Part 42F. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. AAT2016/5334, Digital Data Fiction Fraud [2D2F] and possible inveigling of Centrelink staff to commit these abuses of power.

The AAT 2016/5334 Statement of Facts & Issues, which was not contested by the lawyer representing the Department of Social Security, accused the Turnbull Government of fraud and homicide.

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

the-advocate-cropped

The Emcott Report – volume 3(b) “The Advocate”.

Part  of the Statement of Facts & Issues submission made on 21st February, the cover page of this 82 -page report repeatedly rammed home the point that the Turnbull Government was criminally abusing power by ignoring both the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions. (Along with many other legal decisions of significant relevance.) In addition, this document contained this politically and legally sensitive statement:

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

THIS STATEMENT WAS NOT CHALLENGED!

The ‘Nole Contendere’ responsive, i.e. the “No contest” response was a tacit admission that the statement was fair and reasonable comment [Tick the box for TRUE]

The legal ramifications are profound:

Turnbull Government Ministers actively endorse or support what Centrelink is doing, i.e. Digital Data Fiction Fraud [2D2F], i.e. criminal activity more commonly referred to as CYBER-CRIME or CYBER-FRAUD.

Digital Data Fiction Fraud [2D2F]

The best statement about Digital Data Fiction Fraud [2D2F] cyber-crime that I know of comes from a recent Patricia Cornwell novel titled “Depraved heart”:

“It’s what can happen of we’re so reliant on technology that we become completely dependent on things that we cannot see. Therefore, we no longer judge for ourselves what’s true, what’s false, what’s accurate, what isn’t. In other words, if reality is defined by software that does all the work for us, then what if this software lies? What if everything we believe isn’t true but a facade, a mirage? What if we go to war, pull the plug, make life-and-death decisions based on data fiction?”

As the following examples show, Digital Data Fiction is an accepted, normal part of our lives:

  1. Super Mario games.

  2. Angry Birds app.

  3. Star Wars space ships.

  4. The floating mountains in the movie Avatar.

  • All of the above are Digital Data Fictions used to entertain us, i.e. they are perfectly legitimate Digital Data Entertainment Fictions [2DEF] that you know are not real (At least I hope so.)

  • We have come to accept digital data as part of our lives; the danger is when that data is used not to entertain but to cause great harm.

  • The Turnbull Government, like previous governments before it, is ‘pedal to the metal’ pushing Digital Data Fiction Fraud [2D2F] using Centrelink’s dysfunctional Integrated Social Infrastructure  System[ISIS] computer network mainframe software, which was purchased about 35 years ago.

  • Yesterday, in the space of just over an hour, this clapped out digital scrap sent me the same SMS notice 8 times informing me that I has mail on the MyGov website .

  • It is a completely unreliable system that should never have been purchased as it was not fit for intended purpose even in 1982 when ordered. However, once purchased, no-one was willing to admit the error.

  • The unlawful solution to overpayments has been to blame welfare recipients and then con them, or brazenly intimidate them into repaying overpayments that a court would probably decide do not have to be repaid.

  • 2D2F triggered deaths due suicide or emotional trauma induced heart attacks and strokes are homicides.

  • The problem with these politically driven homicides is that there are so many of them that the Federal Police flatly refuse to investigate them.

  • This possibly because of a not unreasonable concern that once the major parties are dumped by outraged voters, the nation will be managed by politicians like Pauline Hanson, Derryn Hinch and Nick Xenophon and their narrow-interest political parties.

  • AAAAA08 Denley letter

    The AFP was working in partnership WITH Centrelink to catch welfare fraudsters but refused to investigate fraud BY Centrelink . I believe that’s what is known as nemo iudex in causa sua, i.e. protecting your own patch.

    Politicians like Pauline Hanson, Derryn Hinch and Nick Xenophon running the country may or may not be desirable. It is for voters, not the Federal Police to decide. However, it appears that the AFP does not want to risk the extinction of the Liberal-National Coalition or the ALP  and consequently do nothing about the murderously lethal 2D2F problem.

As I have said numerous times in previous posting, the standard of justice that you get is the standard of justice that you accept. If you are prepared to accept 2D2F by doing nothing, then you are accepting gross injustice.

INTERNET EVIDENCE  

 The following videos should be viewed AFTER giving serious though to these  2 High Court decisions. Just click on each Internet URL to automatically go to each website and check out these High Court decisions for yourself:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/17.html

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

[Paragraph 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…”

 [Paragraph143] Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.”

 and

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

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

[Paragraph 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.”

 

YOUTUBE: Most of these videos contain evidence of criminal abuses of power by politicians and/or centrelink officials.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bfzklJRUm8

ABC News 24 interview with Michael Griffin about Centrelink #notmydebt 6/1/17

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

Honest Government Advert – Centrelink Fail

 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-21/q&a-george-brandis-says-centrelink-call-solves-welfare-disputes/8287482  In law, Senator Brandis – “…terrible human consequences” statement may well be an unintentional admission that the Turnbull Government is murdering people for financial gain. Were Tanya Slibersek’s scornfully comments an admission that the Gillard Government was far better at ripping off vulnerable, impoverished welfare recipients than the Turnbull Government?

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58cD6Zc1MIc

Alan Tudge won’t budge on Centrelink debt recovery insisting there are no problems

 http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/no-apology-from-barnaby-joyce-as-government-doubles-down-on-centrelink-debt-clawback-20170106-gtmzaw.html

‘No apology’ from Barnaby Joyce as government doubles down on Centrelink debt clawback

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

Assembling furniture in the dark’: Christian Porter to spring the welfare trap

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s63ClyyiKH8

Social Services Minister Christian Porter admits not knowing how to help people off welfare

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4BZ9WYx764

‘Organised, fair’: Christian Porter defends automated Centrelink debt recovery system

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dShMgVLJz8

Dealing With Centrelink Debt $10,913 #NotMyDebt 17010

 If you have not seen any of my Yadnarie12 videos, consider watching some of these, especially the first 5 videos listed:

Burn Notice: The Others https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGVeRSFKsI0 

 Waivergate – Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEfQ7PuBz60

 Waivergate – Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23bBEfN_H8I

 Waivergate – Part 3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktBNxr7iY7E

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

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

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

Are Centrelink penalties unconstitutional? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH3TEMiSNgM

 Centrelink and the 6 week Rule. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCBonJY5Z-k&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

 Murder by Legislation: The Canberra Killers Club. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0WEN5ix0Fc

 Centrelink’s Secret Breaching Triggered death Toll. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QSdj5gXsx8  

 Billabong Ghosts (How almost 4 million Aussie Battlers were thrown in the Billabong.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuTmc2nA8Kc

 

Ronald Medlicott – a volunteer Christian lay-advocate for justice in Australia.

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

Part 42E. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. AAT 2016/5334 may be a legal precedent that could cripple the national budget and bankrupt federal politicians.

BackflipAustralia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity have hit a major legal snag. One potential consequence of the AAT 2016/5334 “Nole contendere” decision in favour of the welfare recipient that I represented was that this decision is potentially a legal precedent that could cripple the national budget and also bankrupt every political party and very politician who ever supported breaching laws and other laws that deliberately violate the civil rights of welfare recipients.

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

It could also bankrupt mass media entities that have very actively promoted Australia’s unconstitutional, genocidal laws whilst editors and journals who have peddled criminal defamation statements as ‘news’ could face criminal prosecution for their unlawful comments:

20-10-11 Bludgers loose dole

Not one of the 93,682 suspensions of payments mentioned above was based upon findings of fact adduced by a court, every penalty was unconstitutional and therefore, in law, no decision at all, i.e. NOT LEGALLY VALID.

Ron, It’s too hard too understand!

Some of the feedback that I have received from people who read these postings is that it is too hard to understand. and I totally agree with that viewpoint.

The Burden of Proof.

For decades the Federal Parliament has deliberately made its legal actions against welfare recipients too hard to understand. Most deceitfully, Malcolm Turnbull and his government, with the apparent full support of ALL Opposition Members, has consistently concealed the fact that Centrelink does not have the constitutional right to make legal decisions about fault if or when welfare recipients challenge those decisions.

The High Court’s Hellicar decision made it very clear, in plain language, that “regulators” , e.g. Centrelink administrators are wrong in believing that the can make legal findings of fact and arbitrarily impose penalties.

If a welfare recipient challenges a Centrelink decision, IT IS A MATTER FOR THE COURTS, NOT CENTRELINK, TO DETERMINE THE FACTS OF THE MATTER UPON WHICH A LEGALLY VALID DECISION MUST BE BASED.

  1. By not revealing this simple constitutional fact, successive governments have literally gotten away with defrauding a welfare recipients for decades.

  2. The concealment of fatalities caused by the this criminal abuse of power is understandable for they are deaths caused by the commission of a crime, i.e. felony murder or manslaughter due to criminal negligence.

  3. When Centrelink alleges a welfare recipient has been overpaid or is not entitled to a welfare benefit, in law, the Burden of Proof is upon Centrelink  to prove to a court that its legal claim, called a TORT ACTION, is legally valid.

  4. In law, statements made by Malcolm Turnbull, Barnaby Joyce, Alan Tudge, Christian Potter and Centrelink’s chief spin Doctor, Hank Jongen may constitute the inveigling of Centrelink staff into engaging in civil rights abuses that defraud and endanger the lives of welfare recipients.

  5. By not denying my AAT 2016/5334 Facts & Issues statements that for decades successive governments had been defrauding and murdering welfare recipients,  the lawyer representing the DSS in this appeal, has made a voluntary ‘Nole contendere’ act of commission acknowledgement as to the accuracy of those statements.

  6. Translation: the government lawyer representing the DSS agreed with what I had written, and in order to avoid the ‘penalty’ of having these statements repeated and written into the record at an AAT that was to have been held on 24th March 2017,plugged the plug on the DHS claim that the welfare recipient was not entitled to a disability pension.

Below is a link to the criminal.lawyers.com website, which contains a definition of the legal term “Nole contendere”.

http://criminal.lawyers.com/criminal-law-basics/no-contest-pleas-nolo-contendere.html

The key points of law to note is US attorney, Michael Schwartzback’s  article are the following statements:

  1. Guilty pleas settle lots of cases, but not all. Sometimes prosecutors and judges agree to accept pleas of “nolo contendere,” Latin for “I do not wish to contend” or “no contest.”

  2. “No contest” pleas often appeal to defendants looking to avoid an admission of fault in a related civil case.

“…an admission of fault”

2 key points to note:

Firstly: the “admission of fault in a related civil case” to be avoided in AAT 2016/5334 was  the accusation that Centrelink had acted illegally against the applicant that I was representing, and that such actions had occurred for decades with a substantial “irrelevant” death toll that has never been reported..

Secondly: When Centrelink claims that you have been overpaid, it is VITAL to immediately RESPOND by stating, IN WRITING, that you believe Centrelink has made a mistake.

  1. If you do not, you may be putting yourself for a ‘no contest – no win’  situation where you wind up have to pay up, even if Centrelink’s claim is a textbook example of “Digital Data Fiction Fraud” [2D2F], i.e. Centrelink has used GIGO  [Garbage In – Garbage Out] data as the basis for its possibly deliberately fraudulent claim that you owe them money.

  2. The moment you “challenge” Centrelink’s decision, as the High Court ruled in Hellicar, the facts have to be determined by a court, not Centrelink.

  3. The problem for Centrelink is two-fold: Firstly, it costs about $25,000 per case to go to court. Secondly, Centrelink’s has admitted that on 1st January 2016, its computer system wrongly issued 73,000 incorrect claims that were withdrawn a week later. On top of this, The Minister for Social Security, Christian Porter, admitted during a televised interview that 20% of 170,000,000 claims (34,000) were wrong.

  4. That means that in 2016, Centrelink admitted that a massive 107,000 out of some 243,000 (let’s skip the courts)  claims were wrong.

  5. That it an admitted massive error rate of 44.03.%

  6. it any wonder that Malcolm Turnbull has officially endorsed Centrelink’s fraudulent abuse-of-power practice of by-passing the courts and unilaterally demanding “repayment of alleged overpayments if welfare recipients cannot prove to Centrelink, within 21 days, that it was a Centrelink mistake?

  7. To unilaterally or arbitrarily impose an administrative decision action that causes a “detriment”, i.e. Centrelink takes money out of your welfare payments without the court first deciding the facts of the matter is a criminal abuse of power that carries a 5-year jails sentence.

  8. Even a threat to arbitrarily take repayments from welfare payments if welfare recipients cannot prove Centrelink to be at fault within 21-days is a criminal violation of section 138 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995.)

AAT submission 1 Redacted

AAT submission 2 redactedAll of the matters of facts and the points of law mentioned above were in the Statement of facts & Issues that I submitted to the Mark Tange, an AAT Case Services officer on 21st February 2017.

  1. The 1st part of the submission was sent at 12.44PM on 21st February 2017.

  2. The 2nd part of the submission was emailed at 12.49PM on 21st February 2017.

  3. The next day, Elizabeth Ulrick, the Australian Government services lawyer representing the Department of Social Security, and by extension, the Turnbull Government and the Federal Parliament, sent a written “Without prejudice” offer to the person that, under section 32 of of the AAT Act (1975), I was (legally) representing.

  4. NOTE: Had Ms. Ulrick followed Due Process of Law, a copy of that “without Prejudice”  offer should have been sent to me so that I could advise the applicant on what options were available that were in his best interest.

‘Nole contendere – No Contest’

The offer made by Ms. Ulrick within a day of receiving my initial Statements of Facts and Issues was effectively a ‘Nole contendere – no contest’ admission that the statements submitted were legally valid

  1. I had accused the Turnbull Government of fraudulent abuse of power in its dealing with the welfare recipient that I was assisting as a volunteer REPRESENTATIVE under section 32 of the AAT Act.

  2. The following statement on page 3 of Volume 3 of The Emcott Report document was not contested and is therefore evidence that any person can use in any court or administrative appeal :

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

  3. Ms. Ulrick works in the Freedom of Information & Litigation Branch of the Department of Human Services {DHS].

  4. It is therefore highly likely that she had the ability to test the above claim against information contained in the Integrated Social Infrastructure System, i.e. the ISIS computer system used by Centrelink and the DHS.

  5. The documents that I submitted submitted are legal documents that any person can use in their own legal case, be it a Centrelink “you owe us money’ claim,  or even in criminal cases, e.g. being charged with multiple counts of fraud or even multiple counts of murder!

  6. The outcome of AAT 2016/5334 is therefore a legal precedent,  for fighting Centrelink’s often criminal abuses of power that are openly manifested in criminally dangerous Breaching penalties, unconstitutional forced slave labour, i.e. Work for the Dole,  and ruthlessly depriving people of disability pensions and other welfare entitlements.

  7. The failure to report fatalities is understandable as, regardless of the actual Cause of death, the MANNER of Death is HOMICIDE.

COMPENSATION

At the beginning of this posting I placed this news article:

Backflip

Earlier this month, the South Australian Government tried to sneak legislation through the SA Parliament that was intended to exempt the South Australian Government from paying compensation to the victims of abuse in SA government child protection programs.

Even if the Weatherill Government had succeeded in sneaking this disgrace legislation through the Parliament, it is highly likely that the High Court would have dismissed it as “statutory fiction.”

In Section 14.7.3.2 of the Home Improvement Program Report, Commissioner Hanger addressed the issue of Risk in government programs. The recommendations are particularly relevant to the as yet unreported fatal impact of the unconstitutional, human rights violating welfare penalties.

 14.7.3.2 RISK CANNOT BE ABROGATED    [Emphasis added.]

  • Government must recognize that as much as it might seek to do so, risk cannot be abrogated.

  • The responsibility of Government is to care for its citizens and;

  • To exercise care and diligence to do everything reasonable to ensure that its citizens are not placed in danger by its actions, particularly risk of death and serious injury.

  • 7.3.2.1 The Australian government should not seek to abrogate responsibility for identified risk.

Commissioner Hanger’s findings in 7.3.2 above are directly relevant to Senator Brandis almost dismissive comment about the “terrible human consequences” of the Turnbull Government’s unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful, draconian use of a computerized debt recovery  using the dysfunctional ISIS computer system.

Australia’s “No Show, No Pay” penalties

genocide-law

  1. In Volume 2 of The Emcott Report, I pointed out that the above legislation was unconstitutional, a deliberate criminal act of Reckless Endangerment, with foreseeable potentially fatal consequences, i.e. if you deprive impoverished people of the means to survive, it is glaringly obvious that some of the victims WILL NOT SURVIVE

  2. No Show – No Pay penalties triggered fatalities are unreported, secretly classified as confidential,and dismissed as irrelevant”, e. they are officially ignored.

  3. Statute laws that involve reckless acts of endangerment that result in fatalities are criminal acts that are totally inconsistent with “good government’.

  4. It is my considered viewpoint. clearly stated many times in the documents submitted in the AAT 2016/5334 appeal, that these deaths are violations of Article 7 (1) (a) of the Rome Statute of the International criminal court, i.e. they are MURDER.

  5. Ms. Ulrick’s “no contendere – No contest’ action in seeking to end the legal action BEFORE I could read these documents into the hearing transcript, i.e. place them on public record, was a tacit admission that these deaths are murders, not only under international law, but also under state, territory and federal laws.

How Much Compensation?

How much compensation will victims of the Australia’s unconstitutional welfare bashing laws and mass media defamation receive in compensation is a key question?

The following examples may provide insight into that question:

Case Study#1: Raymond Akhtar Ali $3,000

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/convicted-baby-killer-to-keep-prison-food-compensation-20140604-zrxt7.html

  • Everyone is entitled to Justice, even Raymond Akhtar Ali who was convicted in 2000 of murdering his baby daughter in 1998. In August 2013, he was awarded $3,000 in compensation because, as a Muslim, he had been forced to eat non-Halal food.

Case Study #2: Hockey V Fairfax   $200,000

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2015/652.html

  • Joe Hockey scored a tidy $200,000 from Fairfax newspapers in June 2015 for the 3-word posting on Twitter:  “Treasurer for sale”

Case Study #3: Winifred Brennan $380,166.50.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWDDT/2001/2.html

On 2nd March 2001, the New South Wales Dust Diseases Tribunal awarded Mrs. Winifred Brennan $380,166,50 in compensation for having developed an asbestos related disease. Only $20,000 of that award was for loss of expected life. In view of the case study below, far higher payouts can be expected in 2017 and beyond.

Case Study #4 Ian Ward’s family $3.2 million

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/multimilliondollar-payout-to-mr-wards-family-after-prison-van-death-20100729-10x1l.html

  • In July 2010, the Western Australian Government made a $3,200,000 ‘Ex Gratis” compensation payment to the family of Ian Ward, an aboriginal elder who was “roasted to death” when being transported in the back of prison van that did not have a working air-conditioner.

Case Study #5: Dr. John Knight $4.3 million

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-07/surgeon-wins-big-payout-over-job-loss/4558290

The South Australian Government has agreed to pay a cardiac surgeon $4.3 million in compensation over loss in income and damage to his reputation.Professor John Knight was stood down by Flinders Medical Centre in 2009 during an investigation of an 81-year-old heart patient’s death.The surgeon later was cleared by the Coroner of any wrongdoing. But after a brief period of re-employment Professor Knight’s contract with the hospital was not renewed.

Opposition health spokesman Rob Lucas said it would cost taxpayers even more once legal costs were added. “This is a disgraceful example of incompetence and financial mismanagement by the South Australian Government and Health SA and ultimately the cost to taxpayers will be in excess of $6 million,” he said.

  1. The problem with Rob Lucas trying to score political points over Dr. Knight’s dismissal is that Breaching, Work for the Dole, No show – no pay penalties, and Malcolm Turnbull’s Digital Data Fiction Fraud {2D2F], aka “the Tudge Fudge Fraud, are all unconstitutional abuses of power, which raises the question of what is adequate compensation for victims of these crimes?

  2. Adding further complexity to the compensation is is the question of the [anything but] “irrelevant” death toll that Centrelink has never reported.

  3. The death of Ian Ward may have been negligent, but no-one ever claimed that it was “irrelevant.”

    Senate EWRE committee regards post-breaching fatalities as irrelevant.

    Work Choices legislation shared common ground with Breaching legislation in that it was bad legislation that would seriously disadvantage Australia’s already disadvantaged unemployed by making them even more vulnerable to predatory employers. Some employers were misusing breaching legislation by offering workers $2 per hour and threatening to have the job seekers breached for refusing to accept a “job”. Never mind minimum wage rates, if job seekers did not take the job, they were breached. This behaviour by employers and the fatalities caused by breaching activity were, as this email makes quite clear, brushed under the carpet by dismissing the submission, and therefore the fatalities, as “not relevant”. Would any families of those who died would agree with this callous dismissal of the unreported, secretly classified, post breaching fatalities as “irrelevant” was appropriate?

  4. No death caused by Federal laws, policies and practices is ever “irrelevant”.

Every politician and every political party that ever supported unconstitutional laws, policies and practices needs to held accountable for their decisions.

AAT 2016/5334 – ” A duces tecum subpoena”

The following statement was contained in the Statement of Facts & Issues submission in Volume 3 of the Emcott Report; it was not contested by the lawyer representing the Federal Government and any person seeking compensation can issue a duces tecum subpoena that would compel the Minister for Human Services to “produce the documents, i.e. the AAT 2016/5334 Statement of Facts & Issues.

The problem for state, territory and federal prosecutors, and the national community in general,  is that any person charged with crimes such as fraud, recklessly  endangering life, manslaughter or murder, could also issue a duces tecum subpoena if they want to mount an apprehended bias or manifest ostensible bias defence or an appeal of an existing conviction.

Ron Medlicott – A volunteer 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 42d. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Understanding how to use the AAT 2016/5334 appeal to fight Centrelink’s fraudulent claims.

AAT appeal decision 2016/5334 is a landmark decision but to use it to fight Centrelink’s fraudulent claims, you need to understand what is so important about this decision.

Point #1: Most of  Centrelink’s legal actions, [known as TORT ACTIONS or as TORTIOUS CONDUCT], to recover money or to deprive A PERSON of a welfare benefit are done in an unlawful manner. If you know the laws being broken, Centrelink officials can face serious jail time if they try to con you AND YOU FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE POLICE. [No complaint – no charge – no conviction.]

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

AAT 2016/5334 in the nutshell

The High Court’s Hellicar decision on May 3rd 2012 stated that if regulatory authorities, e.g. Centrelink bureaucrats, decided that they could make legal decisions and impose financial penalties, THEY WERE WRONG because:

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

In addition, if Centrelink says that you have been overpaid, the person [not Centrelink’s computer system] making that claim has to meet ALL OF the following legal criteria:

  1. Be appropriately Authorized to  claim that you have been overpaid; almost all Centrelink staff assume that they are authorized to do so, but, IN LAW, only people who comply with the following criteria can make valid claims

  2. People must be appropriately qualified to make that financial (or medical) claim, e.g. they have to be a qualified Auditor or a doctor, et cetera.

  3. Appropriately certified to make that claim, e.g. you may be able to drive a car but you cannot do so legally without a current license; Centrelink Auditors must have current professional certification.

  4. The whole process must be done in accordance with Due Process of Law, e.g. Centrelink’s dysfunctional computer may produce data that indicates that you have been overpaid but, thanks to the AAT 2016/5334  Statement of Facts & Issues, this computer system has a undisputed, unchallenged [Nolo contendere]  44.03% ERROR RATE

  5. The lawyer representing the DSS did not disputemy 44.03% error claim, which was in the applicant’s Statement of Facts & Issues.

  6. Consequently, Centrelink is now stuck with a defacto admission that its computer system is extremely inaccurate and its output is unreliable evidence that “lacks integrity”.

  7. That 44.03% error rate means that until a qualified, currently certified Auditor double-checks  data outputs for validity and accuracy, any demand from Centrelink for information withing 21 days is, IN LAW, an unlawful “fishing expedition”, A BLUFF!

  8. IN LAW, any “fishing expedition” for information is about seeking information when there are no legally valid grounds for doing so.

  9. Any request for information requires “Reasonable Grounds” that indicate a “Reasonable Probability” that the request is justified.

  10. If There are no “reasonable grounds” to lawfully justify a request for information, the request can lawfully be rejected as an Abuse of Power “fishing expedition”.

  11. The best way to do this is respond by requesting the “reasonable grounds” for the request for information, the name of the person making the request, and their current qualifications and current certification for making that request.

“THE LAW SAYS WE CAN” IS NOT REASONABLE GROUNDS FOR A ‘FISHING EXPEDITION’.

Paragraph 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code deals with public servants who abuse laws and cause detrimental harm to members of the public. When Centrelink staff use “the law says we can” excuse, you can point out that if they are not qualified and certified and have no “reasonable grounds” to make a “law say we can” demand, then they are facing a 5-year jail sentence.

THE HELLICAR DECISION ABSOLUTELY NUKED CENTRELINK.

 If Centrelink claims that a person is at fault, e.g. allegedly overpaid or in breach of supposed ‘Mutual Obligations’; If that person says “NO, Centrelink has made a mistake, it AUTOMATICALLY becomes a matter for the courts BEFORE Centrelink can lawfully take any action.

  1. AAT 2016/5334 – Statement of Facts & Issues, page 3, “If I am correct, over a time frame measured in decades, the Australian Federal Parliament has deliberately raped the civil rights of 4 – 5 million vulnerable Australians…”

  2. In the official 2016/5334 Statement of facts & Issues documents that I filed on behalf of a welfare recipient, I made a claim that the Turnbull Government could either fight or not fight:

  3. Forcing people to comply with unconstitutional demands also violates this criminal code; management or ministerial statements that encourage this illegal conduct violate section 12.3 of the code.

  4. Deliberately “skipping the court” is a criminal offence that violates section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. [5-year sentence.]

  5. To save both time and the cost of a court decision, with the knowledge and approval of the Federal Government, Centrelink officials unlawfully “skip the court” and make arbitrary decisions that are, in law, “no decision at all.”

  6. TAKE NOTE: It costs Centrelink an average of $25,000 to get a court decision as to what are the ‘primary facts of the matter’ BEFORE a legally valid decision can be made by a Centrelink official.

  7. In law, Centrelink must first prove to a court that it’s claim is legally valid, a tough task because of extremely serious systemic problems within Centrelink, some of which are detailed in the Statement of Facts & Issues: – SEE PART 40 for a redacted copy of some of the problems that inval;idate Centrelink’s fraudulent scams.

In the video at the internet link below, Senator George Brandis and Tanya Slibersek unwittingly argue over who is best at defrauding and murdering welfare recipients.

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

Both Senator Brandis and Tanya Slibersek had wrongly assumed that no-one in Australia who cared about what they were doing knew about the Hellicar, Bhardwaj and   Coco decisions.

In the High Court’s Coco decision [HCA 15] on 15th April 1994, in paragraph 8 the court ruled that:

“(I)nconvenience in carrying out an object authorized by
legislation is not a ground for eroding fundamental common law rights”.

In paragraph 9, the High Court then said: .” 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.”

The High Court also stated in the same paragraph: “a citizen’s right to unimpeded access to the courts can only be taken away by express enactment”.

UNLESS, AND UNTIL, CENTRELINK PROVES TO A COURT THAT YOU WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ERROR THAT CAUSED ALLEGED OVER-PAYMENTS, CENTRELINK’S DECISIONS ARE, IN LAW, NO DECISION AT ALL.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE HIGH COURT SAID IN MARCH 2002 IN THE BHARDWAJ DECISION:

“…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.”

When Malcolm Turnbull, Barnaby Joyce, Alan Tudge, Christian Porter and Hank Jongen make statements indicating that they have the “right” to force you to repay alleged overpayments if you cannot prove that Centrelink made a mistake within 21-day, they are making criminally fraudulent statements.

HELLICAR YET AGAIN:

The Hellicar decision can be read at:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/17.html

Here are the exact words from paragraphs 141, 142 and 143 of the Hellicar decision; pay close attention to the words that are in italic print” and ignore the boxed [reference numbers.]

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

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

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

 

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

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

I REPEAT:

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

No Court decision as to the facts of the matter, then, in law, no decision at all.

It really is that simple,

Ron Medlicott – A Christian volunter lay-advocate for justice in Australia.

 

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

Part 42 C. AAT 2016/5334 may be the legal precedent that finally ends 40 years of persecution, intimidation, fraud and murder, e.g it may be able to shut down Malcolm Turnbull’s infamous Tudge Fudge Fraud.

AAT 2016/5334

Overpaid by Centrelink, been breached, or had your disability pension cancelled?

IF ANY OF THOSE ISSUES APPLY TO YOU, THEN YOU HAVE BEEN DEFRAUDED AND AAT 2016/5334 IS A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO USE THIS WEB POSTING TO SEE THAT THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS CRIME ARE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE.

  Note: The short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-T2

AAT 2016/5334 – Statement of Facts & Issues, page 3 extract:

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

 On February 21st 2017, I submitted a detailed Statements of Facts & Issues for AAT appeal case file 2016/5334 that was based upon the High Court’s Hellicar, Bhardwaj and Coco decisions and the South Australian Supreme Court’s Police v Butcher decision. The very next day, the lawyer representing the Federal Government, Ms. Elizabeth Ulrick, conceded the merits of the appeal submission within a day and issued a “Without prejudice” offer that reset the situation to before Centrelink’s arbitrary decision to deprive the applicant of a disability pension.

In effect, the tort action started by centrelink by depriving a disability pensioner of his pension was  settled ‘out of court’.  The AAT 2016/5334 decision can now be used as a legal precedent to refute Malcom Turnbull’s ruthless Tudge Fudge Fraud;  a fraudulent abuse of power scheme that, if Andrew Wilkie MP is correct, may be fraudulently scamming as many as 4,000 people per day.

 

The Devil really is in the detail.

40 years of criminal abuse of power by successive federal government under both Liberal and Labour Prime Ministers cannot be summed up in a single Word Press posting, or even in a 1,000  postings such as this. Therefore there needs to be an easier way for the estimated 5 million  victims of Waivergate, and Breachgate the current ruthless Tudge Fudge Fraud, to receive justice.

PLAN A: If you live in South Australia and have been scammed by the Turnbull Government, one of the easiest ways to deal with the Tudge Fudge Fraud is to take all of the paperwork that Centrelink sent you to the nearest police station and file a fraud complaint under sections 138,  142.2 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act and sections 171 and 172 of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act. You can ask the police to obtain copies of all of the documents that were submitted by the applicant’s Representative to the New South branch of the Federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Anyone living elsewhere in Australia can do the same but you may have to do your own research on your state’s blackmail, intimidation and extortion laws.

Alternately, why not go with PLAN B?

Print out Parts 42, 42B and this posting and take them to the police. The text below is written for police officers in every state to consider; however, the mission-critical question is just how many people will snap up this golden opportunity to fight for justice? With the possibility of 5 million or so victims and a death toll that may be around the 100,000 mark [from all causes], the way is open for the largest criminal investigation in Australia’s history IF, I repeat, IF victims can overcome their fear and doubt and file complaints with their local police.

I hope that many survivors of what is, in law, effectively a humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions, will find the courage and the faith to use this letter and hold those responsible for 40 years of inhuman abuse accountable for their actions.

Dear Police Officer:

If you are an ordinary reasonable person, you will initially disbelieve everything that you are told by people who may bring a print-out of this posting to you. However, facts do not cease to exist simply because you may have trouble believing them. You must act in a professional manner and set aside any personal disbelief or unbelief and look at the facts of the matter, e.g. following irrefutable evidence. The court case below are real and the ramifications of these decisions cannot be ignored.

 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.” 

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.”

 

The High Court’s  Hellicar and Bhardwaj make very clear the fact that, in law, Centrelink has to prove any claims concerning overpayments, alleged ‘breach of contract, and eligibility for welfare benefits, in a court of law. Contrary to populist driven policies and practices, and claims made by prime Minister Turn, Attorney-General George Brandis, and other members of the Turnbull Government, welfare recipients do not have to prove that Centrelink is wrong.

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

As can be seen and heard in the above video segment of an ABC program, Q and A, that was broadcast on 20th February 2017, using a computer to automatically assume that welfare recipients are at fault as George Brandis and Tanya Slibersek have been doing it since 2011 has been very convenient. Unfortunately, as the following case law example below makes quite clear, administrative convenience is, in law, not a valid reason for violating common law rights, let alone constitutional rights, which are the ultimate in inalienable legal rights in Australia.

Coco v R [1994] HCA 15 (13 April 1994)

Below are verbatim quotes from paragraphs  8 and 9 of this High Court decision; they contains to binding legal precedents that are relevant to the practice used by the Federal Government-of-the-day since 2011 to initiate tort computer generated tort actions:

 In accordance with that principle, a police officer who enters or remains on private property without the leave or licence of the person in possession or entitled to possession commits a trespass unless the entry or presence on the premises is authorized or excused by law ((2) Halliday v.Nevill (1984) 155 CLR at 10 per Brennan J; Plenty v. Dillon (1991) 171 CLR at 639 per Mason CJ, Brennan and Toohey JJ, 647 per Gaudron and McHugh JJ).

“Statutory authority to engage in what otherwise would be tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and unambiguous language.”

 Indeed, it has been said that the presumption is that, in the absence of express provision to the contrary, the legislature did not intend to authorize what would otherwise have been tortious conduct ((3) Plenty v. Dillon (1991) 171 CLR at 648 per Gaudron and McHugh JJ; Morris v. Beardmore (1981) AC 446 at 455, 463; Colet (1981) 119 DLR (3d) at 527-528.). But the presumption is rebuttable and will be displaced if there is a clear implication that authority to enter or remain upon private property was intended. Such an implication may be made, in some circumstances, if it is necessary to prevent the statutory provisions from becoming inoperative or meaningless.  However, as Gaudron and McHugh JJ observed in Plenty v. Dillon ((4) (1991) 171 CLR at 654.):

 “(I)nconvenience in carrying out an object authorized by legislation is not a ground for eroding fundamental common law rights”.

  1. 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] UKHL 6;(1985) AC 1054 at 1065; see also Marcel v. Commissioner of Police (1992) Ch 225 at 234;


Lord Browne-Wilkinson, “The Infiltration of a Bill of Rights”, (1992) Public Law 397 at 404-408.). That approach is consistent with statements of principle made by this Court, to which we shall shortly refer. An insistence on the necessity for express words is in conformity with earlier judicial statements in England which call for express authorization by statute of any abrogation or curtailment of the citizen’s common law rights or immunities. Thus, in Raymond v. Honey, Lord Bridge of Harwich stated that ((6) [1981] UKHL 8(1983) 1 AC 1 at 14.) :
Thus, in Raymond v. Honey, Lord Bridge of Harwich stated that ((6) [1981] UKHL 8(1983) 1 AC 1 at 14.):

“a citizen’s right to unimpeded access to the courts can only be taken away by express enactment”.

[MY COMMENT:}

The above statements about “clear wording”, “inconvenience” not being reasonable grounds for eroding common law rights, and the above statement re “a citizen’s right to unimpeded access to the courts can only be taken away by express enactment” all reinforce the Hellicar decision at paragraph 143, i.e. “deciding the facts of the matter is a matter for the courts.”

 

POLICE v BUTCHER [2016] SASC 130 (17 August 2016)

Centrelink’s ISIS computer system is not a legal entity and, whilst it may be convenient to do so, it is not able to initiate tort actions, e.g. accuse people of being overpaid. In addition, the ISIS computer is extremely dysfunctional and its output, in law, constitutes UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE. In August 2016, a South Australian Supreme Court decision, Police v Butcher, highlighted the need for evidence that was, on the balance of probability, extremely reliable and credible. The findings of this case can be read at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SASC/2016/130.html

Note the KEY WORDS:

EVIDENCE – PROOF – FACILITATING PROOF – MATTERS RELATING TO MACHINES, PROCESSES AND OTHER DEVICES

EVIDENCE – PROOF – STANDARD OF PROOF – STANDARD OF SATISFACTION – SUFFICIENCY – GENERALLY

Minor failures in meeting Austrain Standards for recalibration of a LIDAR speed gun undermined the validity of SAPOL’s case and the Supreme Court rulked that Mr. Butcher’s speeding penalties, be set aside. In making this decision, not only did the SA Supreme Court undermine thousands of other speeding fines, the court under-minded Centrelink’s use of a computer sytem that in 2016, was wrong 107,000 times out of 243,000 times in claiming welfare recipients had been overpaid.

DO THE MATHS: 107,000/243,000 X 100 IS  AN ERROR RATE OF 44.03%

No could could reasonably base a civil action action decision on a computer with such a high acknowledged rate of error. In fact, on the balance of probability, this extreme dysfunctional-ism, when combined with the use of inadequately trained staff who do not hold current competency  AS 2708 Keyboard certification skills or appropriate qualifications to make the decisions that they assume they have a ‘right’ to make, may be the prime causes of billions of dollars in over-payment errors.

The statement of Facts & issues submissions in AAT 2016/5334 highlighted these deficiencies and the failure of Ms. Ulrick to challenge these statements of fact means that they can legitimately be used as a legal precedent by any other person who wants to challenge the validity of Centrelink’s fraudulent tortious conduct claims.

CRIMINAL ABUSE OF POWER:

It may be very convenient for the government-of-the-day to misuse federal legislation to force unsuspecting welfare recipients, who do not know about the above case law decisions, to try and prove the impossible, i.e. that Commonwealth errors have occurred and the alleged debt must therefore be waived, this tactic is a very serious criminal abuse of power that violates numerous federal criminal statutes, e.g. section 142.2, section 149.1 and section 138. When this abuse results in fatalities, in most states, these deaths are homicides that, once reviewed in a coroner’s court, may be re-classified as Murders for financial gain.

In South Australia, all suicides that are triggered by this criminal abuse of power are murders under section 13.7 of the SA criminal code.

13A—Criminal liability in relation to 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.

Similar provisions apply in all other states and territories, e.g. section 18.1 in News South wales, section 302.4 in Queensland, section 279.4 in Western Australia, section 279.4

Most communications from Centrelink contain a menacing threat, i.e. to deprive a welfare recipient of the means to subsist if non-compliance with Centrelink’s often unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful, demands or  commands are not obeyed. In effect, Centrelink’s approach to communication with the people of Australia is “do as we say or we will deprive you of the means to survive.”

The Tasmanian criminal code may contain one of the best clearly worded examples of just how unlawful this activity is:

  1. 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.

Charge: Threatening to murder.

Statistics contained in Centrelink annual reports and quarterly public accountability reports make it quite clear that this is not an idle, threat. For example in FY 2000-01, Centrelink deprive 346.078 impoverished people of the their constitution right to a welfare payment. Whilst the Howard Government may have trumpeted this as “sound economic management”, it was in fact a criminally reckless abuse of power that violated Genocide and Crimes against Humanity provisions within articles 6 and 7 of the Rome Statute:

162A. Failing to report the killing of a person

(1) In this section,

proper authority means any of the following:

(a) a police officer;

(b) a correctional officer within the meaning of the Corrections Act 1997;

(c) a probation officer within the meaning of the Corrections Act 1997;

(d) a Crown Law Officer.

(2) A person is guilty of a crime if he or she –

(a) discovers that another person has been killed; and

(b) fails without reasonable excuse to report that discovery to a proper authority as soon as practicable.

Charge: Failing to report the killing of a person.

(3) A person is guilty of a crime if he or she –

(a) discovers that another person is being subjected to conduct that, if repeated or continued, is reasonably likely to result in that other person being killed; and

(b) fails without reasonable excuse to report that discovery to a proper authority as soon as practicable.

[MY COMMENT] When it comes to hiding the serial murders of an unknown number of people who died as a direct consequence of the deliberate violation of civil rights, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill’s letter is crucial evidence of the way in which  as yet unnumbered of the serial murders have been concealed by politicians and bureaucrats.skill-certified

DON’T ASK – DON’T TELL; How to hide your murders? The solution is very simple; do not mention the fatalities in official reports because you have not bothered to collect the statistics that should be in these reports. What makes it even easier, the senators on senate oversight committees never ask about the easily foreseeable deaths toll that their legislation could cause.

Charge: Failing to report the impending killing of a person.

(4) A person is guilty of a crime if he or she –

(a) discovers that the killing of another person is being planned; and

(b) fails without reasonable excuse to report that discovery to a proper authority as soon as practicable.

Charge: Failing to report the planned killing of a person.

(5) Without limiting the matters that may constitute a reasonable excuse for the purposes of subsection (2), (3) or (4), a person is excused from reporting a discovery to a proper authority under this section if –

(a) the person knows or reasonably suspects that –

(i) another person has already reported the discovery to a proper authority; or

(ii) a proper authority has already made the same discovery; or

(b) reporting the discovery would disclose information that is privileged on the ground of legal professional privilege.

A really sickening aspect of 5 (b) above is the use of parliamentary privilege to conceal these murders and the Australian Federal Police turning a blind-eye to these murders and allowing the defrauding and murder of welfare recipients to continue for years. Consider these documents, which have the cumulative effect of concealing serial murders for years and allowing the number of deaths to rise to levels that are now well and truly unbelievable:

LEGCON committee gag - undated but posted to me in November 2005

A Check on submissions to the Anti-Terrorism Bill #2 Inquiry will show that submission 287 is officially “Not yet available”. As this letter reveals, it is secretly classified as confidential.

ewre-irrelevant

7-07-2004-denley-page-1

7-07-2004-denley-page-2

The ACMA does not investigate alleged offenders

11-05-10 ACC refusal to investigate the Federal Police

The Australian Crime Commission is yet one more crime fighting agency that ducked for cover when the issue the possibility that the Federal Police and the Howard Government had done a ‘dirty deal’ dropped into their lap.

 

1-3-10 ECA Senate Committee gag.

Another “don’t copy, don’t distribute” Senate gag intended to prevent the general public from finding out about the death toll caused by the Howard Government’s illegal Breaching performance Indicator target Quotas.

AFP refusal to investigate Perksgate email

 

Ron Medlicott

TRT & Christian volunteer lay-advocate.

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

Part 42B: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. The Hellicar “H-Bomb” nuked Malcolm Turnbull’s Tudge Fudge Fraud.

The Hellicar “H-Bomb” nuked Malcolm Turnbull’s Tudge Fudge Fraud.

The short URl for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-Sf

Cop this lot:

  1. On 21st February 2017, as the Representative of a welfare recipient, I submitted a statement of facts to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

  2. The next day, [22nd February], I was kept out of the loop by the lawyer representing the Department of Social Services, who sent a ‘Without Prejudice’ offer directly to the applicant that gave 100% of what we were fighting to achieve for the applicant.

  3. The applicant was so pleased that he immediately signed and returned the documents, without seeking my ideas on the merit of doing so.

  4. This is not a good idea as such offers can contain ‘time-bomb traps, e.g. waiving the right to seek compensation for abuses of power by Centrelink.

  5. Once received by the DSS lawyer, the signed documents were fast-tracked through the AAT – allowable under the AAT but the Depurt President failed to check that the ‘Without predjudice’ offer had been made in the proper manner, i.e. submitted to me first.

Redacted 2016_5334Bbjpg

Redacted 2016_5334

2016_5334Ba

In addition to the ‘cover letter’ in part 42, i.e. my last posting, I also provided Volumes 3, 2 and 1 of The Emcott Report and several Emcott Report issues papers as part of the submission.

the-advocate-cropped

emcott-volume-2

IP8

The message in all of the above is that HELLICAR and Bhardwaj are Tudge Fudge Fraud killers. If Centrelink says you have been overpaid, just insist that they have made a mistake and if they wish to pursue the claim, it is a matter for the courts, not the AAT.

The irony is, that you can quote Hellicar, Bhardwaj, Police v Butcher AND you can also quote AAT 2016/5334 as case law references for Centrelink to consider.

 

 

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

Part 42. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. A redacted cover letter to the case officer handling an AAT appeal.

Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity are gaining more publicity as the Turnbull Government ruthlessly pushed the Tudge Fudge Fraud. The text in this posting is a redacted copy of a submission to a case officer in an upcoming Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

SHARE ME WITH THIS URL:  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-Rz

Anyone sucked into challenging a Centrelink appeal on Centrelink’s terms needs to read every single word in this posting.

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

To:      Mr. Mark Tange

Case Service Officer

AAT

GPO Box 9956

Sydney NSW 2001

Your ref: 201?/????

Dear Mr. Tange,

Attached is a copy of a letter of authority, a copy of which should already be in your files as I did request that Mr. ??????es forward a copy to the AAT when he signed the copy that he posted back to me.

I appreciate that in practical terms, your role in this appeal is to be a central point or conduit for collection and transmission of information and that your role does not involve making any judgements on the merits of the information that you receive. However, although you should have received from Mr. ??????es notification by both email and letter of my appointment as his representative in this tort action, I have not been officially advised as to the name and contact details for the person representing the Secretary of the DSS. I therefore write to you on the belief that my communications will be forwarded to the appropriate persons involved in this fraudulent Dickensian Bleak House farce of a tort action brought on by the Department of Human Services with the full endorsement of a Federal Parliament that has demonstrated scant regard for due process of in welfare torts actions.

“It seems, however, that even quite rigorous admissibility standards are not sufficient to address all the challenges posed by scientific and technical evidence.

Clear professional standards, appropriate training, credentialing and quality control for expert witnesses have the potential to address more directly the sorts of problems that arise from the evidence of unqualified, careless, overworked or even unscrupulous experts. Finally, the legal profession and the judiciary need to improve their scientific literacy.”

“THE CHALLENGES OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE” The Honourable Thomas A. Cromwell, Scottish Council of Law Reporting. Macfadyen Lecture 2011 March 2011

One of the primary characteristics of the secretary’s tort action against Mr. ??????es is the fact that at no time as any person with appropriate scientific and technical expertise being involved in the decision-making process. Even worse, Mr. ??????es legal rights have been deliberately violated.

On 3 May 2012 the High Court handed down its decision in ASIC v Hellicar. Your attention is drawn to the following three paragraphs:

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

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

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

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

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

Note that in paragraph 141 the court’s finding was that the determination of the primary facts of the matter in disputes between a regulator and another party is not within the jurisdiction of the regulator. At paragraph 143 the court was most emphatic with the statement that the proposition that public interest requires that the facts upon which a regulatory authority relies in order to make a decision requires that the facts as to what actually occurred must be adduced by a court. Once a decision is disputed, the Secretary has no jurisdiction to determine the facts of the matter. In 2002, the High Court ruled that paragraph 53 in the Bhardwaj decision that a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is to be properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all.

  1. There is, in our view, no reason in principle why the general law should treat administrative decisions involving jurisdictional error as binding or having legal effect unless and until set aside. A decision that involves jurisdictional error is a decision that lacks legal foundation and is properly regarded, in law, as no decision at all[33]. Further, there is a certain illogicality in the notion that, although a decision involves jurisdictional error, the law requires that, until the decision is set aside, the rights of the individual to whom the decision relates are or, perhaps, are deemed to be other than as recognised by the law that will be applied if and when the decision is challenged. A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.

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

“As a general rule, once [an administrative] tribunal has reached a final decision in respect to the matter that is before it in accordance with its enabling statute, that decision cannot be revisited because the tribunal has changed its mind, made an error within jurisdiction or because there has been a change of circumstances … To this extent, the principle of functus officio applies. It is based, however, on the policy ground which favours finality of proceedings rather than the rule which was developed with respect to formal judgments of a court whose decision was subject to a full appeal. For this reason I am of the opinion that its application must be more flexible and less formalistic in respect to the decisions of administrative tribunals which are subject to appeal only on a point of law.”[34]

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

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

  1. 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.

As can be seen from the above Bhardwaj findings, the High Court further stated that if a decision is made in respect to a person rights but, because of jurisdictional error a decision that in law, is no decision at all, then, the duty to make the decision remains unperformed.

The first step any appeal process at all levels, from administrative review officer to the Federal Court starts with the question “what was the findings of fact adduced by a court upon which this decision was based?” If there is no court decision upon which the facts of the matter were used to make a decision, then, in law, no decision has been made and therefore the only decision any appeals tribunal can make is that there is no decision to be appealed.

In Mr. ???????es appeal, the failure of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to personally verify that the original decision was in law, a legally valid decision, was disgraceful. The Hellicar decision may not be published on the AGS legal briefing paper’s website but details of this decision were made available to both the chief legal counsel for the Department of human services and the President of the AAT, Justice Duncan Kerr, in December 2015. You will note that that is at least three months prior to Mr. ??????es being deprived of his disability pension without any determination being made court.

Illegal Search: The competency issue of “ought to know”.

The issue of illegal search is also a major legal area of contention in the actions of the Secretary in conducting tortious conduct against Mr. ??????es, and as yet un-numbered masses of unsuspecting victims of this criminal abuse of power.

In Boughey v R [1986] HCA 29; (1986) 161 CLR 10 (6 June 1986), paragraph 31 contains the following finding statement by Chief Justice Gibbs:

  1. After amendment of some typographical errors, the transcript record of the relevant passage in his Honour’s summing up reads as follows:

“The phrase to which I would like to direct your attention mainly here is ‘ought to have known’.

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

The phrase “ought to know” is used some 20 times in Boughey and this is a legal principle that applies to all persons, who engage in legal actions against welfare recipients, i.e. politicians, administrators and Officers of the Court, especially those who preside in AAT appeals. The risks of precipitating fatal hearts attacks or strokes, or of triggering suicides amongst vulnerable impoverished people with known high levels of potentially fatal health problems is known and the concepts of lawyers as weapons of murder, whilst it may seem bizarre, is an appalling reality in 2017 that is made even more appalling that those most responsible for these fatalities regard them as “irrelevant.” It is vital to note that during the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunals hearings, the excuses “I was only doing my job” and/or “I was only following orders” were not acceptable excuses for killing people.

AAT case file 201?/???? was once example of a Senior AAT Member casually disregarding the risk to the life of the applicant posed by a manifestly fraudulent tort that was made glaringly obvious by the withholding of crucial evidence. Had the applicant dies, the presiding Member could have faced homicide charges under section 279(4) of the Western Australian Crimes Act.

However, the “ought to know” precedent also applies to all AAT personnel who are authorized to review appeals by welfare recipients, i.e. they “ought to know” about Hellicar, Bhardwaj, Coco and other court decisions, e.g. Police v Butcher, when reviewing appeals.

The first question that must be asked at any AAT hearing is, “What are the finding of fact as adduced by a court?”

The responsibility for the asking of this question rests not with the applicant, who may absolutely zero legal skills and knowledge pertaining to the AAT appeals process; it the foundation question for all AAT appeals and until it is asked and answered, the appeal proceeds no further. If there is no finding as to the primary matters of the facts as adduced by a court, the only option, as per Bhardwaj, is to declare that, in law, no decision has been made and therefore the AAT has no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter.

The directive given to Mr. ??????es on 23rd December 2016 is an unlawful search directive because there is no evidence that the original decision referred to by the Conference Registrar, Ms. Athena Ingall, is, in law, a legally valid decision and therefore, Ms. Ingall had no legal jurisdiction to order Mr. ??????es to provide medical information concerning the ‘in law, no decision’ decision.

The original decision to review Mr. ??????es disability status was another decision that, in law, was also a case of no decision at all, which was used to justify an illegal search for new medical evidence that could then be used to deprive Mr. ??????es of his constitutional right to a disability allowance. Since such an allowance is a constitutional right, the legal grounds for depriving Mr. ??????es of this right must be beyond reproach, but such is not the case.

Coco v R [1994] HCA 15 (13 April 1994)

Paragraph 8 of this case contains to important precedents that are directly relevant to the practice used by the Federal Government-of-the-day since 2011 to initiate tort computer generated tort actions:

 In accordance with that principle, a police officer who enters or remains on private property without the leave or licence of the person in possession or
entitled to possession commits a trespass unless the entry or presence
on the premises is authorized or excused by law ((2) Halliday v.Nevill (1984) 155 CLR at 10 per Brennan J; Plenty v. Dillon (1991) 171 CLR at 639 per Mason CJ, Brennan and Toohey JJ, 647 per Gaudron and McHugh JJ).

Statutory authority to engage in what otherwise would be tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and unambiguous language.

Indeed, it has been said that the presumption is that, in the absence of express provision to the contrary, the legislature did not intend to authorize what would otherwise have been tortious conduct ((3) Plenty v. Dillon (1991) 171 CLR at 648 per Gaudron and McHugh JJ; Morris v. Beardmore (1981) AC 446 at 455, 463; Colet (1981) 119 DLR (3d) at 527-528.). But the presumption is rebuttable and will be displaced if there is a clear implication that authority to enter or remain upon private property was intended. Such an implication may be made, in some circumstances, if it is necessary to prevent the statutory provisions from becoming inoperative or meaningless.  However, as Gaudron and McHugh JJ observed in Plenty v. Dillon ((4) (1991) 171 CLR at 654.):

 

“(I)nconvenience in carrying out an object authorized by legislation is not a ground for eroding fundamental common law rights”.

  1. 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] UKHL 6;(1985) AC 1054 at 1065; see also Marcel v. Commissioner of Police (1992) Ch 225 at 234;
    Lord Browne-Wilkinson, “The Infiltration of a Bill of Rights”, (1992) Public Law 397 at 404-408.). That approach is consistent with statements of principle made by this Court, to which we shall shortly refer. An insistence on the necessity for express words is in conformity with earlier judicial statements in England which call for express authorization by statute of any abrogation or curtailment of the citizen’s common law rights or immunities. Thus, in Raymond v. Honey, Lord Bridge of Harwich stated that ((6) [1981] UKHL 8(1983) 1 AC 1 at 14.) :
    Thus, in Raymond v. Honey, Lord Bridge of Harwich stated that ((6) [1981] UKHL 8(1983) 1 AC 1 at 14.):

“a citizen’s right to unimpeded access to the courts can only be taken away by express enactment”.

Hellicar emphatically endorsed this decision as does Bhardwaj.

And, in Morris v. Beardmore, Lord Scarman observed ((7) (1981) AC at
463.):
“When for the detection, prevention, or prosecution of crime Parliament confers upon a constable a power or right which curtails the rights of others, it is to be expected that Parliament intended the curtailment to extend no further than its express authorisation.”

  1. The insistence on express authorization of an abrogation or curtailment of a fundamental right, freedom or immunity must be understood as a requirement for some manifestation or indication that the legislature has not only directed its attention to the question of the abrogation or curtailment of such basic rights, freedoms or immunities but has also determined upon abrogation or curtailment of them. The courts should not impute to the legislature an intention to interfere with fundamental rights. Such an intention must be clearly manifested by unmistakable and unambiguous language. General words will rarely be sufficient for that purpose if they do not specifically deal with the question because, in the context in which they appear, they will often be ambiguous on the aspect of interference with fundamental rights ((8) See Chu Kheng Lim v. Minister for Immigration(1992) 176 CLR 1at 12 per Mason CJ).

In the Reasons for Judgement prepared by Justice Toohey, the High Court’s ruling that “Statutory authority to engage in what otherwise would be tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and unambiguous language.”  Therefore, unless there are very specific, very clear words are in the Social Security Act, or in the Social Security (Administration) Act that authorize a medical review of a disability pensioner on the extremely dubious grounds that a welfare recipient has submitted an inquiry requesting information from Centrelink, there was never any Reasonable Grounds that provided legally valid Probable Cause for the initiation of a medical review of Mr. ??????es medical status. The High Court’s Kioa decision also contains a number of points of law relevant to the principle that the law cannot be applied in a capricious manner by the Parliament of agents of the Parliament

In Kioa v West [HCA 81], (18 December 1985) at 38 of his findings, Justice Brennan stated that information that is “….credible, relevant and significant to the decision to be made” could not be withheld.

However, in determining “reasonable grounds” that may constitute “probable cause” for a ‘Request for information”, i.e. a search for information, the decision must be made by a competent, qualified, authorized person, and not a machine, and the “reasonable grounds” must be based upon facts or issues that are Credible, Relevant and Significant enough to justify such a search. If there are no “reasonable grounds”  that provide “probable cause” any requests for information constitute an abuse of power under section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) and, as such, any and all requests, including subsequent requests are, as per Coco, tainted, i.e. “poisoned fruit” requests that are legally invalid.

In the absence of very clear specific wording within the Social Security Act or the Social Security (Administration) Act, that clearly authorizes these searches, the Secretary is thus treading on areas of legal rights where angels fear to tread. Paragraph 25 in Justice Brennan’s Kioa decision underscores this:

If a power is apt to affect the interests of an individual in a way that is substantially different from the way in which it is apt to affect the interests of the public at large, the repository of the power will ordinarily be bound or entitled to have regard to the interests of the individual before he exercises the power. No doubt the matters to which the repository is bound or is entitled to have regard depend on the terms of the particular statute and, if there be no positive indications in its text, the subject matter, scope and purpose of the statute must be looked at to determine whether the repository is bound or is entitled to have regard to individual interests (Water Conservation and Irrigation Commission (N.S.W.) v. Browning (1947) 74 CLR 492, at p 505).

When the repository is bound or is entitled to have regard to the interests of an individual, it may be presumed that observance of the principles of natural justice conditions the exercise of the power, for the legislature can be presumed to intend that an individual whose interests are to be regarded should be heard before the power is exercised. Therefore the presumption applies to any statutory power the exercise of which is apt to affect the interests of an individual alone or apt to affect his interests in a manner which is substantially different from the manner in which its exercise is apt to affect the interests of the public. Of course, the presumption may be displaced by the text of the statute, the nature of the power and the administrative framework created by the statute within which the power is to be exercised.

Thus in Pearlberg v. Varty (1972) 1 WLR 534(1972) 2 All ER 6, when a commissioner gave leave ex parte to raise an assessment to tax, the taxpayer challenged the decision although his legal rights were unaffected by it. The decision was held to be valid. The text of the statute, the kind of limited interest that was affected and the statutory provision allowing the taxpayer a full opportunity to challenge his liability to tax at a later stage displaced the presumption.

Phrases or statements such as “the presumption may be displaced by the text of the statute”, again emphasize the need for very specific, very clear wording if a person’s constitutional or legal rights are at issue. If a presumed power or administrative “right” is not clearly specified in legislation, then the presumed power or administrative right is a non-existent administrative fiction.

Justice Brennan’s comments at 38 in Kioa are also extremely significant, not only to Mr. ??????es, but to the entire nation as the Department of Human Services has yet to disclose the death toll that may have been caused by it unconstitutional methods of engaging in tortious conduct.

“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.

This well-known finding in Kioa raises the question as to what information can be withheld from an applicant appealing a decision. The High Court’s answer to that question is that if it is credible, relevant and significant to the matter under review, then the information cannot be withheld. How then can the findings in AATA XXX be justified given that the above precedent was violated, as was Article 11.1 of the Privacy Principles Act and sections 142.2 and 149.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

This dysfunctional justice for welfare recipients is textbook “Mushroom Tunnel Syndrome”, i.e. exploit ignore of the law and defecate on their civil rights.

ANOTHER DISCOVERY QUESTION SET:

  1. Since the first AAT decision in November 1976, how many times have presiding AAT Members handed down findings that were based upon ‘original decisions’ that are, in law, “no decision at all”?

  2. How many times have tort claims by the Secretary demonstrated scant regard for the “rigorous admissibility standards are not sufficient to address all the challenges posed by scientific and technical evidence?”

When it comes to the rigorous admissibility standards posed by scientific and technical evidence, as Justice Cromwell pointed out in his speech the challenges of scientific evidence clear professional standards, appropriate training, appropriate credentialing and quality control are absolutely vital in order to ensure that a fair and just decision is made.

However, the facts of the matter in the Secretary’s tort action against Mr. ??????es are that there is a total lack of appropriate expertise when it comes to the making of the original decision that is deprived Mr. ??????es of his constitutional right to a disability pension.

Please note the following points of matters of fact that have significant ramification in law:

  1. Although the Department of Human Services ‘ISIS’ computer system is not a legal entity and therefore is not able to mount a tort action against a legal entity as the statements made by Senator Brandis and Ms Slibersek on the ABC’s Q and A program revealed it has been used since 2011, for administrative convenience, to initiate unconstitutional, procedural fairness violating tort actions.

  • The question of law is, how many times has this systemic violation of civil rights occurred?

  1. In law, the ISIS computer system is ‘not a legal expert’ upon which are scientifically accurate medical decision can be based. It is in fact an extremely dysfunctional system that has been plagued with problems including, undocumented system code and unexpected outputs including 73,000 false debt claims on 1st January 2016..

  • How many times have these systemic deficiencies been made known to a court in tort actions?

  1. Data entry often entered by uncertified data entry operators who do not hold current competency AS 2708/20xx certification.

  • Was the data entry operator who entered Mr. ??????es unlawfully obtained, updated medical data into the ISIS computer system AS 2708 certified at 100% typing accuracy.

  1. As Thomas Cromwell stated, “…rigorous admissibility standards are not sufficient to address all the challenges posed by scientific and technical evidence.”

  2. The question of law in Mr. ??????es case is whether or not the data entry operator held appropriate qualifications and current competency certificate when inputting Mr. ??????es medical data into the ISIS system?

  3. No matter how “scientific” the 20 Point Scoring system may sound, it is simply the use of computer technology to bluff people into believing that it is a machine that can be pre-programmed to output anything that the programmers require, i.e. it is not an impartial medical expert.

  • In 2016, 44% in 213,000 tort claims issued by the ISIS computer system were erroneous. The question of law is, would a court rely upon the output of the ISIS computer system in a diminished responsibility appeal by a person accused of murder, e.g. if the psychiatric reports in the Cy Walsh case had been analyzed by ISIS system, would the South Australian Supreme Court have accepted the ISIS 20 Point Score as being legally valid?

  1. In 2015, the Secretary of the Department of Human Services, Ms. Kathryn Campbell, told a Senate oversight committee that the ISIS computer system could not be relied upon in new programs added to the system, i.e. 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.”

  • The question of law that requires answering is, how many times has the output of this obvious unreliable computer system been used as ‘in-house expert evidence’ in Department of Human Services tort actions?

  1. Quite clearly, it is farcical to rely upon such a flawed system to make a medical diagnosis and prognosis that supersedes any medical opinions made by qualified treating medical practitioners and certified diagnostics experts.

  2. The question of law is, why is an acknowledged antiquated, extremely unreliable computer system that “lacks integrity” being regarded as totally reliable in self-assessed tort actions that unconstitutionally by-pass the courts?

Thomas Cromwell’s statement “…rigorous admissibility standards are not sufficient to address all the challenges posed by scientific and technical evidence” was put to the test in Police v Butcher with the court rigorously applying technical standards when reviewing the technical evidence. At all levels of this case, current competency to conduct testing according to empirical national standards was scrutinized. When this rigorous scrutiny revealed procedural testing certification flaws, the Supreme Court ruled that the magistrate’s original decision had been correct, i.e. the accuracy of the testing process meant that balance of probability the accuracy of the Lidar speed gun could not be accurately determined and therefore its computer-generated output could not be relied upon.  For a legally valid decision in Mr. ??????es case, an impartial appeals tribunal or a court would need to be sure, that on the balance of probability, the ISIS output was 100% accurate but this is not possible because:

  1. Only data entered by a data entry operator with a current competency AS 2708 Keyboard Skills certificate that indicates 100% data entry accuracy, for a test period of 5 minutes, not 7hours and 30 minutes, is acceptable if, on the balance of probability, data errors are to be ruled out of consideration by a court.

  2. The empirical measurement of the degree of accuracy of keyboard skills on the date of entry is unknown and in the absence of video evidence of this data input, data entry accuracy cannot be determined.

  3. There is no evidence that the data entry operator possessed current any current competency accredited medical expertise needed to accurate input medical data into the ISIS 20 Point Assessment software.

  4. There is no evidence that the software actually works reliably 100% of the time because the ISIS system is itself so unreliable that a minor change such as changing a data field in a form letter can take a team of programmers 3 months to achieve, a task than on a reliable computer system can be achieved in minutes.

The requirements of the courts make it absolutely essential that only appropriately certified people .who have current competency to undertake the decision process which was used to determine whether or not Mr. ??????es was entitled to retain his disability pension is underscored by the South Australian Supreme Court decision in Police v Butcher.

As a result of inappropriate certification the Supreme Court ruled that it was not possible, on the balance of probability, to accurately determine the speed that Mr. Butcher had been driving at the time of the alleged speeding offence. It goes without saying that the shonky-dodge-the-court-at-all-costs processes used by the Secretary to recover alleged debts, whilst having the appearance of legal validity, are nothing more than a dangerous, deceptive fraudulent abuse of power that violates federal criminal statutes.

The cover page of the enclosed document, THE ADVOCATE, clearly sets the High Court’s views on the proper conduct of tort actions by “regulatory authorities’. However, the devil really is in the details, especially Senator Brandis’ insightful comment on the ABC’s Q and A program about the “terrible human consequences” of what the Turnbull Government has been doing, and made quite clear that there is no intention of ceasing to do.

The acknowledgement of fatalities whilst refusing to cease engaging in the actions that are causing fatalities can possibly be put into an appropriate legal context by this statement from Ratten v R [1974] HCA 35; (25 September 1974):

“The act was cold blooded in the sense that it was deliberate and planned but there is little comfort to the appellant in the fact that he was distressed, even hysterical, when the dreadful act had been done.

Senator Brandis was not hysterical about the deaths caused by the Turnbull Government’s unconstitutional ‘Tudge Fudge Fraud’ methods of ‘alleged-debt’ recovery. Neither Senator Brandis nor Ms. Slibersek displayed any real remorse or genuine contrition for the deaths caused by the fraudulent dodge-the-court-at-all-costs Tudge Fudge Fraud debt recovery methods currently being used to claw back a reported $4.7 billion.

Instead, Senator Brandis and Ms. Slibersek engaged in a bout of political- points-scoring-bickering about these methods that basically amounted to Senator Brandis saying ‘You did it first’, with Ms. Slibersek responding, with ‘Yes George, but you stuffed it up’, i.e. a tacit acknowledgement that when it came to using the ISIS system to defraud and murder welfare recipients, the Gillard and Rudd Governments ‘did it better’ than the Turnbull Government!

Once constitutional obligations and a  plethora of court decisions such as Hellicar, Bhardwaj, Coco, Butcher, Faure and Boughey are factored into that televised spat, what Senator Brandis and Ms. Slibersek were unintentionally doing was confessing that they have been defrauding and murdering welfare recipients in a fast-track, never-mind-the-legalities-of-the-issue attempt to recover ALLEGED overpayments to welfare recipients, that if the consequence of Commonwealth errors, the government-of-the-day has had no legal right to recover.

These are issues that need to be referred, yet again, to law enforcement agencies that have, until now, declined to acknowledge this system fraud and murder, possibly because of the “gravity/sensitivity” of these crimes.

I have written a number of reports that will form part of Mr. ??????es “Facts not yet in evidence” submission if the Secretary of the DSS does not agree to respect Hellicar and Bhardwaj and attempts to use the AAT to rubber-stamp a ‘no jurisdiction’ decision that is, if the High Court is to be believed, “no decision at all.”

The following publicly available information is provided as a basis for discussion concerning the validity of the process that Mr. ??????es has been forced to unlawfully endure because of the Secretary’s ‘no jurisdiction – no decision’ decision.

  1. Hellicar, Bhardwaj, Kioa and Coco are High Court precedents that are more honoured in the breach than the observance and the mounting suicide driven death toll is now finally becoming evident to the general public.

  2. The legal implication of Federal Attorney-General Brandis describing the deaths caused by Centrelink debt recovery methods as “…terrible human consequences” has profound legal implications.

  3. Cutting corners, e.g. deliberately ignoring the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj, Coco and other decisions has ‘opened the door’ to legitimate discovery of the unreported death toll caused by tortious conduct against vulnerable welfare recipients over the last 40 years or so.

  4. There is no such thing as an “un-terrible murder”, and it is most definitely in Mr. ??????es interest, that the following information about these fatalities be provided as a matter of extreme urgency.

  5. As this statute from the South Australian criminal code reveals, crime driven suicides are murder; every state and territory has similar laws

  6. Section 13 (7) Murder by Suicide: A person who, by fraud, duress or undue influence, procures the suicide of another or an attempt by another to commit suicide shall (whether or not he was a party to a suicide pact with the other person) be guilty of murder or attempted murder, as the case may require.

  7. Paragraph 51(xxiiiA) prohibits the links of welfare payments to “civil conscription”, i.e. Work for the Dole. This means that Work for Dole is unconstitutional forced labour, i.e. coercive slavery, which is a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute of the International Court.

  8. Last week a 41-year-old man who had been coerced into a Work for the Dole program being conducted in the City of Playford suffered a near fatal heart attack. Although he has survived, the medical prognosis of the treating cardiac specialist is that he will never work again and will have to survive on a disability support pension.

  9. Unemployment is known to be stressful and stress is known to damage heart muscles, thus increasing the risk of a heart attack when placed under strain.

  10. Unconstitutionally coercing people to engage in forced labour by threatening to deprive them of their constitutional right to a welfare payment is a major crime.

  11. If this coercive activity results in a fatality, then, in law, that death is a murder in South Australia.

  12. Paragraph 51 of the constitution requires “good government” and neither coercive slave labour programs nor systemic fraudulent tort claims programs that by-pass the courts and ignore due process of law when seeking to recover alleged debts qualify as “good government.”

  13. Parliament and government lawyers who dismiss the deaths caused by unconstitutional, foreseeably dangerous welfare policies and practices are not demonstrating “good government” because;

  14. “It is the exposing life to peril that constitutes the crime”

 Commissioners’ 4th report, contained in (1839) 19 Parliamentary Papers, pp.23-25

Section 42C is a politically popular but unconstitutional, recklessly dangerous law that violates the genocide provisions in Section 6 (a), 6(b) and 6(c) of the Rome Statute. This law, which is unconstitutional, states:

Subdivision B—No show no pay failures

42C  No show no pay failures

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

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

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

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

It also violates state laws that prohibit placing life in peril. All fatalities caused by this law are murders under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute and are also either murder or manslaughter due to criminal negligence under state and territory laws. The “Awesome Foursome questions are therefore asks critical questions that the public needs to have answered and so I reiterate them:

The Awesome Foursome questions that need to be answered:

  1. How many times has the Department of Human Services deprived a person of a welfare benefit, e.g. applied a ‘breach’ penalty, a ‘non-compliance failure penalty’, or a ‘No show, no pay’ penalty?

  2. How many victims of this violation of constitutional, legal and human rights were dead when the penalty period expired?

  • How many times has the Department of Human Services issued letters of demand, emails, SMS notifications, and phones calls for alleged debts and failed to have the primary matters of fact adduced by a court as per the Hellicar decision at paragraph 141 – 143?

  1. How many people issued with such arbitrary demands have died, either before payments commenced, or before payments were completed.

Three (not so) bonus questions:

  1. Why are these fatalities unreported by the Department of Human Services in annual reports and public accountability reports, are classified as “secret” by LEG-Con, and have dismissed as “irrelevant” by both the EWRE committee and an AGS lawyer, Ms. S????? ??k L???, who was representing the Secretary of the DSS in AAT case file 201?/?????

  2. Phone 13 32 76 and you will hear a pre-recorded voice state, “For your security, this call will be recorded.” This begs the question as why, in violation of Principle 11 of the Privacy Act, over a period of 2-years, Centrelink could not find the audio recording at the Centre of the AAT 201?/???? case. The failure to do so is totally inconsistent with data security standards such as ISO 15489 and the PROS 11/07 S1 Digitisation Specification and leaves Centrelink open to a fine of $1,200,000 if the missing audio file is not located?

  • In the findings from AAT 201?/????, the basic reason, other than ignoring Hellicar and the concealment of evidence, why Mrs ????e lost her appeal was Senior Member Walsh’s unlawful and unconstitutional findings:

  • That <the applicant’s. “…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.”

The utter absurdity of that unconstitutional finding, which was not based upon court adduced facts but the Tribunal’s own judgement of the facts of the matter, sans the withheld phone call recording, is perhaps best made clear by breaking it down to it component statements of logic.

<the applicant’s “…contention that (s)he acted in reliance of incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone:

  1. “…is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials security recipients.”

  2. This circumstance is not so unusual,

  3. uncommon,

  4. exceptional,

  5. markedly different from the usual run of cases

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

Would an impartial court that was fully conversant with the primary facts of the matter, including the above facts, have rendered such an adverse  judgment of the applicant’s appeal?

Making that judgment even more bizarre is the conflict between Ms. Ingall’s Unlawful Search request for medical information dating from the time of the original decision in March 2016 and this statement from the AATA XXX:

  1. 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.

The statement “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” raises the question as to why the Conference Registrar, Ms. Ingall, ordered Mr. ??????es to make available medical data relating to the original 2016 decision if the AAT’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the Social Security Appeals Tribunal [SSAT] decision.

It is very hard to win an AAT appeal when the presiding AAT Member:

  1. Ought to know of, but ignores, both Hellicar and Bhardwaj;

  2. Ought to know that the withholding of evidence is unlawful;

  • Ought to know that conspiring to hold a ‘trial’ is unlawful;

  • Ought to know that the AAT has no jurisdiction to set aside the Commonwealth’s human rights obligations under 5 international treaties;

  • Ought to know that AAT Members have no jurisdiction to make “findings of fact”, especially ‘findings’ that studiously ignore section 1,237A of the Social Security Act, i.e. the requirement to waive 100% of an alleged debt if it is ‘solely’ a Commonwealth error

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”?

Such a statement would trigger a wave of public outrage and yet this systemic bias apparently is endorsed by acts of omission by Australia’s legal profession. Indeed, when Senator Brandis made his “terrible human consequences” statement, Julian Burnside QC, a member of the Q and A panel, failed to comment on that impromptu, unintentional confession that welfare recipients were being killed, i.e. murdered by the Turnbull Government’s debt recovery process.

It is even harder hard to win an appeal when both the President of the AAT, Justice Duncan Kerr, and the Ombudsman’s Office also ignore all of the above and uphold the AATA 904 decision by ignoring a comprehensive appeal submission that outlined many of the above breaches of law and procedural fairness violations, e.g. the withholding of evidence, no jurisdiction, et cetera.

A supposedly ‘fair and just’ legal system that works like that highlights the basic fact that Centrelink’s “debt” claims are bogus, which explains why Centrelink never seeks a court determination of the primary facts of the matter as per Hellicar.

It is imperative that court orders the Department of Human Services to audit and disclose the answers to the “Awesome Foursome” questions, if those responsible for the on-going murders of welfare recipients are to be reined in.

Last week, a fellow school teacher sought out my advice re a former spouse who had tried to commit suicide and had been on a disability pension for years. This spouse recently received an alleged debt claim of several thousands of dollars and is now gravely concerned that Centrelink’s demand could precipitate a successful suicide attempt.

Two weeks ago, whilst explaining yet another Tudge Fudge Fraud victim how to rebutt Centrelink’s fraudulent claim, I was informed by this person that they were aware of another person who had committed suicide after receiving a huge alleged debt claim. The death toll is mounting and the casual acceptance of this is totally at odds with Justice Brookings statements in R v Faure that it is the placing of life in peril that constitutes the crime.

The casual attitude of both Senator Brandis and Tanya Slibersek, and the majority of Australia’s legal professional, who also “ought to have known” that these deaths are unlawful homicides, is compatible with the “Mindset of Murder” definition in 7.2.1.1 of the Justice College of Victoria Bench Notes:

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; [1]

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

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

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

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

    1. The accused committed acts which caused the victim’s death;

    2. The accused committed those acts voluntarily;

    3. The accused committed those acts while:

      1. intending to kill someone or cause them really serious injury; or

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

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

It is difficult to argue that there was “intent” to engage in an activity knowing that it was probable that death or really serious injury would result given that the death toll now causing growing public concern, is still unreported, secretly classified as “confidential” and officially dismissed as “irrelevant”.

These deaths are extremely foreseeable, e.g. the table in Box 2.2 of the 1998 National Health Priority Areas, Mental health report and more recent reports which detail the scale of Australia’s suicide problem. To these fatalities can be added the huge heart attack and stoke fatalities numbers. Whilst the precise number that can be attributed to DHS tort actions and welfare penalties is as yet unknown, any Federal Court order, which is now highly likely in the wake of Senator Brandis recent comment, is not going to good news for the politicians and public servants responsible for those fatalities.

In addition to requiring details of the death toll caused by “skipping the courts”, I require copies of any emails and other documents that contain references to the Hellicar decision that either the DSS or the DHS may have. Since I was the author of some of those documents, I expect to have true and accurate copies made available to me.

In the HIP Report, Commissioner Hanger was scathing in his criticism of those responsible.

  • Mr Arbib’s recollection was that DEWHA had not done a lot of work about ‘risk to government but his concern was mainly on fraud and malfeasance at that He denies receiving the risk assessment document at this time and said he did not see it prior to 12 February 2010 and referred to an email of 22 February 2010 in support of this contention. It would not have been sufficient, even if the OCG had told Mr Arbib that DEWHA was now taking matters more seriously (which is what he offered), to quell the concern that Mr Arbib earlier had that DEWHA had done insufficient work on risk.

  • I find that Mr Arbib did receive the risk assessment shortly after his request for it and reject his denial of having done so. I do so for these reasons:

    • it is not a request likely, in any event to have been refused given Mr Arbib’s position and seniority;

    • In the weekly update 20 to 26 March 2009 it is recorded that a risk identification workshop was held on 23 Mar It is then recorded: ‘First draft being presented to executives Friday 27 March. Presentation to Senator Arbib on Tuesday 31 March’;

Attorney-General Brandis’ remarks about the “terrible human consequences” highlights and underscores the life-threading danger to Mr. ??????es posed by the failure of the Secretary to comply with Hellicar and Bhardwaj. As the above extract from 7.11.89 – 7.11-90.2 of the Hanger Royal Commission Report indicates, under the Rules of Discovery, internal communications dealing with any prior knowledge that DHS, DSS, and AAT administrators may have had, of the Hellicar decision are documents that can be legitimately be requested and I so request the provision of such documents.  As I am sure that you are aware, the value of these documents, when combined with Senator Brandis’ hasty and impromptu acknowledgement that deaths are occurring is credible, relevant information that provides significant insight into the mindset of those who chose to disregard High Court decisions and conceal any fatalities that may subsequently occur as a consequence of this abuse of power.

[MORE DISCOVERY QUESTIONS]

  1. The number of times that the pseudo Centrelink General Manager, Hank Jongen, has conducted media interviews since first ebbing appointed as the General Manager of the DHS media unit?

  2. The number of times that he has mentioned the Waiver of Debt and Exceptional circumstances laws in media interviews/sessions?

  3. The number of times that Mr. Jongen has explained the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions to the public is also requested.

  4. The number of times that Mr. Jongen, a senior public servant, has acted in the public interest rather than the interest of the federal government of the day.

In Section 14.7.3.2 of the Home Improvement Program Report, Commission Hanger addressed the issue of Risk in government programs. The recommendations are particularly relevant to the as yet unreported fatal impact of the unconstitutional, human rights violating welfare penalties.

 14.7.3.2 RISK CANNOT BE ABROGATED    [Emphasis added.]

  • Government must recognize that as much as it might seek to do so, risk cannot be abrogated.

  • The responsibility of Government is to care for its citizens and;

  • To exercise care and diligence to do everything reasonable to ensure that its citizens are not placed in danger by its actions, particularly risk of death and serious injury.

  • 7.3.2.1 The Australian government should not seek to abrogate responsibility for identified risk.

The risk with Australia’s actuarial focussed welfare policies is that the Department of Human Services, acting on the instructions of a federal government that is committed to saving taxpayers money, regardless of the “irrelevant” death toll, is that taxpayers will have to fund a compensation bill that could bankrupt the nation. That is not “good government.”

Neither is placing Mr. ??????o ??????es life in peril by pursuing a fraudulent tort action that has so far ignored his legal right to have the primary facts of the matter determined by a court before any decision is made.

The paradox of this tort action is that, because there has been no findings as to the primary matters of the fact by a court, there is, in law, no decision. As a consequence, the only decision that the AAT can make is that there is, in law, no decision. Common sense and Bhardwaj dictate that the matter be resolved expediently by agreement between the Secretary and Mr. ??????es.

The alternative is to allow the AAT to either render the correct decision, i.e. in law, there has been no decision and the Secretary must comply with Hellicar and seek a finding as to the facts of the matter from a court before a valid decision can be made.

With an unreported death toll from unconstitutional welfare policies and fraudulent torts that may be close to or even in excess of 100,000 fatalities, allowing the ??????es appeal anywhere near a court is in the public interest for Australia’s 7.3 million welfare recipients. However, whether the actual death toll is 100 or 100,000, the disclosure of that death toll, along with the current Tudge Fudge Fraud death toll is a contingency issue that those directly responsible for these fatalities need to seriously consider.

2 FINAL POINTS OF LAW:

Point #1:

  • As stated previously, in Coco at 8 the High Court that “Statutory authority to engage in what otherwise would be tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and unambiguous language.”

  • Paragraph 5 of the constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the courts, judges and the people.

  • Paragraph 2 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act clearly states that the processes of the AAT must be “informal”.

  • ‘T’ documents are formal documents that must be served in the initial court case; by Act of Parliament, they have no place in an AAT appeal unless both parties agree to their use.

Point # 2:

The clearly worded legislative imperative “informal”, imposes upon AAT case managers, presiding Members and all other federal government employees involved  in AAT appeals to negotiate rather than demand as Ms, Ingall’s did with her Unlawful Search directive dated 23rd December 2016. That demand demonstrated Ms. Ingall’s lack of awareness of what Edward De Bono and commissioner Ian Hanger QC would classify as the “big picture.

On the 1st December 2016, i.e. 22 days BEFORE Ms. Ingall’s directive, the Australian Institute of Health & Welfare issues Elective surgery waiting times (removals data) NMDS 2015-1. This superseded the previously issued data set released on 19/11/2015.

As of 1st June 2016, the absolute minimum waiting time for public patients to see a specialist was in the range of 39 – 260 days. Public patients do not have the right or the power to demand medical reports within 21 days and impose an un-achievable time frame that can then be used to deprive a person of a constitutional benefit is, at best, grossly unprofessional; at worst, it is a criminal abuse of power, for this is a mission-critical “ought-to-know” matter of fact that is sourced from an non-vested-interest federal agency.

Ronald Medlicott

Volunteer Christian lay-advocate representing Mr. ??????o ??????es.

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

Part 41(C) Australia’s irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity”: DOWNPLAYING DISASTER the parallels between the Cloudflare disaster and Senator Brandis’ dismissal of the deaths of welfare recipients.

The current attempt by Cloudflare representatives to downplay a massive security leak provides insight into the real-world efforts to downplay Australia’s secretly classified, officially “irrelevant”, crimes against humanity, i.e. what senator Brandis hypocritically described as theterrible human consequences” of the Turnbull Government’s fraudulent efforts to recover $4.7 Billion by deliberately “skipping the courts.”.

Note the short link URL for this posting is:  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-R5

Details of the Clareflare data security fiasco can be read at this website. Please note that the quotations below are sourced from this website: http://www.pcmag.com/news/351962/cloudflare-leak-exposed-data-from-millions-of-websites

Cloudflare says it patched a bug that could compromise user accounts at popular websites.

 Web services company Cloudflare recently patched a bug that could have exposed a broad range of customer data like passwords, chat transcripts, and other information stored by millions of websites.

“I’m finding private messages from major dating sites, full messages from a well-known chat service, online password manager data, frames from adult video sites, hotel bookings,” Ormandy wrote in a Feb. 19 blog post. “We’re talking full https requests, client IP addresses, full responses, cookies, passwords, keys, data, everything.”

Cloudflare powers many popular websites, including Uber, Fitbit, and OkCupid, Forbes reports. But Cloudflare downplayed the bug’s impact on consumers, explaining in a statement that it had not discovered any evidence of malicious exploits. “The greatest period of impact was from February 13 and February 18 with around 1 in every 3,300,000 HTTP requests through Cloudflare potentially resulting in memory leakage (that’s about 0.00003% of requests),” the company said.

DOWNPLAYING DISASTER:

Note the ‘Lies, damned lies, and statistics’ approach to downplaying a major information security breach that probably violated security data laws around the world:

  1. “that’s about 0.00003% of requests”

  2. WOW, 0.00003% – what’s the big deal with that?

  3. Translate 0.0003% to actual numbers that involve people and you get 3,300,00, i.e. 3 MILLION, THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND breaches of national data privacy laws in countries around the world.

  4. Are you one of the people who have had your privacy breached and personal information such as PASSWORDS compromised?

  5. In Australia, the fine for corporate breaches of Privacy Principles laws is $1,200,000, i.e. real breaches of privacy laws means really big corporate fines.

Perhaps you can now understand why Cloudflare is very keen to downplay the real-world size of this data privacy breach.So what is the parallel with the ABC’s Q and A program last Monday?

HELLICAR & BHARDWAJ

Senator Brandis was quite possibly deliberately downplaying the violating of the legal rights of millions of Australians who have been, or currently are, receiving a welfare benefit.

The High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions “ought to be known” by both Senator Brandis and Tanya Slibersek because the Office of the Solicitor-General produces Legal Briefing Papers for governments and shadow-ministers.

  1. Deliberately ignoring Hellicar and Bhardwaj means the deliberate defrauding of hundreds of thousands of people and any deaths resulting from this fraud are major crimes.

  2. In my home state of South Australia, these deaths can be re-classified as murder and anyone in Australia who has had a fatalities that may have been caused by the unlawful actions of the Department of Human Services are likely to be either Murder or Manslaughter due to criminal negligence.

  3. My recommendation is to request that your state or territory Chief Coroner be informed about Hellicar and Bhardwaj and the role played by Centrelink in triggering a fatal outcome with your family member or friend.

  4. I shall leave no stone unturned in having these fatalities reviewed by authorities to determine just how many heart attacks, strokes, deaths by misadventure, or suicide, are in fact ‘Murder for financial gain’.

  5. On 24th March 2017, I shall be representing a Randwick resident  in an AAT appeal and have already pointed out my concerns that breaching fatalities and any other fatalities that may have been triggered by Centrelink’s ‘Let’s skip the courts’ approach to ‘justice’ may be murders and aI shall be using the “DISCOVERY PROCESS’ to again try and force Centrelink to disclose the number of the as yet unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” deaths that are being concealed from the public.

THE COVER-UP

The constant failure of the Department of Human Services to report what Senator Brandis glibly described as “terrible human consequences.’‘ is another cover-up, but on a far, far larger scale.

  1. Australia’s welfare penalty laws have never been constitutional; in fact the deliberate act of depriving someone of the ability to subsist, i.e. to survive, is a crime under state, territory, federal and international laws.

  2. So what excuse is there for doing this for about 40 years or so?

  3. What excuse is there for never reporting the deaths caused by this legislation?

  4. Is the fact that these deaths are foreseeable homicides a reasonable excuse for the Federal parliament to secretly classify them as “confident” and “irrelevant”?

  5. Is the fact that these deaths are Crimes against Humanity a reasonable excuse for covering them up?

  6. Is the fact that Senator Brandis is the Federal Attorney-General of Australia, a reasonable excuse for his apparent downplaying, i.e. covering up, deaths that are Crimes against Humanity under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of Justice by describing them as ‘unfortunate consequences’ a legitimate action, or is it unacceptable to dismiss these deaths in such an off-hand, casual way?

  7. It should be remembered that in February 2010, Senator Brandis voted for a senate committee of Inquiry into the 4 Home Improvement Program Disaster fatalities.

  8. Senator Brandis also supported a call for the Queensland Government to conduct an inquest into the 3 Home Improvement Program Disaster fatalities that occurred in Queensland, and;

  9. Senator Brandis supported Prime Minister Tony Abbott in setting up the Hanger Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Home Improvement Program Disaster fatalities.

If a Royal commission was justified for the 4 Home Improvement Program fatalities, then surely, another Royal Commission into the Tudge Fudge Fraud is also justified? As a nation, and as individuals, we cannot sit on the sidelines whilst the Turnbull government uses Centrelink to defraud and murder unsuspecting, vulnerable welfare recipients who are totally unaware that they are being defrauded and that any fatalities caused by this fraud are most likely to be, in law, unlawful homicides.

HONOUR OUR ANZAC HEROES:

Remember; the quality of justice that you get is the lowest quality that you accept. 102,000 Aussies have not died so that self-serving politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers can persecute, intimidate, defraud and murder their children and grand-children.

genocide-lawIn order to make submissions, you have to know about these Senate committee inquires. How do impoverished welfare recipients, or even the general public, find out about these hearings?

Do nothing about the ‘unfortunate consequences of the Turnbull Government using a dysfunctional 35-year-old computer system, named ISIS, to defraud the descendants of our nation’s legendary ANZAC heroes is to desecrate their legacy.

Are you prepared to do that? If you are not, then do something to stop this rip-off right now; demand an explanation and don’t put up with any excuses.

102,000 ANZAC heroes gave their lives to make the world a better place. They did not die so that “actuarial savings” could be achieved by killing off what may well be around 100,000 vulnerable Australians since the Federal Parliament first introduced laws that made it “legitimate” to defraud and murder vulnerable  Aussie Battlers.

DEMAND THE TRUTH – NOW!

“…terrible human consequences’

Demand the truth about what Senatoor Brandis so hypocritically described as terrible human consequences.’

No politician, including Senator Brandis and Tanya Slibersek has ever disclosed the rising death toll when asked to do so. In March 2010, I wrote to ALL 226 members of the federal parliament and Neil Skill’s infamous “Centrelink does not collect…” letter was the official response.

Skill certified

Send an email to ronald48@optusnet.com.au and I will send you a digital copy of Volume 3 of The Emcott Report, THE ADVOCATE,  via reply email. Take just 1 hour to read it and then decide for yourself what to do about the terrible human consequences’ of the Tudge Fudge Fraud.

the-advocate-cropped

EXTRACT:

From a Florida prison cell in June 1962, Clarence Earl Gideon wrote a note asking the United States Supreme Court to review his conviction for a crime that he said he didn’t commit. He added that he didn’t have the means to hire a lawyer.

 One year later, in the historic case of Gideon v. Wainright, the United States Supreme Court ruled that people  who cannot afford the cost of their own defence must be given a public defender – an Advocate – provided by the state. With this decision, and with the help of a court-appointed lawyer, Clarence Gideon was re-tried and acquitted.

In Australia, just as Clarence Earl Gideon was so many years ago, welfare recipients are being shafted and are in dire need of a court appointed Advocate to represent them in tort actions brought against them by the Department of Human Services, aka Centrelink. This is especially so with the Turnbull Government targeting a reported 20,000 welfare recipients a week with tort actions that deliberately by-pass Due Process of Law, i.e. not having the facts of the matter decided by the courts. In doing so, the Turnbull Government is following in the footsteps of previous Liberal and Labour led governments that have, over the last 30 – 40 years,  ruthlessly taken advantage of the fact that, like Clarence Gideon, most of the people who are accused of wrong-doing and are penalized by  Centrelink  cannot afford a lawyer.

98 pages, mostly dealing with drop-dead boring case law findings that, as boring as they are, are absolutely crucial in understanding and dealing with Centrelink’s criminal abuses of power.

If you are a welfare recipient, you need to read this free book right now.

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

P.S. Do not call the Australian Federal Police – they are part of the problem, not the solution.

AsJuly 04 denley letter page 1

This deceitful Letter of Demand from Centrelink was deliberate viuolation of Section 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, and yet it was never investigated. How many of these blatantly fraudulent letters have been distributed, and how many deaths have they triggered?  and a Royal Commission needs to find out why the Federal Police protect politicians and bureaucrats from prosecution for fraud and murder.

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