Part 41(B) Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. An even bigger “Elephant in the room” was Senator George Brandis and Tanya Slibersek arguing for credit over who is best at defrauding and murdering welfare recipients.

Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. An even bigger “Elephant in the room” on the ABC’s Monday night edition of Q and A, with Senator George Brandis and Tanya Slibersek apparently arguing for credit over who is best at defrauding and murdering welfare recipients .

In ‘a tawdry, disgusting, race to the bottom of the barrel‘, the deaths of welfare recipients who died as a consequence of the current efforts by the Turnbull Government were casually dismissed as “Some unfortunate consequences.” However, in an up-coming AAT appeal, I shall argue that these deaths were, in law, homicides, i.e. murders.

[Note: the short link for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-NF   ]

If so many people were not traumatized or dead, it would be funny; but there is nothing funny about these politicians mistaking the power to violate legal rights with the right to violate legal rights. Click on the link below and watch the video 2 or 3 times until you get the sense of “righteousness” that George and Tanya display; then you remember Hellicar and Bhardwaj and the fact that Centrelink has to prove its claim to a court; not welfare recipients being automatically assumed to be at fault as George Brandis and Tanya Slibersek have been doing it since 2011.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-21/q&a-george-brandis-says-centrelink-call-solves-welfare-disputes/8287482

How the debt recovery system works:

  • The system sends you a letter advising you of a potential welfare debt and asks you to review its figures online. It also sends an SMS
  • When you log on you can update the information. You have 21 days from the date of the letter to go online and update
  • If you don’t log on, Centrelink will make a default judgement its information is accurate. You will then be issued with a debt notice
  • If you do update the information, Centrelink may ask you to provide supporting documentation. This can include bank statements, letters from an employer, or payslips
  • If you think the decision is wrong you can ask for a review
  • If you or someone you know needs help, call Lifeline on 13 11 14

Here is Hellicar at paragraphs 141 and 143

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17

[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…”

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

What George Brandis and Tanya Slibersek have been doing since 2011 is, in law, a  NO DECISION AT ALL process by Centrelink  and the Bhardwaj decision backs that up.

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11

[53] “…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.”

CONFESSION IS GOOD FOR THE SOUL

Unintentionally, George Brandis and Tanya Slibersek confessed on national television to defrauding welfare recipients for 6 years.

In fact, Senator Brandis went one step further with his reference to “Some unfortunate consequences.” That was a ‘foot-in-mouth’ stuff-up because deaths caused by the deliberate violation of legal rights are NOT “unfortunate consequences”, they are murders.

In 2005, a South Australian teenager, Josiah Finch, was charged and convicted of the crime of FELONY MURDER. Page 3 of the FY 2005-06 annual report of the South Australian Director of Public Prosecutions contains the following statement:

“R v Finch – Josiah Finch was charged with the murder of Karim Morrison. Mr Morrison was shot once to the head in the carpark of the McDonalds restaurant on Anzac Highway at Morphettville before his body was dumped nearby in one of the entrances to the nearby racecourse.  The prosecution case was that Mr Morrison was shot in the course of a drug rip-off gone wrong.  Whilst it was not alleged that Mr Finch was the shooter, it was alleged that he was present when Mr Morrison was shot and was instrumental in the arrangements that led to Mr Morrison being in the carpark at the relevant time.  The shooter remains unknown to the prosecution.”

“Mr Finch was found guilty by a jury. He was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years. The basis upon which he was sentenced was felony murder.  That is, the learned sentencing judge, who presided at the trial, was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the murder was not intended or foreseen by Mr Finch, but that it occurred in the course of the commission of a major indictable offence to which he was party.”

The High Court and Violation of Rights

At paragraphs 8 and 9 in COCO v THE QUEEN (1994) 179 CLR 427, (13th April 1994), the High Court ruled:

 

[8] “Statutory authority to engage in what otherwise would be tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and unambiguous language. Such an implication may be made, in some circumstances, if it is necessary to prevent the statutory provisions from becoming inoperative or meaningless.

[9]  In England, Lord Browne-Wilkinson has expressed the view that the presence of general words in a statute is insufficient to authorize interference with the basic immunities which are the foundation of our freedom; to constitute such authorization express words are required ((5) Wheeler v. Leicester City Council (1985) AC 1054 at 1065

Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81; (1985) 159 CLR 550 (18 December 1985)

In this High Court case Chief Justice Gibbs made this key statement:

Paragraph 29: However, later decisions demonstrate that the concept of “legitimate expectation” extends to expectations which go beyond enforceable legal rights provided that they are reasonably based

Chief Justice Gibbs was talking about reasonable expectations for procedural fairness rights and lightly rushes over a key concept in Centrelink’s claims, i.e. enforceable legal rights.

These are rights that no politician can extinguish, just because it is convenient to do so:

My car’s entertainment system, my mobile phone, digital television, video-recorder, microwave oven and my remote control model helicopter all share two things in common with Department of Human Services’ ISIS computer system:

  1. They are all electronic appliances;

  2. Although digitally ‘smart’, they are NOT sentinent legal entities.

I make the last point, i.e. they are not sentinent legal entities, because that is an important point of law that seems to have been overlooked in the current tsunami of tort actions against welfare recipients. My mobile phone, my television and my microwave oven cannot initiate a tort action against a legal entity. That can only be done by another legal entity.

  1. A person is a legal entity that can initial legal action, and;

  2. A corporate organization or a government agency is also a legal entity that can also initiate a tort action.

  3. This brings back to the point previously raised, who is reviewing the facts of the matter before engaging in tortuous conduct?

  4. This also leads to the critical issue as to WHO DECIDES the primary facts of the matter in a tort dispute initiated by a government agency?

  5. The answer to the “WHO DECIDES” question is found in paragraph 143 of the Hellicar decision.

As I stated previously, paragraph #143 of the Hellicar decision is the Centrelink fraud exposing statement: Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.”  A person who is the respondent to a legally valid Centrelink tort needs to issue a “challenge” to Centrelink’s decision, which can be done simply by saying, “No, this not my fault”.

Once a Centrelink claim is challenged, it is a matter for a court to decide the facts.

“21 Days” – Another con job.

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Poniatowska HCA 43, October 2011

A High Court decision handed down in Poniatowska on 26 October 2011, directly refers to Section 63 of the Social Security (Administration) Act:

 The Secretary of the Department may by written notice require a person who is a recipient of a social security payment to do certain things within a specified time. The Secretary may require the person to contact the Department and to give information to him or her. Failure to comply with the reasonable requirements of such a notice has the consequence that the social security payment is no longer payable. The Secretary may give a social security payment recipient a notice requiring that the person inform the Department if a specified event or change of circumstances occurs (or if the person becomes aware that such an event or change of circumstances is likely to occur). The person may be required by the notice to give the Department a statement about a matter that might affect the payment of the social security payment. The Administration Act makes detailed provision with respect to the giving and content of statutory notices, including the period within which the recipient is to respond to the notice. 

Notice the word “MAY” appears 4 times in that statement? This word takes us right back to Coco at [9], i.e. Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s view that the presence of general words in a statute is insufficient to authorize interference with the basic immunities which are the foundation of our freedom; to constitute such authorization express words are required.

“MAY” means that this is a qualified power, i.e. there must be “Reasonable Grounds” in law for “Probable Cause” to justify requiring a welfare recipient to re-submit information already provided. Without these “reasonable grounds” as adduced by a qualified person, any request for information is “Unlawful Search” and any threat issued violates the federal “MENACE” law.

There are a number of reasons why any discrepancy in Centrelink’s data-matching activity may be a Commonwealth error, or have found a Commonwealth error. To arbitrarily impose a penalty for an unknown  cause of the error is a criminal abuse of power that violates sections 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. As the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis probably knows this as should Tanya Slibersek who has a law degree.

In fact, it is the responsibility of the  Solicitor-General’s Office to brief Senator Brandis on High Court decisions and therefore should know all about Hellicar!

Why is he ignoring this High Court decision?

  1. The Centrelink computer is not a legal entity and cannot initiate a tort action.

  2. The Waiver of Debt due to Commonwealth error is STATUTE LAW, and the Hellicar decision made it qite clear that the COURTS, not Centrelink, decides the p”primary facts of the matter” needed to determine who was responsible for any errors.

  3. This is AN INALIENABLE LEGAL RIGHT, and Tanya Slibersek was ripping people off in 2011 when she “Skipped the courts” and let a known to be dysfunctional computer, which is not a legal entity, make legal decisions that needed to be made by a person who was AUTHORIZED, QUALIFIED, CERTIFIED/ACCREDITED to make that legal assessment.

  4. IN LAW, this system produces UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE that a court could not rely upon to make a finding of fact that a welfare recipient was responsible.

  5. GIGO: Garbage In – Garbage Out: The legal onus is upon Centrelink to exercise Due Diligence and check its own seriously flawed computer system for possible “data integrity flaws.”

  6. Centrelink inputs 50 MILLION ketstrokes a day using mainly UNCERTIFIED DATA ENTRY OPERATORS who do not hold a current AS 2708 Keyboard Skills Competency Certificate.

  7. “CODE TO ZERO FAILURES, i.e typing errors are extremely common.

  8. GAGO: GARBAGE ALGORITHMS – GARBAGE OUTPUT. Centrelink’s almost 35-year-old computer system has 30 MILLION lines of operating system cod, some of which is undocumented, and which causes unexpected OUTPUT ERRORS.

  9.  26th February 2015, when asked about the performance of Centrelink’s aging computer system, the Secretary of the Department of human Services, Kathryn Campbell, responded with the following statement:

  10. It is the ‘integrated social infrastructure system*‘, and it is some 30 years old. It does the job. It makes sure the payments are made, but it is very old. It is very difficult to make changes in that. It is not flexible at all and that is why we have been building a business case about its replacement. [*The ISIS computer.]

  11.  It can talk across the system, but, because of those complex pathways, for want of a better term—that is what makes it quite tricky to build new applications within it new programs or changes to older programs.

  12. Senator Payne stated in a February 2015 press conference, “It is now a labyrinth of inter­connected systems and code that makes it very difficult to implement even relatively straightforward changes in a timely manner, including changes to our standard letters.”

  13. Following a senate committee hearing on February 26th 2015, on March 9th 2015, the Perthnow website ran a story featuring statements made by Scott Morrison, the Social Services Minister.

  14. The antiquated system is costing us tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs because the data has to be re-entered manually time and time again.”  “We need to have a proper computer system which is capable of ensuring that people get paid in a timely way… and that all of the administration is as efficient as it possibly can be.”

  15. What Secretary Kathryn Campbell is describing is a system that cannot be accepted as “RELIABLE” by a court and therefore it is vital to avoid the courts when demanding repayment of ALLEGED over-payments.

COP THIS ONE!  MY SECRET AAT FINDING – IT KILLS OFF ANY CLAIM THAT CENTRELINK IS NOT AT FAULT iIN OVER-PAYMENT ERROR CLAIMS:

contention that (s)he acted in reliance of incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials security recipients. This circumstance is not so unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance”

Let me break that down into the really  important bits:

  1. “…acted in reliance of incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not:

  2. “…an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials security recipients.”

  3. This circumstance is not so:

  4. unusual,

  5. uncommon,

  6. exceptional,

  7. markedly different from the usual run of cases,

  8. or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance”

  9. DESPITE THAT, the welfare recipient was found to at fault by the Administrative Appeals tribunal for having failed to realize that (s)he had been given bad advice by a Centrelink employee and had acted in good faith upon that advice.

  10. NO COURT, hearing that statement would automatically assume that a welfare recipient was at fault, but the Administrative Appeals Tribunal does.

WHY DOES THE AAT MAKE IDIOTIC DECISIONS LIKE THAT?

ANSWER: Because the AAT “stands in the shoes of the decision-maker”

A Courtroom Comparison: Superficially, the idea of the AAT “standing in the shoes of the original decision-maker” sounds quite reasonable. However, if that concept were to be applied in a murder trial, how well would it go down with the defendant, defence counsel, and the jury, if the presiding judge had made the following statement:

“I can assure the defendant and jurors that this will be a fair trial because I’m standing in the shoes of the arresting officer”?

AVOID CENTRELINK’S QUASI-LEGAL APPEAL SYSTEM; YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

HOW TO AVOID A VIOLATION OF  YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS.

  1. When Centrelink requests information, point out that without reasonable grounds for “Probable Cause”, as determined by a person who is Authorized, Accredited and properly Certified to determine “Reasonable Grounds” for the request, IN LAW, the request constitutes “Illegal Search.”

  2. Any threat to arbitrarily impose a penalty before a court determines “the primary facts of the matter” is a violation of section 142.2, 149.1 and the “MENACE Laws in sections 137 and 138 of the commonwealth Criminal Code Act.

  3. Say: “This was probably Centrelink’s mistake, but that is for a court to decide isn’t it?

  4. ARE YOU SMART?

  5. If you are, you will copy this web page to a document file and post the file on your desktop so that it is easy to find.

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian lay advocate for justice.

MURDER MOST FOUL.

The Emcott Report ‘short’ case listing OF relevant to homicide cases:

Within each of these court cases are points of law used in criminal prosecutions or appeals that underpin my belief that the deaths of welfare recipients are murders that a Royal Commission should be investigating. However, since that could quite possibly lead to criminal charges against party leaders, a commission of inquiry in Australia is highly unlikely.

Viro v. R. [1978] HCA 9;(1978) 141 C.L.R. 88

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281978%29%20141%20CLR%2088

 R v. Tucker (1984) 36 S.A.S.R. 135

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281984%29%2036%20SASR%20135

(King, C.J., speaking in effect for the Court of Criminal Appeal, described as correct a direction that intoxication is of itself no defence. [paragraph 24]) Neither is being ‘drunk on power.’

 Herbert v. R. [1982] FCA 147;(1982) 62 F.L.R. 302;

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1982/147.html

 R v. Sheehan (1975) 1 W.L.R. 739,

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281975%29%201%20WLR%20739

(From 1975 or thereabouts on Victorian judges directed juries that intoxication is to be taken into account in considering whether murderous intent in fact existed.)

  R v Beard

(intoxication and incapacity to form the specific intent) to charging juries in the light of Sheehan precedent

 v. Coleman (1990) 19 N.S.W.L.R. 467

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281990%29%2019%20NSWLR%20467

 v. O’Connor [1980] HCA 17; (1980) 146 C.L.R. 64

: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281980%29%20146%20CLR%2064

 v. Peterkin (1982) 6 A.Crim.R. 351 (a case of reckless murder)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281982%29%206%20ACrimR%20351

 v. Stokes & Difford (1990) 51 A.Crim.R. 25

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281990%29%2051%20ACrimR%2025

 v. Rose (1996) 87 A.Crim.R. 109

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281996%29%2087%20ACrimR%20109

  1. R v. Tucker [1984] 36 S.A.S.R. 135

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%5b1984%5d%2036%20SASR%20135

 R v. Pemble [1971] HCA 20; (1971) 124 C.L.R. 107

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1971/20.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281971%29%20124%20CLR%20107

v. Allwood (1975) 18 A.Crim.R. 120

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281975%29%2018%20ACrimR%20120

 Boughey v. R.[1986] HCA 29; (1986) 161 C.L.R. 10

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1986/29.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281986%29%20161%20CLR%2010

v. Piri [1987] NZCA 6; [1987] 1 N.Z.L.R. 66.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%5b1987%5d%201%20NZLR%2066

 rGammage v. R. [1969] HCA 68; (1969) 122 C.L.R. 444

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281969%29%20122%20CLR%20444

(“it is for the jury to be satisfied of the elements of the murder charged and not for the presiding judge”.)

 Wilson v. R. [1992] HCA 31; (1992) 174 C.L.R. 313

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%281992%29%20174%20CLR%20313

“There might be some practical, if not theoretical, difficulty, in the accused man’s accepting that the jury should find the dangerous act necessary for manslaughter while disputing that the dangerous act necessary for reckless murder should be found.” (Paragraph 38 of Faure)

 Natinal and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chick [1984] 2 N.S.W.L.R. 86,

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%5b1984%5d%202%20NSWLR%2086

(A weird example of Russian roulette in civil litigation where one of the players tried to cheat!)

  1. v. Lamb [1967] 2 Q.B. 981

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=%5b1967%5d%202%20QB%20981

(OOPS! The accused was charged only with manslaughter where he had pointed a revolver at a friend and pulled the trigger as a joke, the cylinder containing two cartridges, neither being opposite the barrel and the accused not knowing that the pulling of the trigger would rotate the cylinder.)

 Kenny Charlie v R

http://www.supremecourt.nt.gov.au/archive/doc/sentencing_remarks/0/98/0/NS000230.htm

 Unpublished decisions:

 v. Marshall (1986) 43 S.A.S.R.448

 v. Williamson (1996) 67 S.A.S.R.428 and the unreported decisions there cited at 447-448.

 v. Sanftl (Court of Criminal Appeal, 23 June 1983)

 USA – Precedents:

A helpful summary of the law of the various American states as regards murder by recklessness will be found in the draft Model Penal Code and which defines murder as including criminal homicide committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

 Commonwealth v. Malone 354 Pa. 18047 A. 2d 445(1946) Pennsylvania USA

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/LawCite?cit=354%20Pa%20180

(Circular link back to Faure)

 Tison v. Arizona

http://www.worldlii.org/us/cases/federal/USSC/1987/61.html

 From both moral and legal perspectives, any person or organization that undertakes recklessly dangerous endeavours that may foreseeably results in fatalities is placing lives in peril and should be held fully accountable for doing so.

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

Part 41: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity. The Elephant in the Room is the unreported fatalities.

The problem with Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity is “The Elephant in the Room”, i.e. the unreported fatalities. As the letter from Assistant Secretary Neil Skill reveals, Centrelink does not collect and report the statistics on post-breaching fatalities.

NOTE: The shortlink for this posting is:  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-Ni

Another issue is that these deaths, which are murders, are no officially recognised as murders and therefore nothing is done to stop the death toll from rising. The following information, which is part of an Administrative Tribunal Appeal submission, is provided for readers to consider.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

Centrelink does not record and report fatalities that occur after welfare penalties are applied. Given that these unconstitutional, human rights violating penalties are applied to an officially acknowledged “Vulnerable” minority section of Australia’s society, this is not surprising.

 ABS Catalogue Suicides 1992 – 2010

The following statistics are a collation sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Catalogue 3309 and includes “Causes of Death” revisions made between earlier published data, e.g. 3309.0.55.001 and more recent data that was released on 24th July 2012.

 Approximately 1 in 3 suicides is an unemployed person and the top 5 categories contain significant numbers of Centrelink clients:

 YEAR

Year Suicides Year Suicides
  1992 2294 2002 2320
1993 2081 2003 2214
1994 2258 2004 2098
1995 2368 2005 2102
1996 2393 2006 2118
1997 2720 2007 2229
1998 2683 2008 2341
1999 2492 2009 2286
2000 2363 2010 2361
2001 2457    
SUB-TOTAL: 24111   20096

TOTAL:

   

44207

In South Australia, suicides triggered by ‘No show, no pay’ penalties or fraudulent Centrelink tort actions are Murder:

 South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act: (1935)

Section 13 (7) Murder by 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.

           Division 1A—Criminal neglect

14—Criminal liability for neglect where death or serious harm results from unlawful act (section 14.4)

All states and territories have similar laws, e.g. Queensland, s. 302(4)

 “It is generally acknowledged that suicides are under-reported as a cause of death.” SUICIDE AND MORTALITY IN AUSTRALIA 1970 -1991

L.T. Ruzicka & C.Y. Choi, Australian Institute of Health & Welfare

 Stroke and Heart Attack Risk Factors:

ABS Table: 3303.1 Underlying Causes of Death 2015

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3303.02015?OpenDocument

Aneurisms 2015  

Aortic aneurysm and dissection  4389

Other aneurysm and dissection     473

Total                                                    4 862  

 Heart Foundation: Australian heart disease statistics 2015

 Summary of Findings, page XV

 Cardiovascular disease was responsible for 43,602 deaths in Australia.

 Of all Australians aged 55–64 years, 8.8% reported living with heart, stroke or vascular disease and prevalence increases with age. The self-reported rate of heart, stroke or vascular disease was 17.1% among those aged 65-74 years, 26.0% among those aged 75-84 and 39.5% among those aged 85 years and over.

7.2.1.1 – Bench Notes: Judicial College of Victoria.

Forms of Murder

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

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

    2. The accused can unintentionally cause the victim’s death in the course or furtherance of certain violent crimes;

Note: The 3rd way of causing a murder is a death whilst escaping from custody, i.e. an “automatic” murder charge and is not relevant to the issue of possible murders caused by welfare policies and practices in Australia.

Decide for yourself if a breached family member was ‘natural causes, a suicide, or murder.

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian lay-advocate for justice in Australia

 

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

Part 40 (I) Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity. More on the Centrelink order to a parent to disown their child.

Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity” really hit the sludge at the bottom of the pond when a parent was ordered to disown their child and when the parent refused to so, Centrelink suspended the Family Tax Benefit payments.

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

Here is some insight just how over the line Centrelink was:

Australian Treaty Series 1991 No 4

Rights of a Child

In the opening remarks, the Convention on the Rights of a Child states the following:

CONVINCED that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,

RECALLING the provisions of the Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with Special Reference to Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally; the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules); and the Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict,

Article 3

  1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

  2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

  3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1991/4.html

(Australian) Family Law Act (1975)

111CK Jurisdiction to appoint, or determine the powers of, a guardian for a child’s property

(1) A COURT may exercise jurisdiction for a Commonwealth property protection measure only in relation to:

(a) a child who is habitually resident in Australia;

[ GOOGLE: family law act 1975 ]

Whatever else Centrelink may be, it is not a court and therefore had absolutely no legal jurisdiction to order a parent to abrogate their parental responsibility to their child.

Section 138, 139 and 142 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act deals with this sort of misconduct:

Division 138 — Preliminary  138.1   Unwarranted demand with menaces  

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

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

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

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

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

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

138.2   Menaces

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

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

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

Threat against an individual

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

                     (a)  both:

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

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

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

Division 139 — Unwarranted demands

139.1   Unwarranted demands of a Commonwealth public official

                   A person commits an offence if:

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

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

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

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

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

                              (i)  obtaining a gain; or

                             (ii)  causing a loss; or

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

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 12 years.

139.2   Unwarranted demands made by a Commonwealth public official

                   A Commonwealth public official commits an offence if:

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

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

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

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

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

                              (i)  obtaining a gain; or

                             (ii)  causing a loss; or

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

Section 142.2  of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, i.e. “Abuse of power

142.2   Abuse of public office

             (1)  A Commonwealth public official commits an offence if:

                     (a)  the official:

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

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

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

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

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

                             (ii)  dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 5 years.

Download the Act from: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C01150

REMEMBER: The standard of Justice that you get, is the standard of Justice that you accept. If you are the victim of a Centrelink RAPE OF RIGHTS, you have the authority and power of Australian laws and international human rights treaties to protect you.

HOWEVER: If you do not use that protection, your civil rights, your emotional and your physical well-being, will simply be raped.

Ronald Medlicott – A volunteer Christian lay advocate for Justice in Australia.

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

Part 40 (H) Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity. Centrelink ordered a parent to disown their child and cancelled the Family Tax Benefit payments when the parent refused.

Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity reached a new low point last week when Centrelink ordered a parent to DISOWN THEIR CHILD, and then suspended the Family Tax Benefit payments when the parent refused to do so.

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

CENTRELINK:  DISOWN YOUR CHILD OR ELSE!

Consider the various constitutional, criminal and human rights violations in this statement received by me on Monday, 23 January 2017 at 8:44 AM:

” I did go into centrelink to see about her getting the money. However they said I’d need to sign a stat DEC saying that I’d kicked my son out for him to receive the money. As this wasn’t true, continued to hand over his bit. Now my ftb is suspended.”

NOTE: Only the Family Court has legal jurisdiction to deprive a parent of guardianship rights to their child.

THE CRIME OF MENACE

This was yet another very serious violation of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act that Centrelink  violates literally millions of times each year, i.e. the crime of “Menace”, the unwarranted demands by a public servant.

  Commonwealth Criminal Code Act Part 7.5—Unwarranted demands -Division138—Preliminary

138.1  Unwarranted demand with menaces

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

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

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

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

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

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

138.2  Menaces

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

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

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

Threat against an individual

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

                (a)  both:

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

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

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

NOTE: Threatening to sell a welfare recipient’s home if they do not agree to repay an alleged overpayment “debt” is one such example of a menace. For impoverished, functionally illiterate welfare recipients who do not know their civil rights, threatening to prosecute them if they do not agree to repay an alleged overpayment “debt” is another example of how welfare recipients are menaced.

The worst legislated example of a menacing threat is the unconstitutional, human rights violating and recklessly dangerous menace found in s. 42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act, i.e. “No show, no pay” statute which penalizes people by depriving them of the means to subsist. This law is so beyond the concept of “Good Government” that it is virtually unbelievable.

In violation of the constitution, human rights treaty obligations and criminal laws dealing with intentional harm, “No show, no pay” is a law that literally plays Russian roulette with the lives of very vulnerable people.

“No show, no pay” is intended to cause serious harm and is therefore yet another violation of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, Section 146 – “Harm”

146.1  Definitions (Note: some are omitted from the listing below.)

               In this Part: fear includes apprehension.

harm means:

                (a)  physical harm (whether temporary or permanent); or

                (b)  harm to a person’s mental health (whether temporary or permanent);

but does not include being subjected to a force or impact that is within the limits of what is reasonably acceptable as incidental to:

                (c)  social interaction; or

                (d)  life in the community.

harm to a person’s mental health includes significant psychological harm to the person, but does not include a reference to ordinary emotional reactions (for example, distress, grief, fear or anger).

serious harm means any harm (including the cumulative effect of more than one harm) that:

                (a)  endangers, or is likely to endanger, a person’s life; or

                (b)  is, or is likely to be, significant and longstanding.

146.2  Causing harm

               For the purposes of this Part, a person’s conduct is taken to cause harm if it substantially contributes to harm.

Deliberately depriving a person of their sole means of subsistence, i.e. “the Dole”, is a major crime. If a person should be so “stupefied and overwhelmed” emotionally or financially and they wind up dead, the crime escalates to MURDER.

The key to dealing with such criminal abuses of power is to KNOW YOUR RIGHTS.

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17 (3 May 2012)

At paragraph 141 you will find this:

“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.”

In paragraph 143 you find this incredible statement: “Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.”

Centrelink can say you have been overpaid, but before they can order you to repay a cent, a court must decide the facts of the matter, i.e. who was at fault and why the fault occurred in the first place.

And then there is Bhardwaj at paragraph 53:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/11.html

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11; 14 March 2002.

“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.”

IN LAW, Centrelink’s so-called ‘legal decisions‘, are NO DECISION AT ALL

I repeat:

IN LAW, Centrelink’s so-called ‘legal decisions‘, are NO DECISION AT ALL

By implying, or by stating outright that Centrelink overpayments HAVE TO BE REPAID if Centrelink says so, any public official making such a statement is violating section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act:

Abuse of Power’ – s142 (1)(b)(i) & (ii) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.

 “A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if (b) the official does so with the intention of:

(i) dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or: (ii) dishonestly causing a detriment to another person. Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.

WHY SAYING “NO”IS VITAL

IF  Centrelink makes any attempt to stop, deprive, reduce your welfare benefits, JUST SAY “NO”. Bhardwaj at paragraph 51 emphasizes the need to say “NO”. “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.”

When you say “NO”, Centrelink’s arbitrary decision has been legally “CHALLENGED” and it automatically becomes a matter for the courts. Centrelink has to prove that you were in the wrong.You don’t have to prove Centrelink was wrong but this Administrative Appeals Tribunal bomb blows apart any claims that Centrelink does not make mistakes:

Check out the ‘Killer punch’ in paragraph 45 below, i.e. “The Tribunal’s inability to exercise powers other than those available to the decision-maker can lead to injustice in some cases.”

 TRANSLATION: If Centrelink makes a bad decision, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has no power to do anything about that decision! What sort of Dickensian Bleak House farce of an appeal system is that? It is the appeal system that you have when you are not having an appeal; a fact made even worse as it is run like a court although it is, by Act of Parliament, supposed to be an “informal” appeal system.

Incorrect advice by Centrelink

  1. As discussed above, [the applicant] stated that she was incorrectly advised by a Centrelink officer not to include her split shift and toilet allowance in the gross income she reported to Centrelink for DSP purposes during the Relevant Period and that she acted on that advice, resulting in an overpayment of DSP during the Relevant Period and a debt to Centrelink.

  2. The Tribunal’s power to stand in the shoes of the decision-maker, in this case the Secretary, is exercisable only in relation to the decision under review, in this case the SSAT Decision. The Tribunal has no general review or decision-making power and it cannot substitute for the decision-maker generally. As Brennan J said in Re Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd and Collector of Customs (NSW) (1978) 1 ALD 167 at 175: “The AAT is not the primary administrator. It is not the original repository of powers and discretions under an enactment”. The Tribunal’s inability to exercise powers other than those available to the decision-maker can lead to injustice in some cases. For example, where a strict application of the law results in unfairness to an applicant.

  3. A person, like [the applicant], who is dissatisfied with a departmental decision may have other courses of action open to him or her, including lodging a complaint with the Commonwealth Ombudsman or applying to the Federal Court of Australia under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJRA) for a review of the decision concerned on grounds which include breach of natural justice, improper exercise of power and no evidence to justify the making of the decision: see s 5(1) of the ADJRA.

Forget the Ombudsman – Check this out:

25-11-15-redacted-oco

The Ombudsman’s Office simply ignored High Court’s Bhardwaj and Hellicar decisions, even though they had NO JURISDICTION, i.e. no legal right to do so. The decision in the letter above is an example of a decision that, in law, is no decision at all.

APPEALING A CENTRELINK DECISION.

If you have been the victim of a “let’s skip the courts and your constitutional rights” decision by Centrelink, I strongly recommend that you follow these six steps:

  1. It is your right to object to the decision and to demand that the primary facts of the matter as “adduced by a court” before any decision is made by Centrelink.

  2. Demand that all credible, relevant facts that may be significant to the matter, e.g. internal systemic staffing and information technology problems be fully disclosed so that a court can make a fair and impartial judgement before “adducing the primary facts of the matter.”

  3. If there is no court decision as to the primary facts of the matter, and there will not be any if you have not attended a court to put your case, read out the Hellicar and Bhardwaj court decisions above to the Centrelink official that is handling the Centrelink claim and again ask for the primary facts of the matter to be “adduced by a court” in accordance with your constitutional and legal rights.

  4. Point out that deliberately by-passing the courts constitutes criminal misconduct under sections 142.2 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995).

  5. If necessary, read out these criminal law statutes and provide a copy in writing, e.g. a copy of this report and then ask the official who refuses to accept these decisions if they wish to face criminal charges for unlawful abuse of power.?

  6. If the official, or officials, still refuse to do recognize your legal rights, file complaints with the Federal Police, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, and the Human Rights Commission alleging violations of sections 142.2 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995.)

Finally: If you have not yet watched this brilliant 99 second video, do so right now:

Centrelink fail – Honest Government Advert https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoD0efoHzeA  

Hilarious isn’t it? However, this video is actually accusing Centrelink of fraud. Implied, but not stated, is the fact that if this crime kills a person, then that death is probably a MURDER for financial gain.

Ronald Medlicott.

Registered teacher and a Christian lay advocate for justice.

 

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

Part 40(G) Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity. Still more state and territory criminal laws that Centrelink’s staff are not not to violate.

Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity happen because the training of Centrelink staff does NOT include the following state and territory MURDER laws.

The short link URL for this posting is:  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-L7

No matter which state or territory welfare recipients live in, public servants who enforced the unconstitutional, human rights violating “No Show, No Pay” laws found in Section 42C of the Social Security (Administration Act), risk criminal charges, e.g. An Act of Reckless endangerment. Where fatalities occur, the charge is MURDER.

The crucial question therefore is, how many people has Australia’s welfare penalties murdered?skill-certified

Centrelink administrators are directly responsible for concealing the number of victims of Australia’s “No Show, No Pay” breaching laws. Given the penalties outlines below, it is no surprise that these deaths are “not collected” by Centrelink’s top management.

An excuse that may be used by politicians, government lawyers and Centrelink staff that making such a threat or causing it to be received was reasonable by the standards of an ordinary person.

 However, ignoring the constitution, violating human rights treaties and deliberately depriving impoverished people of the means to survive, and then dismissing any subsequent fatalities as “irrelevant” is not the act of a “reasonable person”, it is an Abuse of Public Office, a crime that6 contains similar wording in both state and federal criminal codes, e.g. Queensland and the Commonwealth criminal codes.

 Queensland Criminal Code: 92A Misconduct in relation to public office

(1) A public officer who, with intent to dishonestly gain a benefit for the officer or another person or to dishonestly cause a detriment to another person—

(a) deals with information gained because of office; or

(b) performs or fails to perform a function of office; or

(c) without limiting paragraphs (a) and (b), does an act or

makes an omission in abuse of the authority of office;

is guilty of a crime.

Maximum penalty—7 years imprisonment.

Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.

‘Abuse of Power’ – Sections 142 (1)(b)(i) & (ii) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995).

“A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if (b) the official does so with the intention of:

(i) dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or: (ii) dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years

MURDER MOST FOUL

The following murder laws provide compelling reasons for Assitant Secretary Neil Skill’s statement that “Centrelink does not collect Post Breaching terminal Outcome Statistics”.

Northern Territory

166     Threats to kill

    (1)     Any person who, with intent to cause fear, makes, or causes any person to receive, a threat to kill any person which threat is of such a nature as to cause fear to any person of reasonable firmness and courage, is guilty of a crime and liable to imprisonment for 7 years.

    (2)     It is a defence to a charge of a crime defined by this section to prove that making such a threat or causing it to be received was reasonable by the standards of an ordinary person similarly circumstanced to the accused person.

NOTE: (2) above may be used by politicians, government lawyers and Centrelink staff a

 Division 3A  Recklessly endangering life and serious harm, negligently causing serious harm and related offences involving vehicles

Subdivision 1     Interpretation 174B     Danger of death or serious harm

    (1)     For this Division, conduct that may give rise to a danger of death or serious harm includes exposing a person to the risk of catching a disease that may give rise to a danger of death or serious harm.

    (2)     For this Division, conduct gives rise to a danger of death or serious harm if it is ordinarily capable of creating a real, and not merely a theoretical, danger of death or serious harm.

    (3)     Conduct may give rise to a danger of death or serious harm whatever the statistical or arithmetical calculation of the degree of risk of death or serious harm involved.

    (4)     In the prosecution of an offence under Subdivision 2, it is not necessary to prove that a person was actually placed in danger of death or serious harm by the conduct concerned.

Subdivision 2     Offences 174C     Recklessly endangering life

A person is guilty of a crime if:

        (a)     the person engages in conduct; and

        (b)     that conduct gives rise to a danger of death to any person; and

        (c)     the person is reckless as to the danger of death to any person that arises from the conduct.

Maximum penalty:     Imprisonment for 10 years or, for an aggravated offence, 14 years.

174D     Recklessly endangering serious harm

A person is guilty of a crime if:

        (a)     the person engages in conduct; and

        (b)     that conduct gives rise to a danger of serious harm to any person; and

        (c)     the person is reckless as to the danger of serious harm to any person that arises from the conduct.

Maximum penalty:     Imprisonment for 7 years or, for an aggravated offence, 10 years.

174E     Negligently causing serious harm

A person is guilty of a crime if:

        (a)     the person engages in conduct; and

        (b)     that conduct causes serious harm to another person; and

        (c)     the person is negligent as to causing serious harm to the other person or any other person by the conduct.

Maximum penalty:     Imprisonment for 10 years.

 TASMANIA

  1. Special cases of homicide

A person is deemed to have killed another in the following cases where his act or omission is not the immediate, or not the sole, cause of death:

(a) where he causes bodily injury to the other which requires surgical or medical treatment, and such treatment causes death, if such treatment is applied in good faith, and with reasonable knowledge and skill, but not otherwise;

(b) where he causes bodily injury to the other which causes death, though it would not have caused death if the other had submitted to proper treatment or had observed proper precautions;

(c) where by actual violence, or threats, or intimidation of any kind, or by deceit, he causes the other to do an act or make an omission likely to cause death, and which he knows, or ought to have known, the other would be likely to do, and which causes the death of the other;

(d) where by any act or omission he hastens the death of another who is suffering under any disease or injury which would itself have caused death;

(e) where his act or omission causes death, but would not have caused death unless it had been accompanied by the acts or omissions of the person killed or of other persons.

 Culpable homicide

(1) Homicide may be culpable or not culpable.

(2) Homicide is culpable when it is caused –

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

(b) by an omission amounting to culpable negligence to perform a duty tending to the preservation of human life, although there may be no intention to cause death or bodily harm; or

(c) by any unlawful act.

(3) The question what amounts to culpable negligence is a question of fact, to be determined on the circumstances of each particular case.

(4) For the purposes of this chapter it is unlawful –

(a) to cause death in the manner described in section 154(c);

(b) to wilfully frighten a child of tender years; or

(c) to wilfully frighten a sick person knowing such person to be sick.

  1. Cases in which culpable homicide is murder

(1) Culpable homicide is murder if it is committed–

(a) with an intention to cause the death of any person, whether of the person killed or not;

(b) with an intention to cause to any person, whether the person killed or not, bodily harm which the offender knew to be likely to cause death in the circumstances, although he had no wish to cause death;

(c) by means of any unlawful act or omission which the offender knew, or ought to have known, to be likely to cause death in the circumstances, although he had no wish to cause death or bodily harm to any person;

(d) with an intention to inflict grievous bodily harm for the purpose of facilitating the commission of any of the crimes hereinafter mentioned or the flight of the offender upon the commission, or attempted commission, thereof;

(e) by means of administering any stupefying thing for either of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (d); or

(f) by wilfully stopping the breath of any person by any means for either of such purposes as aforesaid–

although, in the cases mentioned in paragraphs (d), (e), and (f), the offender did not intend to cause death, and did not know that death was likely to ensue.

(2) The following are the crimes referred to in paragraph (d) of subsection (1) – Piracy, and offences deemed to be piracy; murder; escape or rescue from prison or lawful custody; resisting lawful apprehension; rape; forcible abduction; robbery with violence; robbery; burglary; arson.

 Murder

Any person who commits murder is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for the term of the person’s natural life or for such other term as the Court determines.

Charge: Murder.

 Written threat to murder

Any person who, knowing the contents thereof, wilfully, and with intent thereby to intimidate or influence any person, causes such person to receive any writing threatening to kill him or any other person, is guilty of a crime.

  •  This charge is particularly relevant to Australia’s “No show, no pay” provisions in Section 42C of the Commonwealth’s Social Security Act. Paragraph 47 of the 2002 Welfare Reform discussion Paper states the purpose of a welfare benefit: Assistance is targeted to those most in need. People with no other means of support are assisted with their basic costs of living.

  • The unconstitutional, human rights violating “No show, no pay” law is a recklessly dangerous law because it intentional deprives people of “their basic costs of living”, i.e. any “No show, no pay” threat is a statement of intent to deliberately deprive people of the ability to live. Logically, if a person is deprived of the ability to live, they have a very high probability of dying. You do not have top a High Court judge to work out that any “No show, no pay” deaths are murders caused by a criminally reckless indifference to the consequences of the human impact of the “No show, no pay” penalties.

 QUEENSLAND & WESTERN AUSTRALIA

(These states have many identical laws under different section numbers, e.g. [302] in Qld is [279] in WA)

302 Definition of murder

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

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

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

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

or attempted to commit any such crime;

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

(e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any

person for either of such purposes;

is guilty of murder.

(2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did

not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed.

(3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did

not intend to hurt any person.

(4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender

did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was

likely to result.

 316 Stupefying in order to commit indictable offence

Any person who, with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an indictable offence, or to facilitate the flight of an offender after the commission or attempted commission of an indictable offence, administers, or attempts to administer, any stupefying or overpowering drug or thing to any person, is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for life.

 328 Negligent acts causing harm

(1) Any person who unlawfully does any act, or omits to do any act which it is the person’s duty to do, by which act or omission bodily harm is actually caused to any person, is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.

(2) The offender may be arrested without warrant.

 VICTORIA

20 Threats to kill

A person who, without lawful excuse, makes to another person a threat to kill that other person or any other person—

                         (a) intending that that other person would fear the threat would be carried out; or

                         (b) being reckless as to whether or not that other person would fear the threat would be carried out—

is guilty of an indictable offence.

  • Level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum).

21 Threats to inflict serious injury

A person who, without lawful excuse, makes to another person a threat to inflict serious injury on that other person or any other person—

                         (a) intending that that other person would fear the threat would be carried out; or

                         (b) being reckless as to whether or not that other person would fear the threat would be carried out—

is guilty of an indictable offence.

  • Level 6 imprisonment (5 years maximum).

 Conduct endangering life

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

Penalty: Level 5 imprisonment (10 years maximum).

 23 Conduct endangering persons

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

Penalty: Level 6 imprisonment (5 years maximum).

 Negligently causing serious injury

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

Penalty: Level 6 imprisonment (5 years maximum)

 Extortion with threat to kill

A person who makes a demand of another person—

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

accomplice of the offender); or

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

is guilty of an indictable offence.

Penalty: Level 4 imprisonment (15 years maximum).

 NEW SOUTH WALES

Division 1 Homicide

18 Murder and manslaughter defined

(1) (a) Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime punishable by

imprisonment for life or for 25 years.

(b) Every other punishable homicide shall be taken to be

manslaughter.

(2) (a) No act or omission which was not malicious, or for which the

accused had lawful cause or excuse, shall be within this section.

(b) No punishment or forfeiture shall be incurred by any person who kills another by misfortune only.

 19A Punishment for murder

(1) A person who commits the crime of murder is liable to imprisonment for life.

(2) A person sentenced to imprisonment for life for the crime of murder is to serve that sentence for the term of the person’s natural life.

No matter which state or territory welfare recipients live in, enforcing the unconstitutional, human rights violating “No Show, No Pay” laws found in Section 42C of the Social Security (Administration Act), is a criminal act of Reckless endangerment. Where fatalities occur, the charge is MURDER.

The crucial question therefore is, how many people has Australia’s welfare penalties murdered?

 

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian lay activist for Justice in Australia.

 

Posted in crimes against humanity, Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Part 40 (F) Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Murder statutes that Centrelink staff are not told about

Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity happen because the training of Centrelink staff does NOT include the following MURDER laws.

South Australia:Criminal law Consolidation Act – Suicide.

13 (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.

    (8)     If on the trial of a person for murder or attempted murder the jury is not satisfied that the accused is guilty of the offence charged but is satisfied that he is guilty of an offence against subsection (5), the jury may bring in a verdict that he is guilty of an offence against that subsection.

    (9)     In any criminal proceedings in which it is material to establish the existence of a suicide pact and whether an act was done, or an omission made, in pursuance of the pact, the onus of proving the existence of the pact and that the act was done, or the omission made, in pursuance of the pact shall lie on the accused.

   (10)    For the purposes of this section—

     (a)     suicide pact means an agreement between two or more persons having for its object the death of all of them whether or not each is to take his own life; and

    (b)     nothing done or omitted to be done by a person who enters into a suicide pact shall be treated as done or omitted to be done in pursuance of the pact unless it is done or omitted to be done while he has the settled intention of dying in pursuance of the pact.

   (11)    Where a person induced another to enter into a suicide pact by means of fraud, duress or undue influence, the person is not entitled in relation to an offence against the other to any mitigation of criminal liability or penalty under this section based on the existence of the pact.

NOTE: I shall add to this list in a few days time: every state and territory has laws that make Centrelink triggered fatalities unlawful homicides, i.e. either murder or manslaughter due to criminal negligence.

Centrelink staff are not told about these laws.

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Note the 3 underlined statements:

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

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

  3. if and when the decision is challenged.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Firstly, there is this statement:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THIS RAPE OF CIVIL RIGHTS NEEDS TO END NOW.

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

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment