications

The implications of these statutory declarations are huge.

As Judge Gray, the Victorian State Coroner, pointed out 4 years ago, I am raising issues of national and international significance.

Firstly, have a federal parliament that has been robbing and randomly killing welfare recipients for a very, very long time and the “total of the tape” on these deaths may exceed 100,000.

Secondly, we have unconstitutionally elected governments enforcing legally invalid laws on everyone from impoverished welfare recipients to international banking corporations.

Thirdly, ANY PERSON, whether accused of major crimes or welfare recipients being ripped off by Centrelink, can use these statutory declarations to demand that government prosecutors or lawyers explain the facts raised in these statutory declarations.

Since the deaths of welfare recipients are unreported, are secretly classified and are officially “irrelevant”, that’s not a job that I would want if I was a government lawyer, especially given this very persuasive precedent from an English House of Lords decision that opens the door to the Secretary of the Department of Social Services being subpoenaed to attend every AAT appeal and explain why she never bothered to report the deaths of welfare recipients in Centrelink’s annual reports:

Bushell v Minister of State for the  Environment HL 7 (Feb’ 1980)

The Opinion of Lord Edmund-Davies

(c) “Natural justice requires that objectors (no less than departmental representatives) be allowed to cross-examine witnesses called for the other side on all relevant matters, be they matters of fact or matters of expert opinion.

(d) In the exercise of jurisdiction outside the field of criminal law, the only restrictions on cross-examination are those general and well-defined exclusionary rules which govern the admissibility of relevant evidence (as to which reference may be had to Cross on evidence, 5th edition (1979) p.17); to go beyond those restrictions there is no discretion on the civil side to exclude cross-examination on relevant matters.”

Senator Brandis admission that “mistakes” by Centrelink have “terrible human consequences”, opens the door to the question as to exactly just how “terrible” are those consequences, i.e. how many innocent people has Centrelink killed?

With an unconfirmed, but also undisputed, estimated death toll of around 100,000, or more, Secretary Campbell has a statutory obligation not to harm people that, like very member of Parliament over the last 40-years,  she apparently did not know about if the content of some her public speeches are an accurate guide, e.g a speech made in August 2015 that can be read at the following URL:

https://www.themandarin.com.au/49014-kathryn-campbell-human-services-merger/

Take note of the following statements:

“[Citizens] should tell us their circumstances and we should be able to tell them what support we can provide to them. Our current systems don’t allow us to do that. They were very siloed; they were built in the 1980s, and they need replacing.”

CENTRELINK’S COMPUTER IS STATE OF THE ARK;

“Our current systems don’t allow us to do that. They were very siloed; they were built in the 1980s, and they need replacing.”

Pay very close attention to to the word “siloed” and the fact that Centrelink’s computer is early 1980s technology. This technology was “State of the Ark” when first purchased. Information is in database field that must be accessed manually by creating a database report for each client under review. That is a major propble as the next statement clearly reveals.

4,000 Redundancies

So we also had overstaffed at that point, and we had to reduce by about $200 million in staffing as well. That meant 10% had to be cut overall in 18 months, which saw 4000 staff leave, although none through forced redundancy.”

The KPIs that the department has across all its services and channels are dictated by the funding available for the department to meet its obligations. The department has estimated that to reduce the KPI to an average speed of answer of 5 minutes, it would need an additional 1000 staff at a cost of over $100 million each and every year.”

 

CALL BLOCKING:

Once upon a time we were able to reduce wait times by … call blocking,” Campbell said, touching on another issue which came under public scrutiny following the ANAO report. “We put the ‘engaged’ signal up and no calls could get in, so you could actually serve those people quicker, but we used to get a lot of complaints about the engaged signal.”

THEY PREVENTED PEOPLE FROM REPORTING INCOME AND THEN PROSECUTED THEM FOR FRAUD WITHOUT MENTIONING THIS CRUCIAL FACT TO THE COURTS!

Under-funded and under-staffed, Centrelink is responsible for a humanitarian disaster with an unreported, officially “irrelevant” death toll that may now be well beyond the 100,000 mark at this stage.

Victims of this randomly lethal mismanagement of Australia’s welfare system should file a Section 142(2) Commonwealth Criminal Code complaint with the local  police and cite me as a material witness when doing so.

Ronald Medlicott. Registered teacher & a Christian volunteer lay-advocate

 

Posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Part 52D: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Legal aspects of the 4 statutory declarations submitted to the South Australian police and the South Australian Coroner as part of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity complaints.

Below are JPG images of 4 statutory declarations, that need to be accompanied by large font size transcripts of the 4 declarations so that people reading this journal posting on a mobile phone or a small screen tablet can read the text.

NOTE: The short link URL for this posting is:  https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1f1

Before you read the 1st declaration, I believe that you should be aware of the following High Court of Australia (HCA) decisions, which I reference by abbreviated case name, case file number and date of issue of the Court’s findings.

AMALGAMATED ENGINEERS, HCA 54 on 31st August 1920.

At paragraph 4 of the Majority 4-1-1 decision, the High Court ruled:

“… as the Commonwealth and State Parliaments and Executives are themselves bound by the declarations of this Court as to their powers inter se, our responsibility is so much the greater to give the true effect to the relevant constitutional provisions.”

Neither of the 2 justices who presented minority decisions opposed that statement. The Australian Federal Parliament, and by extension, all Australian federal government departments and agencies, e.g. Centrelink and the AAT, are, like Lower Courts, bound by the High Court’s decisions and must comply with them. This include a veritable tsunami of decisions that includes the following procedural fairness decisions.

BRIGINSHAW VERSUS BRIGINSHAW; HCA 34 on 30th June 1938.

 At paragraph 15 of his findings, Justice Dixon ruled:

‘But reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind that is attained or established independently of the nature and consequence of the fact or facts to be proved. The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters “reasonable satisfaction” should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences.’

Justice Dixon was saying that whether a case was criminal case or a civil action, never base decisions upon assumptions. This is especially so in cases brought by government agencies for a number of reasons. There is also the issue of “consequences’ that routinely prove to be fatal, e.g. the officially “irrelevant” suicides triggered by Centrelink’s ‘Skip-the-courts’ tort actions against welfare recipients.tortious

BHARDWAJ, HCA 11 on 14th March 2002.

At paragraphs 51 and 53 Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron jointly ruled:

[At 51] A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all…. A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.

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

 Never assume that the laws created by the Federal Parliament are legally valid until a court tests those laws and also never assume that government agencies, e.g. Centrelink, have the power to do some of the things that they.

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Keating HCA 20 on the 8th May 2012.

After some 15,000 welfare recipients had been prosecuted and convicted of an extinguished law, the Federal Parliament breached the Abuse of Public Office law and Work health Safety laws that prohibit harmful conduct, tried to “fix” this monstrous legal blunder with a retrospective law. At paragraphs 46 and 47 of the Keating decision, the High Court dismissed this outrageous, hum,an rights violating law by ruling that the law was a “statutory fiction”‘

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

[At 47] A clear statement of legislative intention is required before the courts will find that liability for a serious Commonwealth offence is imposed by means of a statutory fiction

NEVER ASSUME THAT A FEDERAL LAW IS LEGALLY VALID – ESPECIAL;LY SINCE THE FEDERAL ELECTIONS OF 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013 AND 2016 WERE NOT CONDUCTED IN A CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID MANNER. ALSO, NEVER ASSUME THAT PUBLIC SERVANTS, AND CONTRACTED SERVICE PROVIDERS, HAVE THE POWERS THAT THEY CLAIM TO HAVE

ASIC v. HELLICAR & Others, HCA 17  on 3rd May 2012.

At paragraphs 141 to 143 the High Court ruled:

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

First, the proposition ignores that even a criminal trial “is not, and does not purport to be, an examination and assessment of all the information and evidence that exists, bearing upon the question of guilt or innocence”]. Each side in a criminal trial “is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue, the evidence which it or he will call, and what questions whether in chief or in cross-examination shall be asked; always, of course, subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility.Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent requirements.

Second, the proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory agency relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require the regulatory agency to make some final judgment about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.

There are 2 very important points here:

Firstly, once a person challenges the decision of a regulator, e.g. a welfare recipient challenges a Centrelink decision, before any enforceable decision can be made, the matter must be referred by Centrelink, at Centrelink’s expense, to the courts so that  the “primary fact [that] actually occurred” can be determined by a Court. If Centrelink officials ‘skip-the-court’ then, as Justice Gummow and Justice Gaudron ruled in Bhardwaj at 51 and  53, “A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all, …then, in law, the duty to make a decision remains unperformed.

Every challenged Centrelink must have the facts determined by a Court, at an average cost in 2013, i.e. 5 years ago, of $25,000 per case. The first question that should be asked in an AAT hearing is “WHAT ARE THE COURT’S FINDINGS AS TO THE FACTS OF THE MATTER ? Without any such court findings there is no legally valid decision and the only lawful option open to the AAT conference registrar is set the hearing aside until such time as a court determination of the facts is made. Whilst ‘Skipping the courts’ may be hugely cost effective for Centrelink, in law, it is violation of the Abuse of Public Office law in section 142, sub-paragra2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. This means that under every State and territory criminal code in Australia, any deaths caused by this crime are culpable homicides.

These points of law underscore why the statement by Senator George Brandis concerning fatal mistakes by Centrelink open the door to criminal investigations into how many fatal mistakes has Centrelink made and, in law, just how appropriate are “compliance measures” that randomly kill innocent people? In addition, consistent with the case law precedents above, any person, whether accused of major crimes such as manslaughter or murder, or welfare recipients challenging a Centrelink decision, can insist that Centrelink disclose just how many fatalities have occurred. a point of law underscored by Justice Brennan’s determination

KIO v. WEST, HCA 81 on 18th December 1985.

Nevertheless in the ordinary case where no problem of confidentiality arises an opportunity should be given to deal with adverse information that is credible, relevant and significant to the decision to be made. It is not sufficient for the repository of the power to endeavour to shut information of that kind out of his mind and to reach a decision without reference to it. Information of that kind creates a real risk of prejudice, albeit subconscious, and it is unfair to deny a person whose interests are likely to be affected by the decision an opportunity to deal with the information. He will be neither consoled nor assured to be told that the prejudicial information was left out of account.

When it comes to “credible, relevant and significant”, Centrelink has been engaged in a massive decades-long criminal abuse of power and as of 21st February 2017, was unable to deny that this criminal activity ,may have caused more than 100,000 fatalities that violate criminal homicide laws and Work Health & Safety “Reckless Conduct” laws in every in every State and territory in Australia as well as the murder provision contained in Article 7 subparagraph 1A of the Rome Statute. Any person has the statutory obligation to query these death with the police and every court or administrative tribunal must require that if asked, Centrelink must provide “adverse information” such as the known number of fatalities linked to ‘Skip-the-courts’ tort actions, even though this information may result in a serial murder investigation of Centrelink.

Statutory Declaration #1 – The Brandis Confession.

R 100000 dead dec

A video of Senator Brandis opening the door to the question as just how “appropriate” are compliance measures can be viewed at:

 

Patel v The Queen, HCA 29 on the 24th August 2012

This case provides insight under Queensland’s criminal code as to just how inappropriate are “appropriate compliance measures” that randomly kill innocent people who have done no wrong:

[At 11] Under the Criminal Code, a person who causes the death of another is deemed to have killed that other person (s 293).  A person who unlawfully kills another in circumstances which do not constitute murder is guilty of manslaughter (s 303).  A person who kills another does so unlawfully unless the killing is authorised, justified or excused by law (s 291).  In the present case, for convictions on the counts of manslaughter to be returned it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the appellant caused the death of the three patients, thereby killing them (s 293).  For a conviction on the count of grievous bodily harm, it was necessary to prove that the appellant had done grievous bodily harm to another and that the doing of it was unlawful (s 320).

[At 12] Section 282 is an exculpatory provision which may apply in the case of a surgical procedure.  At the relevant time, it provided:

“A person is not criminally responsible for performing in good faith and with reasonable care and skill a surgical operation upon any person for the patient’s benefit, or upon an unborn child for the preservation of the mother’s life, if the performance of the operation is reasonable, having regard to the patient’s state at the time and to all circumstances of the case.”

It is my contention that “appropriate compliance measures” are not “an exculpatory provision” under Queensland’s criminal code for “mistakes” that randomly kill innocent victims of criminal abuses of public office.

Section 31 of Queensland’s Work health & Safety Act (2011) contains the following “Reckless Conduct” statutes:

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.
Maximum penalty—
(a) for 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—3,000 penalty units or 5 years
imprisonment; or
(b) for 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—6,000
penalty units or 5 years imprisonment; or
(c) for an offence committed by a body corporate—30,000
penalty units.

Compare the Queensland Reckless Conduct law with South Australia’s Work Health & Safety Act (2012):

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.

Maximum 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.

Whilst the wording of the penalties may differ, the Reckless Conduct statutes are the same in both States. Randomly killing innocent people is a crime in both States and in fact in every State and territory in  Australia.

Not intending to kill people is not an excuse for doing so. a fact of law under Murder provisions in section 302 of the Queensland Crimes Act and Section 13 (7) of the South Australian criminal Law Consolidation Act. Deliberately committing a crime that places a person under such DURESS that they commit suicide is MURDER in both States (and in every other State and Territory.s

Queensland: Section 302:- Note 302 (b)

Definition of murder
(1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills
another under any of the following circumstances, that is to
say—
(a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person
killed or that of some other person or if the offender
intends to do to the person killed or to some other
person some grievous bodily harm;
(b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the
prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such
a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;
(c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to
some person for the purpose of facilitating the
commission of a crime which is such that the offender
may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of
facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed
or attempted to commit any such crime;                                                          (d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or
overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned
in paragraph (c);
(e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any
person for either of such purposes;
is guilty of murder.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA – Section 13 (7) of the criminal code:

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

The words may be different, but the message is very clear; when Centrelink officials ‘skip-the-courts’ and fatalities occur, even suicides caused by this criminal abuse of public authority are murders. Therefore, in cases that involve either the Crown or Centrelink, asking just how “terrible” are the “terrible human consequences” of Centrelink’s fatal “mistakes” is a question that is credible, relevant and significant that MUST BE ANSWERED, even if the answer triggers fraud and serial murder investigations in every State and territory in Australia.

HANSARD – THE CARC MINUTES

For absolutely irrefutable evidence of randomly lethal criminal abuses of power, look no further than the Hansard Minutes of Australia’s unconstitutionally elected 45th Parliament.

 

8-3-18 CARC crop

Ms. Nadine Flood, President of the Community & Public Sector Union (CPSU) made the following statement on page 13 of these minutes:

“gaming of the system’ – a life and death issue:

The decision to replace the human oversight of debt recovery with

If we want to look at where robo-debt has come from, it is a fairly obvious consequence of a department that no longer has the resources to provide effective services.

The decision to replace the human oversight of debt recovery with automated data matching was absolutely based on a desire and an imperative to save money. It has of course proven to be a classic false economy and has created costly reverse workflows where staff are taken offline to deal with complex and difficult disputes over incorrectly raised automated debts. Sadly, I would suggest that in the last few years, one of the things DHS has become an expert at is bandaid solutions as it lurched from one crisis to the next. This is simply the largest of those.

As a result, the department tries to plug the gap in those services with casual staff who do not have access to the appropriate training, who are deeply frustrated that they cannot do the work and who are largely used to answer the phone and redirect customer inquiries, which allows the department to keep its core statistics lower; someone has clicked on it, they cannot fix the problem, but it is going through to another line and that is good enough.

That sort of gaming of the system is the situation this department has been put in.

Centrelink is playing a very real “Game of Life” in which vulnerable people dies; a matter of fact clearly evidenced in the following statements by Ms. Lisa Newman, the Deputy President of the CPSU, which are on page 14 of these minutes:

In January we started to have contact from members who were reporting that average incomes could lead to incorrect debt calculations and customers could end up paying money that they did not owe before a debt was proven to exist.

A mismatch in employer information could also lead to double counting of income and therefore generate false debt statistics.

Customers would be unable to get the documentation they required to prove that the debt did not exist, and customers would not be advised of their appeal rights.

We have also been told by our members, as Nadine said, that the customary oversight has been removed from the system before contact with customers has been initiated and that, instead, that oversight has been limited to queries and requests for reassessments once notices have been issued and received by customers.

Members have been particularly disturbed by reports of managers instructing frontline staff not to correct errors that they find and instead to push customers onto self-service mechanisms and/or refer them to a different part of the department—namely, the OCI teams.

The above comment, if true means that Centrelink managers are deliberately defrauding welfare recipients. That makes the following statements by Ms. Newman of enormous legal significance:

DHS staff—our members—want to help customers, and that is why they find it so distressing to see their department putting customers at an increased risk of depression, decreased motivation, self-harm and even suicide.

There have been anecdotal reports about increased levels of customer aggression directed at Centrelink workers that includes swearing, threats, physical aggression and spitting.

We would make the case that the Turnbull government needs to suspend this system.

It needs to fix the system so that before it contacts a person over an alleged debt it has skilled and experienced staff assessing that person’s records holistically, because automated systems cannot read customer records and see the details that experienced officers can.

Ms. Flood and Ms. Newman have described an extremely dysfunctional, extremely corrupt system that is both systematically defrauding vulnerable people and also randomly killing some of these people.Newman.

 

May 2017 crop

At page 48 of these Minutes, Kathryn Campbell, the Head of the Department of Human Services, a.k./a Centrelink, made the following statement, which may violate every Reckless Conduct and reckless Indifference homicide law within the Commonwealth of Australia:

Kathryn Campbell“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.”

This statement is totally at odds with Secretary campbell’s statute law obligations not to kill people.

 

MY ADVICE?

Policeman

Call the Cops

————————————————————————————————————-

I have run out of time for today and will comment on the next 3 statutory declarations in future journal postings. Please read them carefully. Transcripts for each declaration will also be provided in these postings.

———————————————————————————–

Statutory Declaration #2 – Criminal Responsibility.

 

Compliance measures stat dec

 

Statutory Declaration #3 – Matters of Fact

MoF Stat Dec

 

Statutory Declaration #4 – How did this Happen?

FSRC

St Paul wrote: “Put all things to the test and only keep what is good.” Do that with everything that I write.

Ronald Medlicott

Registered teacher and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate

 

Posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Part 52C: Australia’s “irrelevant Crimes Against Humanity. A letter to Mark johns, the South Australian Coroner.

Mark Johns, the South Australian State Coroner is about to have posted to him a letter that provides details of how the Australian Federal Parliament has been systematically menacing, terrorizing, defrauding, endangering and  randomly killing people for decades.

Mark Johns letter 1

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

Tracking colour

The Express post letter was posted today at 11:55AM and can be tracked with the above number.

The letter to Coroner Mark Johns:

Ronald Medlicott 40 Siddall Road Elizabeth Vale SA 5112

Ph: (08) 8255 3638  Mobile: 04386 26811 22nd October 2018

Attn:                State Coroner Mark Johns

South Australian Coroners Court

302 King William Street  ADELAIDE SA 5000

Dear Coroner Johns,

Re: The contents of Express Post envelope 60538616505098, which are intended to draw to your attention to the fact that across our nation, dysfunctional welfare policies and practices are randomly killing vulnerable people and every safety system in the nation that should have prevented these fatalities, including the south Australian Coroners court, has failed to do so.

Today has been declared a special day to mark the failure of the nation to prevent the exploitation and sexual abuse of un-numbered thousands of vulnerable children. However, even as we acknowledge these terrible events, a far larger and far more-deadly humanitarian disaster rolls on like a run-away freight train careering down a steep mountain railroad track. The situation is now so bad that on the 18th May  2017 the head of the federal Department of Human Services, Secretary Kathryn Campbell, made the following unreal statement:

“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.”

 3-months earlier, as can be seen and heard in the appended videos, the federal Attorney-General George Brandis had admitted that mistakes by Centrelink were inevitable and that these mistakes were causing “terrible human consequences.”  Unaware of that statement, the next day I submitted an AAT appeal for case 2016/5334 that included the following statement:

“If I am correct, over a time frame measured in decades, the Australian Federal Parliament has deliberately raped the civil rights of 4 – 5 million vulnerable Australians and as a direct consequence of this systematic rape of rights, the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll caused by this ravaging of civil rights may be close to, or even exceed,100,000 in number. Theoretically, it could even be the unthinkable, i.e. close to 1,000,000 dead.”

No matter how unbelievable that AAT appeal statement may seem to be, Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, a Depart of Human Services lawyer based in that Department’s the Freedom of Information & Litigation Section, did not to contest that statement. Instead, on the 22nd February 2017, Ms. Ulrick issued a ‘Without prejudice’ proffer directly to the applicant, Mr. Marcelo Havaunes, with out providing me, Mr. Havaunes authorized representative, with a copy of that proffer.

One of the Functus Officio documents for that appeal, dated 7th March 2017, is included in the Issues Paper 42 of the Emcott Report, which is included with this letter. The next day, on the 8th March 2017, Ms. Nadine flood, the President of the Community and Public Sector Union, made the following statement during a Community Affairs Reference Committee hearing:

 “If we want to look at where robo-debt has come from, it is a fairly obvious consequence of a department that no longer has the resources to provide effective services. The decision to replace the human oversight of debt recovery with automated data matching was absolutely based on a desire and an imperative to save money. It has of course proven to be a classic false economy and has created costly reverse workflows where staff are taken offline to deal with complex and difficult disputes over incorrectly raised automated debts. Sadly, I would suggest that in the last few years, one of the things DHS has become an expert at is bandaid solutions as it lurched from one crisis to the next. This is simply the largest of those.”

 That statement concerning how the automated alleged-debt recovery program works needs to be evaluated within the scope of a binding precedent enunciated by the High Court on the 3rd May 2012 at 141 – 143 in ASIC v. Hellicar [HCA 17]: i.e. once a regulator’s decision is disputed, it is a matter for the courts:

[At 143] “Second, the proposition that the public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory agency relies must be facts that “actually occurred” appears to require the regulatory agency to make some final judgment about what “actually occurred” before it adduces evidence. Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.”

  Speaking at the same CARC hearing, Ms. Lisa Newman, the Deputy President of the Community and Public Sector Union, told the committee:

“Members have been particularly disturbed by reports of managers instructing frontline staff not to correct errors that they find and instead to push customers onto self-service mechanisms and/or refer them to a different part of the department—namely, the OCI teams… DHS staff—our members—want to help customers, and that is why they find it so distressing to see their department putting customers at an increased risk of depression, decreased motivation, self-harm and even suicide.”

 What Ms. Flood and Ms. Newman described were deliberate, systematic violations of sections 130, 131,  135, 136, 138 and 142 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code and the parallel provisions contained in States and Territories criminal codes.

The testimonies of Ms. Flood and Ms. Newman should never have been made to the Community Affairs Reference Committee because the senators serving on this committee share both civil and criminal responsibility, along with  with hundreds of other past and present Members of the Federal Parliament,  for the all of the harms caused by these criminal activities, e.g. the unknown, unreported, officially “irrelevant” estimated death toll, which may be around  100,000, or even far more. This figure, which Secretary Campbell was neither able to confirm or deny on the 21st February 2017, was not made known to at the CARC hearing on 18th May 2017.

In his letter dated 28  October 2014, your fellow Victorian coroner, Judge Ian L. Gray, stated:

“You raise a number of important general issues to do with justice and human rights, both nationally and internationally.”

 Over the last 30 – 40 years, the civil rights of millions of welfare recipients have been systematically violated by successive federal governments. Victims of these systemic abuses of power have been  traumatized, exploited, defrauded, recklessly endangered, and the with a cumulative ‘all-cause’ death toll that is likely to be some in excess of 100,000, Judge gray’s comment is a gross understatement. Please note that I have documentary evidence that in August 2014 that I had written to Judge Gray expressing specific concerns about two fatalities hat had occurred in Victoria and he was apparently unaware of my previous correspondence. This would indicate that someone within the Office of the Victoria Coroners Court may have  prevented Judge Lake from seeing that information. The identification of the person(s) responsible for that is a matter for the Victorian Police or the Victorian Crime Commission.

This correspondence and the enclosed documents have been transmitted to you in Express Post envelope #60538616505098. The legal status of the contents of this envelope, including my covering letter to you, need to be considered in relation to Section 5AA (2) of the South Australian criminal Law consolidation Act (1935):

“A person is taken to know a particular fact if the person, knowing of the possibility that it is true, is reckless as to whether it is true or not.”

That statute is a crucial  ‘legal litmus test’ when considering the credibility, relevance and significance of the issues raised in these documents:

  1. The Emcott Report, Issues Paper #42 – Chapman-gate: This is a public request to the South Australian Police to investigate an apparent abuse of public by two or more high ranking public officials, Vickie Chapman and Bruce Lander.
  2. Your version Issues Paper 42 is a compilation the following 17 documents:

 

  1. Judge Ian L. Gray’s letter dated 28 October 2014;
  2. Four statutory declarations concerning issues of grave national significance;
  3. A letter from Mark Fraser OAM, Deputy Secretary to the Governor-General, this is dated  4 October 2009;
  4. A cover page and pages 12 -14 of the Hansard minutes for the Australian Senate’s Community Affairs Reference Committee hearing held on the 8th March 2017;
  5. A cover page and page 48 of the Hansard minutes for the Australian Senate’s Community Affairs Reference Committee hearing held on the 18th May 2017;
  6. Centrelink document C10/1866, signed by Assistant Secretary Neill Skill;
  7. Centrelink document LEX 21021, signed by A/g Chief Legal Counsel, Alice Linacre;
  8. An Administrative Appeals Tribunal letter for 2016/5334, dated 7 March 2017;
  9. SAPOL correspondence dated 23 May 2011, signed by Superintendent Grant Moyle;
  10. A Federal Police email, dated 14 September 2009, sent by Federal Agent Jeff Pearce;
  11. A 2-page undated letter from the Legal & Constitutional Reference Committee, posted on the 30th November 2005, notifying me that submission 287 to the November 2005 Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry had been classified as confidential;
  12. A 1-page letter, signed by John Carter, the Secretary of the Employment, Workplace Relation; and Education Reference Committee that dismissed the (classified) deaths of welfare recipients as “unsubstantiated” and “irrelevant”:
  13. A 1-page letter signed by Senator bob Brown and volunteer office worker, Ron Jelleff, acknowledging that welfare policies and practices could cause suicides;
  14. A copy of a 4-page letter sent to Nick Champi0n MP, dated 5th July 2014, detailing a range of issues including the suicides of more than 20,000 people, 1 in 3 of who was an unemployed Centrelink client;
  15. “OOPS!” – a 7-page document that when presented to a Senior Constable on duty at the Hindley Street Police Station shortly before 11.00AM on the 17th October 2017, provoked a violent verbal response with the constable refusing to accept any information concerning the possible murder of welfare recipients, despite being informed that the cumulative death toll may exceed 100,000 over the last 40-years. With a junior constable witness to these events, the senior constable informed me that she would not listen to what I had to say and walked away. 4-days after this extremely traumatic event, SAPOL shot and killed Matthew Morgan, an incident that further raised my grave concerns about SAPOL’s role in failing to protect the people of South Australia from serious or systemic fatal harms.
  16. A video DVD: “The Emcott Report. The Brandis Confession; Insights in Australia’s appropriate compliance measures murders.”
  17. A video DVD: “The Emcott Report. ROBO-TALK 4th edition.

Since the issues presented in this document deal with extremely serious alleged violations of the law, a copy of this communication to you has been placed on the public record by uploading copies of the text and some of the documents to my Ronald’s space website.

Yours truly,

Ronald Medlicott. (Registered teacher and a volunteer lay-Advocate.)

8-3-18 CARC crop

Pages 12 – 14: The testimony of Nadine Flood

The text below is from pages 12 – 14 of the above Australian Senate committee hearing. Note that this testimony was made under the parliamentary privilege of an unconstitutionally elected parliament.

Note #1:  ‘Robo-Debt’ is a criminal abuse of power because, in law, a data mismatch is not of itself reasonable grounds that provide probable cause for requesting that welfare recipients to explain the cause of the mismatch. A competent auditor must first certify that neither Centrelink nor the ATO has not made a mistake, which is a major problem with Centrelink.

Note #2: Once a welfare recipient challenges a Centrelink decision, it is a matter for the courts, at a cost to Centrelink of $25,000+. Skipping the courts is a criminal abuse of power that carries a 5-year jail sentence PER VIOLATION, i.e. Centrelink is racking 100,000 years of jail time PER WEEK.

Note#3: I have emphasized and reformatted the text of Nadine Flood’s testimony for clarity, but the wording and the order of wording have not been changed.

CHAIR: Welcome. Can I double-check that you have been given information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses and evidence.
Ms Newman: We have.
CHAIR: I now invite you to make an opening statement and then we will ask you some questions.

Ms Flood: The Community and Public Sector Union represents the real humans working at the centre of the Centrelink Online Compliance Intervention, more commonly known as the robo-debt debacle.

Our community legitimately expects that government provide a properly resourced, transparent and accessible social security system which supports people in our community as needed through critical times of their lives. Delivery of those services is the role of the aptly named Department of Human Services, with the work done by our members. It is work they value and believe in, supporting families, pensioners, low-income earners, students and people, as they face life’s challenges from illness to unemployment.

Our members believe that system is a cornerstone of a fair society and it is work that they are proud of and deeply committed to. However, what the Online Compliance Intervention and other failings in this department show is that years of government funding cuts and poor policy decisions have severely reduced the department’s capacity to be that cornerstone and to deliver for our community. Of course what we are seeing currently is a very high human price being paid both by clients, the people in our community who rely on Centrelink and Human Services, and by the people themselves who work for the department.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the Department of Human Services is an agency in crisis, and it is not something I say lightly. The automated compliance or robo-debt issue has hit well over 300,000 people in our community, and of course there are approximately 20,000 letters still going out each week. We have an approach from government, and indeed the senior management of the department, which seems more focused on denying there is a problem and spinning the problem then actually dealing with.

More than 36 million calls to the Department of Human Services went unanswered last year as the department is no longer able to provide a basic level of service to Australians. Centrelink and Human Services’ workers are already struggling with massive workload and pressures and the real lived impact of 5,000 permanent job cuts through a series of successive government decisions that have left this department simply unable to cope. Indeed, elements of that were acknowledged by the secretary of the department in estimates last week. What that means is that this department is increasingly placed in the position by government of making very bad decisions.

I think it is important to understand the root causes of these issues which do go back some years. If we deal with the lived impacts on our community now, we can see that the department has been put in a position where it has made decisions with the recent introduction of the automatic debt recovery program to remove or reduce the role of DHS staff in that crucial hands-on element of the work: investigating suspected overpayments and advising on appropriate debt recovery action. The notion that our community expects people should get what they are entitled to and no more is not a new one or a new part of this department’s work. But there is a very serious problem here.

This new approach, which removes and reduces human oversight of suspected overpayments and reduces employees’ roles in a range of elements of the system, has been an absolute disaster for many Centrelink uses and also for the workers charged with implementing a system they know to be deeply flawed and unfair.

Hundreds of thousands of Australians, as you have heard, have received frightening and, in some cases, inaccurate debt notices and then faced enormous difficulties trying to get in touch with DHS staff.

Of course, at the other end, employees are unable to provide services of the sort they are committed to provide and are also increasingly facing client aggression and frustration.

So how did it come to this? Most of the major problems facing DHS begin with a lack of funding and resources and without proper funding the agency loses the capacity to make good policy decisions, design effective programs and ensure the right benefit goes to the right person at the right time and for the right amount.

DHS has faced a triple whammy of funding cuts starting under successive governments.

These do go back to Labor government decisions on efficiency dividends that have then rolled into the decisions of the Abbott/Turnbull government.

Service delivery agencies are hit hardest by a number of elements of budget funding processes. I would note that no government ever stood up and said, ‘We would like to cut 5,000 jobs from the Department of Human Services, and we think that is a good idea.’ It is simply the result of a number of decisions put together.

So-called efficiency dividends hit service delivery agencies harder.

Other whole-of-service savings measures, many emanating out of the Department of Finance, also generally hit service delivery agencies harder because they do not have the scope of policy agencies around program funding.

In DHS’s specific case, the machinery of government changes that resulted in the creation of this mega-agency and the service delivery reform initiatives included the classic Department of Finance mistake where you very clearly identify the savings that will supposedly come out of consolidation and these changes, take those up-front and then see what happens.

In this case those impacts have resulted in DHS being an agency that is absolutely struggling.

I note the secretary herself said cutting an agency by 10 per cent in 18 months has created no little challenge, which was at one point the impact of those combined three different elements of savings measures.

If we want to look at where robo-debt has come from, it is a fairly obvious consequence of a department that no longer has the resources to provide effective services.

The decision to replace the human oversight of debt recovery with automated data matching was absolutely based on a desire and an imperative to save money.

It has of course proven to be a classic false economy and has created costly reverse workflows where staff are taken offline to deal with complex and difficult disputes over incorrectly raised automated debts.

Sadly, I would suggest that in the last few years, one of the things DHS has become an expert at is bandaid solutions as it lurched from one crisis to the next.

This is simply the largest of those.

As a result, the department tries to plug the gap in those services with casual staff who do not have access to the appropriate training, who are deeply frustrated that they cannot do the work and who are largely used to answer the phone and redirect customer inquiries, which allows the department to keep its core statistics lower; someone has clicked on it, they cannot fix the problem, but it is going through to another line and that is good enough.

That sort of gaming of the system is the situation this department has been put in.

Our members believe that our social security service system must be robust, sensitive and flexible enough to deal with underpayments, overpayments and other changes in people’s lives in a way that ensures the integrity of Commonwealth funds and the dignity of customers.

That includes dealing with the reality of an economy and a workforce where people come in and out of work, employers come and go, and there is an increasing level of insecure employment, casual contracts and so on. It is a complex situation that people are in, and systems like this have to deal with that.

At the same time it is important we note there has been a disturbing cultural shift imposed on Centrelink and on the Department of Human Services.

It has increasingly gone from an agency focused on treating people like people to one that focuses on treating people as numbers in a dataset and doing the minimum possible.

It is also an agency that, more than most, ignores or discards the input of staff in relation to crucial work design and staffing issues and has a vicious and draconian approach to staff speaking out internally and externally.

I would note that this is possibly the only Senate inquiry in the last three years where CPSU representatives have appeared without bringing delegates or rank and file workplace representatives. In this case we felt that it was simply too difficult to ask those people to attend because of the circumstances and the pressure that is in place in this department at this time. We will be putting their feedback further in a written submission, but this is an unusual step for the CPSU.

The same ‘my way or the highway’ attitude that created the robo-debt debacle has caused major problems elsewhere, including the agency’s hopelessly stalled enterprise bargaining situation where DHS has again taken a more negative and unfortunate approach on government policy, significantly causing concerns for working women in that department and meaning that bargaining is impressively more mired in this agency than across the rest of the Commonwealth public sector, which is really quite a high bar after a three-year industrial dispute.

Crucially, one of the issues still in dispute in this agency is the need for robust predecision consultation processes where people who do the work in areas such as compliance can actually have a better voice to inform senior management on what will and will not work at the front line. Those sorts of issues are very important to the people who work in this agency.

So, we are calling for a number of things to happen. The Turnbull government must immediately suspend the online compliance program and actually put the real fixes in place so that this no longer hurts thousands of Australians.

There needs to be immediate action and a serious budget solution to reverse the damage done by the combination of multiple cuts to the Department of Human Services, including the reduction of 5,000 permanent jobs.

Any new approach should have properly resourced human oversight so that the agency can be confident that the overpayments it identifies and debts it raises are legitimate and accurate.

DHS must immediately be put in a position by government to convert casual workers—of which there are now thousands—to permanent roles with access to effective training and to be able to provide a genuine, full range of services and support to customers.

Finally, the culture in this agency needs to change, and the approach we have seen over recent months in this matter is a damning indictment, but it is also a responsibility of government. We need to deliver a system in which the people who work for DHS can deliver great services to the community, and the community can have faith in our social security system and this department’s work.

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

How can welfare recipients deal with such a politically corrupt, dysfunctional and randomly lethal system?

Policeman

CALL THE COPS!

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian volunteer lay-advocate.

 

 

Posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 52B: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. I’ve called the cops – the tracking code and Lisa Newman’s incredible Hansard recorded testimony.

Stevens letter

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

Here is the tracking code for my letter to SAPOL’s Commissioner, Grant Stevens.

Tracking code

Note the date and time of posting: 10:57AM on Friday 19/10/18 with the post

After you have you checked out the tracking details, read the incredible testimony of LISA NEWMAN, the Deputy President of the Community & Public Sector Union. (CPSU, the union that represents Centrelink’s front line staff.

8-3-18 CARC crop

At page 14, Ms Newman said:

“The introduction of the automated debt processing system has been done without any consultation of effective staff or their union. We have not been consulted about the design of the system or its potential impact on staff.”

“We have watched the introduction of the system roll out with increasing levels of alarm and distress.”

“In January we started to have contact from members who were reporting that average incomes could lead to incorrect debt calculations and customers could end up paying money that they did not owe before a debt was proven to exist.”

A mismatch in employer information could also lead to double counting of income and therefore generate false debt statistics

“Customers would be unable to get the documentation they required to prove that the debt did not exist, and customers would not be advised of their appeal rights.

“We have also been told by our members, as Nadine said, that the customary oversight has been removed from the system before contact with customers has been initiated and that, instead, that oversight has been limited to queries and requests for reassessments once notices have been issued and received by customers.”

“Members have been particularly disturbed by reports of managers instructing frontline staff not to correct errors that they find and instead to push customers onto self-service mechanisms and/or refer them to a different part of the department—namely, the OCI teams.”

“This week I was contacted by a member with over 20 years experience in the department and extensive knowledge of debt management processes. She described the distress she felt at seeing the integrity of the debt management process that she has worked with for many years being sacrificed to the point where staff know that customers are going to incur needless debt.

“As she described it, the department has an obligation to pay the right person the right payment at the right rate at the right time. She told me that people are complex, with messy lives. The department has moved the burden of proof of a debt to customers, who in many cases struggle to find the required evidence to prove that they do not owe the alleged debt”.

“The system has had a significant impact on staff working with it. People have reported increased stress levels, increased absences from work, lack of sleep and increased customer aggression.”

“And I would just note to the committee that in our previous surveying on client aggression directed towards DHS staff financial stress was one of the primary triggers to incidents of aggression. Staff are also very concerned and very angry about what they see being done to some of the most vulnerable members of the community, and many feel morally conflicted in their role in this process.”

“In January we contacted the department to raise the concerns our members had contacted us to relay and also asked for a meeting with the department. We were given the advice that has generally been given to other organisations, and that is that the system was working as it was designed to work and that there was no need to meet and talk about any issues about the system in detail.”

“DHS staff—our members—want to help customers, and that is why they find it so distressing to see their department putting customers at an increased risk of depression, decreased motivation, self-harm and even suicide.”

“There have been anecdotal reports about increased levels of customer aggression directed at Centrelink workers that includes swearing, threats, physical aggression and spitting. We would make the case that the Turnbull government needs to suspend this system.”

It needs to fix the system so that before it contacts a person over an alleged debt it has skilled and experienced staff assessing that person’s records holistically, because automated systems cannot read customer records and see the details that experienced officers can.”

The department should also undertake an urgent risk assessment of the process to ensure that the risks to both the physical and mental health of both customers and staff are taken into consideration in the design of the system.”

“And there needs to be immediate action to reverse the damage done by cutting 5,000 permanent jobs from DHS.”

“Any new approach has to ensure that properly resourced human oversight in this agency occurs so that the government and the community can be confident that overpayments are identified and are correct.”

LISA NEWMAN’S TESTIMONY WAS COMPLETELY & UTTERLY UNREAL!

ACCORDING TO SENATOR GEORGE BRANDIS, THIS FRAUDULENT RIP-OFF WAS ALLEGEDLY INTRODUCED BY BOB HAWKE’ IN 1990, I.E. ALMOST 30 YEARS AGO, THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES HAS BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY DEFRAUDING AND RANDOMLY KILLING WELFARE RECIPIENTS  FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME AND NO-ONE STOPPED THEM!

 

COULD ANYTHING TOP THAT?

Try this: the testimony of Centrelink’s real boss (at the time), Kathryn Campbell.

Kathryn Campbell

Until September 2017, Centrelink’s real boss was Kathryn Campbell, not Hank Jongen the Chief Spin Doctor for Centrelink.

 

May 2017 crop

At page 48, Ms. Campbell’s totally unbelievable  statement is recorded:

“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.”

 

The Department of Human Services does not keep a record of the people that are being killed!  This is no surprise because  Centrelink randomly killing its clients with heart attacks, strokes, and suicides is a major crime under work safety laws!

 

The South Australian Work Health & Safety Act 2012

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.

Maximum 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.

Each Centrelink death –

$600,000 or 5 years imprisonment or both for the person responsible, AND;

By a body corporate (as in Centrelink)

$3,000,000 PER FATALITY.

 

properly resourced human oversight

My solution to that issue?

Policeman

Call the cops!

The South Australian Police can either prosecute me for alleged criminal defamation or else investigate Centrelink’s unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll.

Ronald Medlicott – A volunteer Christian lay-advocate

 

 

Posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment