The following information is intended for Mr. Mark P. Dillon, the head of the Information and Evidence gathering unit of the International Criminal Court, in relation to case file OTP-CR-188/19
As has been stated in some of my previous email contacts to you, Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution places an obligation upon the Australian Federal Parliament to make “PROVISION” for the payment of welfare allowances to a range of socio-econoimically disadvantaged people. However,as the following information reveals, in violation of human rights obligations and the Constitution,this obligation is deliberately being ignored on a massive scale.
SECTION 51(XXIIIA) – CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS:
[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 benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances.
Note the key obligations are:
The provision of welfare allowances;
that cannot be linked to “civil conscription”, which is better known as “Work for the Dole.
How then can the following, unconstitutional, genocidal matters of fact be explained?
FACT #1: Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s “Tough stand on dole”, i.e. the payment of welfare allowances, is both unconstitutional and, since it deprives people of the means to survive, is a crime against humanity.
FACT #2 If the informnation in this News Corp’ report, dated July 31, 2019 is accurate, the Morrison Government is committing GENOCIDE on a massive scale, i.e. 2,696,196 times the Morrison Government deliberately violated the constitution by depriving vulnerabvle people of their right to a welfare benefit.
Check out the following examples, which provide more details of this ruthless genocidal activity :
The data showed that of the 744,884 participants on the flagship welfare-to-work scheme last financial year, 581,866 had their payments suspended for failing to meet their mutual obligations.
The Daily Telegraph story was later cited by the employment minister, Michaelia Cash, as evidence the government’s new compliance regime was working.
Only 460,262 people were handed a “demerit point” by their job agency under the new system, meaning 121,604 people who had their income support suspended were found to have had a reasonable excuse.
After changes introduced in July last year, welfare recipients have their payment automatically suspended when their job agency records them as not meeting a “mutual obligation”. The providers do not have discretion and must issue a suspension.
Extracts: More than 80% of the welfare recipients who had their income support suspended under the controversial ParentsNext program were not at fault, new figures show.
After the Coalition expanded the national pre-employment scheme last year, about 75,000 people who get parenting payments – mostly single mothers – were for the first time required to attend meetings and undertake education, training, or parenting programs such as playgroup to keep their payments.
“When you put on top of that the fact that a whole lot of [the suspensions] are because the provider has stuffed up, people … basically have nothing to fall back on. People talk about having to go to Food Bank and not knowing whether they’re going to be able to feed their kids.”
“In one case lasy year, a woman had her payments suspended because she was admitted to hospital while 33 weeks pregnant and could not report to Centrelink.”
A for-profit ParentsNext provider told staff to avoid granting medical exemptions to sick welfare recipients to keep them on the company’s books, a former employee has alleged. The $350m scheme, which has faced significant criticism in recent months, places compulsory activity requirements on people receiving parenting payment who are classified as “disadvantaged” by Centrelink.
Providers are paid $600 per participant to get them ready to return to work, but the service fee does not apply when an exemption is granted.
PeoplePlus, which has 24 ParentsNext offices across New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria, is accused of telling staff to avoid granting these exemptions when participants present evidence from a doctor saying they are too sick to take part.
A former case worker told Guardian Australia staff at PeoplePlus were told “not to accept a medical certificate” from participants.
“What we were told to do if somebody had a medical condition, or a lot going on, a complex situation, we were told to not exempt them but go easy on them.”
Staff were also told not to inform parents with more than three children they did not have to take part in the program, according to the former employee, who asked not to be named due to a non-disclosure clause in their contract.
The chief executive of PeoplePlus, Con Kittos, denied the allegations. “If there is any evidence … we’ll jump on that,” he said.
MY COMMENT; The problem with the content of all of above news articles is that, as stated above, the Australian Federal Government does not have the constitutional right under Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution to deprive people of a welfare allowance.
In addition, depriving people of the means to survive is a dangerous violation of human rights, i.e. a crime against humanity under UNHCR conventions:
Note the last line of Article 1: “In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.”
In Australia, meeting the sole means of subsistence for unemployed people is the welfare allowances that the Federal Government is constitutionally required to provide.
Again, note the last line of Article 1, which is the same right as under the International Convention for Civil and Political Rights, i.e. “In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.”
Scott Morrison’s clearly expressed views on the civil and political rights of vulnerable Australian’s was made quite clear 5 years ago with the following statement:
“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
The Morrison Government is deliberately depriving people of the means to survive, which is a Crime against Humanity under provisions contained in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
As the prosecutors of the International Criminal Court are fully aware, the Morrison Government’s brutally repressive actions violate several provisions contained in Article 7(1) of the Rome Statute, e.g. 7(1)(h) “Persecution” and 7(1)(k) “Other inhumane acts… causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”
Every fatality caused by these violations of human rights is a murder under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute.
Welfare recipients and International criminal Court prosecutors, along with Australia’s legal profession and law enforcement agencies, need to pay close attention to the following statements on page 14 of the Hansard Minutes for a Community Affairs senate committee hearing held on 8th March 2017. The person testifying at the hearing is Ms. Lisa Newman, the Deputy President of the Community & Public Sector Union:
“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.”
“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.”
The Morrison Government is violating Australian Crown Law, Federal, State and Territory, whilst also violating international laws, e.g. fraud driven suicide is murder under section 13(7) of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act:
13A—Criminal liability in relation to suicide
(1) It is not an offence to commit or attempt to commit suicide.
(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.
The Robo-Debt fraud triggered death of Jarrad Madgwick occurred in Queendsland on 30th May 2019, i.e. exactly one-month after you notified me that the ICC had issued a case file number for my complaint:
Please note Jarrad’s death is almost certainly a murder under Section 302 of the Queensland Criminal Code.
Jarrad’s death is part of a horrific series of Robo-Debt driven murders that the Morrison Government denies being responsible for:
Section 137 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code act deals with the issue of Dishonest dealings with documents.
Division 137—False or misleading information or documents
137.1 False or misleading information
137.2 False or misleading documents
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a) the person produces a document to another person; and
(b) the person does so knowing that the document is false or misleading; and
(c) the document is produced in compliance or purported compliance with a law of the Commonwealth.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months.
[Reader note: I provide URL links so that my statements can be confiirmed – If they were untrue, I could be prosecuted under this and similar laws in South Australia.]
A question of law is just how many welfare policy triggered deaths have not been mentioned in the Department of Human Services Annual Reports over the last 30 years?
Tell that to Kath Madgwick, the mother of Jarrad Madgwick.
The fact is that Robo-Debt claims are unsubstantiated, unaudited claims that, once challenged, must be referred to the Courts for a decision. Without a court finding of the facts, Robo-Debt is a fraudulent demand made without legal right of claim.
ASIC v Hellicar & Others at paragraphs 141 to 143 states the following:
141 … And insofar as the duty was said to stem from a proposition “that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth, in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred”, that premise is false for at least two reasons.
142 First, the proposition ignores that even a criminal trial “is not, and does not purport to be, an examination and assessment of all the information and evidence that exists, bearing upon the question of guilt or innocence”. Each side in a criminal trial “is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue, the evidence which it or he will call, and what questions whether in chief or in cross-examination shall be asked; always, of course, subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility”.
Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent requirements.
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.
The moment a person challenges a Centrelink decision, it becomes a matter for the courts, i.e. neither Centrelink nor contracted agencies have any jurisdiction to make a legal decision concerning welfare payments.
Skipping the courts is fraud, a fact driven home by the High Court’s 2002 Bhardwaj decision at paragraphs 51 and 53:
51. There is, in our view, no reason in principle why the general law should treat administrative decisions involving jurisdictional error as binding or having legal effect unless and until set aside. A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all. Further, there is a certain illogicality in the notion that, although a decision involves jurisdictional error, the law requires that, until the decision is set aside, the rights of the individual to whom the decision relates are or, perhaps, are deemed to be other than as recognised by the law that will be applied if and when the decision is challenged. A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.
53. In our view, logic and legal principle both direct the conclusion that the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada is correct. As already pointed out, a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all.
Once that is accepted, it follows that, if the duty of the decision-maker is to make a decision with respect to a person’s rights but, because of jurisdictional error, he or she proceeds to make what is, in law, no decision at all, then, in law, the duty to make a decision remains unperformed. Thus, not only is there no legal impediment under the general law to a decision-maker making such a decision but, as a matter of strict legal principle, he or she is required to do so. And that is so, regardless of s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act.
What the High Court made clear in tthe Bhardwaj decision is that if an agency, e.g. Centrelink, has no juridiction to make a decision, in law, it is to regarded as “no decision at all.”
A crucial point of law is to be found in this statement regarding violations of the Constitution: “A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.”
Politicians and Centrelink officials cannot claim not to have known about the rising death toll caused by the unconstitutional welfare policies and practices.
Centrelink document LEX 21021
The Acting Chief Legal Counsel for the Department of Human Services, Alice Linacre, took it upon herself to ignore binding High Court decisions – why she did so is a matter for the courts.
As I have pointed out in this communication, welfare payments are both a constitutional right and a fundamental human right that cannot be extinguished arbitrarily by the Morrison Government enacting and enforcing randomly lethal, unconstitutional, human rights violating laws.
HOW IS SCOTT MORRISON ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH THESE CRIMES?
As has been mentioned in my email of May 7th 2019, when Dectective Brevet Sergeant Richard Miles and another officer who would not identify himself visited my home just after 11.00a.m. on that day, they misused their lawful authority in an attempt to persuade me that “no court” would pay heed to my complaints about the defrauding and muirder of welfare recipients. They treated these crimes as funny joke, with the unidentified officer describing himself as “He who will be gone in 3 weeks”.
It is my contention that if Detective Miles and the othe police officers identified in the original on-line complaint of 31st March 2019*, then Jarrad Madgwick would not have been murdered, i.e. Murder by suicide, and all of the other crimes that I have identified in this communication would almost certainly not have occurred.
“RHYS Cauzzo, 28, took his own life after a barrage of letters from debt collectors. His family says it should never have happened.”
Implicite in the above statement is the inference that if the prosecutors at the International Criminal Court had taken a far more proactive stance in initiating an investigation of OTP-CR-188/19, then literally hundreds of thousands of people would not have been traumatized and defrauded by the Morrison Government.
Please, expidite OTP_CR188/19 so that those responsible for the persuction, terroizing, exploitation, endangerment and random murder of welfare recipients can be held accountable before the courts.
Ronald Medlicott – Plaintiff for OTP-CR-188/19
Posted in burden of proof, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, international criminal court, murder, Uncategorized
Tagged article 51(xxiiiA), bhardwaj decision, con kittos, constitutional right, constitutional rights, criminal code act 1995, dishonersty with documents, ewre, false documents, false or misleading information, hellicar decision, human right, ICC, iccpr, icescr, in no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence, jarrad madgwick, kath madgwick, legcon committee, mark dillon, michael keenan, michaela cash, misleading documents., morrison government, opt-cr-188/19, parentsnext, pedestrian tv, people plus, robo-debt, Rome statute, scott morrison, stuart robert, triple jjj hack, united nations, work choices
The purpose of this posting is to empower people to defeat the Australian Federal Government’s lethal Robo-Debt Fraud.
From the perspective of Scott Morrison and his government, Robo-Debt is “fair, reasonable and just” because so many of the victims of this randomly murderous fraud do not know their rights or the legal facts needed to debunk spurious Robo-Debt claims. Consequently, if you want to fight Robo-Debt and win, you need take the time to learn how to fight back.
STEP 1: KNOW THESE COURT DECISIONS.
[A] ASIC versus Hellicar at paragraphs 141 to 143
This decision is an absolute “no-brainer”: the moment you dispute a Robo-Debt claim, a court must decide the facts of the matter. Until that happens, any decision by Centrelink is not legally valid and any claims by Centrelink officials that their decision is legal is a fraudulent act of misrepresentation under federal, state, and territory Crown Law:
The URL for Hellicar is:
The “guts” of what you need to know are at 141 – 143:
141. 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.
NOTE THE LAST SENTENCE: “Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a matter for the regulatory authority.”
[B] BHARDWAJ at paragraphs 51 to 53
This 2002 High Court decision is yet another “no-brainer”: If there is no legal decision to make a decision, in law, no legally valid decision can be made.
Read paragraphs 51 to 53 and take note of the text that I have underlined below:
There is, in our view, no reason in principle why the general law should treat administrative decisions involving jurisdictional error as binding or having legal effect unless and until set aside. A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all. Further, there is a certain illogicality in the notion that, although a decision involves jurisdictional error, the law requires that, until the decision is set aside, the rights of the individual to whom the decision relates are or, perhaps, are deemed to be other than as recognised by the law that will be applied if and when the decision is challenged. A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.
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.”
In the same case, his Lordship cited with approval a statement by McLachlin J that:
“as a matter of logic and on the authorities … a tribunal which makes a decision in the purported exercise of its power which is a nullity, may thereafter enter upon a proper hearing and render a valid decision”.
“In our view, logic and legal principle both direct the conclusion that the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada is correct. As already pointed out, a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all.”
Once that is accepted, it follows that, if the duty of the decision-maker is to make a decision with respect to a person’s rights but, because of jurisdictional error, he or she proceeds to make what is, in law, no decision at all, then, in law, the duty to make a decision remains unperformed.
Thus, not only is there no legal impediment under the general law to a decision-maker making such a decision but, as a matter of strict legal principle, he or she is required to do so. And that is so, regardless of s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act.
The Key to understanding Bhardwaj’s impact on the fraudulent Robo Debt scam is very simple:
“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 you say that Centrelink has made a mistake, Centrelink has no legal ‘jurisdiction’ to make a decision until a court decides the facts of the matter and therefore any subsequent decision that ‘skips-the-court’ is a fraudulent con job that is, in law, “no decision at all.”
SOME MORE ‘FINE PRINT’ LEGAL STUFF: REVEALING WHY ROBO-DEBT IS A FRAUD:
Under Article 17 of the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction if national justice systems deliver fair and just decisions re fatal policies and practices such as the deaths of 2,030 welfare recipients between 11syt July 2016 and 31st October 2018.
To understand why prosecutors at the International Criminal Court may regard Robo debt is systemic fraud, check out paragraphs 141- 143 of ASIC v. Hellicar (HCA17 on 3rd May 2012) , paragraphs 51 – 53 of immigration Minister v. Bhardwaj (HCA 11 on 14 March 2002), Justice Gaudron’s findings at 6 – 9 in Williams v. Spautz (HCA 34 on 22nd July 1992) and the UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE points of law in the following more recent South Australian Supreme Court cases:
Police v. Butcher, (SASC 130 on 17 August 2016)
Police v. Hanton (SASC96 on 19th July 2018)
Police v. Miller (SASC97 on 19th July 2018)
Police v. Henderson(SASC98 on 19th July 2018)
EVIL DAYS: At 32 in Hanton, Justice Peek indirectly described Robo Debt (an averment based claim system) with these comments:
“The common law courts have made very clear that averment and certificate provisions are to be strictly construed and strictly complied with.”
“The time-honoured common law rule has, however, of late fallen on evil days, and grievous inroads have been made on its integrity by many Commonwealth Acts which enact that in the proof of offences against the Act the averment of the prosecutor shall be deemed to be proved in the absence of proof to the contrary.”
At 33, Justice Peek furtherstated:
In similar vein, Mr Kevin Anderson (later Anderson J of the Victorian Supreme Court) observed in a later number of that same journal:
A development of what Higgins, J, in Baxter v Ah Way (1909) (10 CLR 212 at p 216) describes as “apparently subversive of the first principles of justice” has made its appearance in a substantial and increasing number of enactments, particularly those of the Commonwealth Parliament. This disturber of first principles is the “averment section”. Though, as Higgins, J, points out, experience has found such an expedient to be necessary in consequence of the peculiar difficulty of proving offences against the Customs (and, he could have added, other) Acts, the courts, especially the High Court of Australia, have looked with scant favour upon the handiwork of the draftsman who has sought to extinguish “the beacon light of British Criminal Law”, the rule that every element of a criminal charge must be strictly proved.
In Hellicar at 142, the High Court ruled that the principles of law regarding evidence and that applied to criminal cases also applied to civil cases involving “pecuniary” matters.
The High Court has been concerned since 1909, i.e. for 110 years, that ‘averment based claims by Commonwealth agencies may undermine the Rule of Law, i.e.
Higgins, J, in Baxter v Ah Way (1909) (10 CLR 212 at p 216) describes as “apparently subversive of the first principles of justice” has made its appearance in a substantial and increasing number of enactments, particularly those of the Commonwealth Parliament.
For 110 years,the Courts have held the viewpoint that unproven government claims are “subversive to the first principles of justice” and a clue is spotting when the averment certification process is skipped by the government agency pushing the claim, e.g. the skip-the certification’ Robo Debt claims by Centrelink, which also ‘skip-the-courts’ when challenged.
SO, EXACTLY HOW SHOULD ROBO DEBT’S CLAIMS CERIFICATION PROCESS REALLY WORK?
ROBO DEBT CLAIMS ARE CERTIFICATION BASED CLAIMS THAT MUST MEET “STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH” LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.
Centrelink’s computer system should be certified as 100% accurate EVERY DAY.
100% data entry accurate EVERY DAY.
PLUS 100% data processing accuracy EVERY DAY,
PLUS 100% data output accuracy, EVERY DAY.
Since data is cross-matched to the ATO computer, PRECISELY the same certification process is required by with the ATO computer system.
NO CERTIFICATION BY CENTRELINK AND THE ATO?
Then ‘PLAN B’ should be implemented.
An appropriately qualified, currently certified auditor conducts an audit in accordance with Australian Standards financial auditing standards;
The auditor then produces a report which the (Centrelink) decision-maker uses as the basis for a “please explain” request for information.
A copy of the auditor’s report should be provided along with the “please explain” letter.
WHAT! NO CERTIFIED AUDIT?
Then, as per the High Court’s Bhardwaj decision, in law, there are no legally valid grounds that provide “probable cause” for Centrelink to issue a “please explain” letter to a welfare recipient.
WHEN ROBO DEBT IS DISPUTED:
REMEMBER HELLICAR at 141 – 143?: If a welfare recipient challenges the validity of an alleged overpayment claim, legal jurisdiction automatic ally defaults to the court for a determination of the facts upon which a fair and just decision can be made, i.e. Centrelink no longer has any right to make a judgement in the matter until a court makes a decision.
REMEMBER BHARDWAJ at 51 – 53?: Any disputed Centrelink decision made that is not based on a court decision is, “in law” no decision at all” and a legally valid decision has yet to be made.
Administrative Review Officer [ARO] decisions MUST be based upon a court’s decision and if there is no court decision, the ARO must dismiss Centrelink’s claim on that basis. Not doing so is a criminal abuse of power by the ARO under Section 142(2) of the Commonwealth criminal code. (You and I call this FRAUD!)
HOWEVER, if the ARO does ignore the fact of law that no court decision has been made and upholds a legally invalid Centrelink decision, then the only decision that the AAT can hand down is one that upholds Hellicar and Bhardwaj, i.e. no court decision has been made and therefore, in law, no legally valid decision has been made.
If the AAT also ignores Hellicar and Bhardwaj, then the Federal Court must uphold Hellicar and Bhardwaj. Again, not doing so is a criminal abuse of power by the ARO under Section 142(2) of the Commonwealth criminal code. (Again, you and I can call this FRAUD!)
TAKE NOTE: Consistent with Justice Brennan’s decision at paragraph 38 of his findings in Kioa, you can ask the court to direct that Centrelink provide details of how many times they have ‘ignored the High Court’ binding Hellicar decision, i.e. how many times have they ‘skipped-the-court’. You can also ask the court to direct centrelink reveal the number of people, like Jarrad Madgwick, eho have died as a direct consequence of Centrelink violating Section 142(2) of the Commonwaelth criminal code?
The bad news for both Centrelink officials and federal politicians, is that once information about the number of fatalities is requested, the information must be provided, as per Justice Brennan’s ruling at paragaph 38 in Kioa versus West:
“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.”
NOTE: Based on my personal experience, and comments by Professor Terry Carney, Centrelink officials, and politicians will hide their criminal activity behind the Privacy Act; however, that legislation was never intended to conceal fraud and murder, especially mass fraud and serial murder on a holocaust scale.
Murder by Suicide: The law in Section 302 of the Queensland Criminal Code.
302 Definition of murder
(1) Except as hereinafter set forth, a person who unlawfully kills another under any of the following circumstances, that is to sayâ€”
(a) if the offender intends to cause the death of the person killed or that of some other person or if the offender intends to do to the person killed or to some other person some grievous bodily harm;
(b) if death is caused by means of an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose, which act is of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life;
(c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;
(d) if death is caused by administering any stupefying or overpowering thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (c);
(e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes;
is guilty of murder.
(2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed.
(3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.
(4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result.
Any claim that Centrelink officials or politicians that they did not know the lethal harm being caused by Robo Debt gets blown away by the fact that Centrelink advised potentially suicidal victims of the Robo Debt scam to “Call Lifeline”. With a whistleblower revealing that 2,030 deaths occured in just 28 months, i.e. an average of a death very 10 hours, the word that best describes this massive death toll is “Genocide”.
Robodebt class action could deliver justice for tens of thousands instead of mere hundreds. The Conversation Terry Carney Updated on 18-09-2019 at 12:06pm
Between July 2016 and March 2019 the government issued 500,281 robodebt notices, asserting debts of $1.25 billion, with the average being $2,184, but not uncommonly as much as $10,000. Much less has as yet been collected, but tax return garnishees, debt collection agencies and staff “quotas” are driving it up.
01-07-2019 by Sonia Hickey
In 1946, Australia was at the bleeding edge in leading the fight against genocide and crimes against humanity.
in 1946, Australia sponsored the first UN human rights convention.
In 2019, Australia is at the bleeding edge in committing genocide and crimes against humanity.
Ronald Medlicott: Semi –retired 71y.o. teacher and volunteer lay-advocate.
Posted in abuse of power, burden of proof, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, international criminal court, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime
Tagged 2030 dead, asic v hellicar, averment and certification conditions strictly complied with, averment and certification provisions, averment certification, baxter v ah way 1909, baxter v ah way disturber of first principles, bhardwaj, bill shorten, call lifeline, claim of right, hellica, jarrad madgwick, kath madgwick, kioa v west, murder by suicide, no certification no claim, police v butcher, police v butcher scsc130, police v hanton, police v hanton sasc 96, police v henderson, police v henderson sasc 98, police v miller, police v miller sasc 97, professor terry carney, right of claim, robo debt, robo debt call lifeline, robo-debt, ronalds space, ronalds space robo debt, scomo, scott morrison, section 302 murder, sysdney criminal lawyers, terry carney, the beacon light of british crown law, the disturber of first principles is the averment section, the public interest, the time honoured rule of law fallen on evil days, triple j hack, triple j hack robo debt, unfair to deny information
Far too late for the dead, like the distant trumpet sound of a cavalry charge, both the 7:30 Report and Victorian Legal Aid are now making the right noises when it comes to the randomly lethal Robo Debt Fraud.
Survivors of this viciously brutal fraud should check this out:
(1) Watch the video and, if you are a victim of the fraudulent Robo Debt scam, use the Contact link on the webpage and contact the ABC and ask to speak to a 7:30 reporter.
(2) Alternately, contact Victorian Legal Aid and tell your story to one of their lawyers or para-legal assistants. If you can’t afford an STD call from another state, either write a letter or send an email.
(3) Victims of the Robo Debt fraud are not just entitled to have their money back; they are also entitled to Victims of crime Compensation.
(4) If a close family member died as a result of Robo Debt, whether from suicide, heart attack, stroke, or another linked cause, then $28 million in compensation is not an unreasonable amount. That was what the family of a Sydney woman, Justine Damond, accepted as compensation for her murder by a Minneapolis police officer.
The compensation paid to Justine Damond’s family represents just the baseline amount as her death was not classified as either “confidential” or “irrelevant” by the US Senate, and her convicted killer, Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor, was not allowed to continue to randomly kill other innocent people who had done no wrong.
Check out the following responses to my November 2005 submissions to 2 Senate committees concerning the mounting death toll caused by Austral;ia’s recklessly dangerous, randomly lethal welfare policies and practices.
In 2005 and 2006, the Australian Senate considered the political policy driven deaths of welfare recipients to be:
At $28 Million per death, the Senate may now be less inclined to dismiss these deaths as “irrelevant”.
However, that is $28 Million per death worth of reasons to maintain the slowly crumbling wall of official secrecy that surrounds these murders.
Ronald Medlicott – Christian volunteer lay-advocate
Posted in abuse of power, burden of proof, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, genocide, Human Rights violations, international criminal court, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime
Tagged $28 million compensation, 7:30 report, 7_30 report, ewre committee, justine damond, legcon, legcon committee, michael keenan, robo-debt, suicide rate, victorian legal aid, vla, wall of secrecy, wall of silence