Part 26: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Has Malcolm Turnbull made it possible for Radovan Karadzic to win a Manifest Ostensible Bias appeal in the International Criminal Court of Justice?

Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity could be the key to Radovan Karadzic winning an appeal of his recent conviction in the International Criminal Court of Justice for the alleged massacre of over 8,000 men and boys in the Srebrenica Enclave in 1995. If this happens, the email below from the Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, may prove to be a useful “straw” to add to the camel’s back.

Turnbull email 1Whatever else Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull may say during the upcoming federal election, he cannot say that he did not know about the death toll triggered by Australia’s unconstitutional, human rights violating welfare penalties laws. It is an absolute farce that neither the Department of health nor the departmnent of Human Services have an accurate record of the deaths of Australian residents/citizens. It is even more of disgraceful farce that the DHS actively avoids collecting the statistical data on breaching triggered fatalities, possibly because they are fully aware that these deaths are crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Court of Justice.

Skill certified

The full test of the email to Prime Minister Turnbull is posted at http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-vm

[ Note the shortlink for this posting is:  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-wg   ]

The reality is that any person in Australia who is accused of a homicide can use this email to mount an Apprehended Bias or a Manifest Ostensible Bias appeal against the charged which they have been accused of. Anyone who is not comfortable with that legal reality should demand that those responsible for breaching triggered deaths be investigated and prosecuted for if that happens, then there are no grounds for any appeals on the basis of apprehend bias or manifest ostensible bias.

Re “irrelevant”

EWRE Irrelevant

Australian voters please note: There is no such thing under either Australian law or international human rights conventions as an “irrelevant” death.

Ron Medlicott – A Christian lay advocate for Justice in Australia.

 

 

Posted in News and politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 25: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity:- Yvette D’Arth, the Queensland Justice Minister appears less than keen for Gerard Baden-Clay to have the information posted on this website.

When it comes to Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity:- Yvette D’Arth, the Queensland Justice Minister, appears less than keen for Gerard Baden-Clay to have the information posted on this website. Below is the only response that I have received so far to my requests for the contact details for both Gerard Baden-Clay and his lawyer.

Darth

This letter does not tell me anything that I have already raised in my communications with Ms. D’Arth, i.e. the letter basically tells me what I already know but avoiding answering my request for contact details so that I can brief Gerard Baden-Clay and his legal team on the option of mounting an Apprehended Bias/Manifest Ostensible Bias rebuttal to the Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions appeal.

  1. To whom the benefit by NOT providing the requested information?
  2. I would suggest that the big winner would be the Queensland Government if it can have Gerard Baden-Clay’s murder conviction re-instated.

The problem with letting bureaucrats or politicians withhold information in court cases is that it allows them to uphold the law by committing a crime. I do not know about you, but by my standards, such actions are totally unacceptable. Everyone, including Gerard Baden-Clay, like Radovan Karadzic is entitled to a fair hearing, if for no other reason than the fact that if justice is compromised in some cases, the door is opened to justice being compromised at the discretion of politicians.

Can that happen? Check this out:

SCOTT MORRISON “parliament decide conventions”

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

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

 EXPERT COMMENTARY: “The Minister assured us that Australia would comply with its international obligations – which is presumably not difficult if international law is now simply what the government says it is.” Professor Ben Saul -Emeritus Professor of International Law – Sydney University: ‘The light of human rights is fading in Australia.’

ABC – ‘The DRUM’ 7 October 2014

(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-07/saul-the-light-of-human-rights-is-fading-in-australia/5794640

Yes, Scott Morrison, now the Federal Treasurer, apparently stated that the Federal Government should decide what international law meant. In 1995 Radovan Karadzic had the same opinion when he was the President of Bosnia. On May 24th 2016, the International Criminal Court of Justice gave him a reality check with this statement:

“Karadzic was the only person with the power to intervene and protect those being killed. Far from that, the accused ordered Bosnian male detainees to be transferred elsewhere to be killed. With full knowledge of the on-going killing, Karadzic declared a state of war in Srebrenica.”

 O-Gon Kwon – Presiding judge : International Criminal Court of Justice.

The three-judge panel said Karadzic was “at the apex of power,” heading the self-styled Bosnian Serb Republic and Supreme Commander of its armed forces, when crimes were committed by his troops. Judges said the 44-month siege of Sarajevo could not have happened without his support; that he committed crimes against humanity in an attempt to purge Muslims and Croats from parts of Bosnia; and that he had intended to eliminate the Bosnian Muslim males of the town of Srebrenica.

Scott Morrison’s out-of-touch-with-reality statement highlights the problem of political parties holding power for too long. Like Hitler’s NAZI Party leaders in Germany in the 1930s and early 1940s, they tend to believe the rightness of their beliefs even when they are committing crimes against humanity.

Yvette D’Arth needs to allow Gerard Baden-Clay access to the evidence of the role of the Federal Parliament, and the Department of Human Services, in violating the rights of vulnerable people. If Gerard Baden-Clay wins an apprehended bias argument, lives will be saved. Even if the High Court does not accept that argument, exposing the uncollected, unreported, classified, “irrelevant” death toll caused by breaching policies and practices will still save lives because the High Court is unlikely to allow this murderous violation of constitutional and human rights to continue.

The idea that people convicted of murder or manslaughter may go free if the breaching triggered death toll is exposed in the International Court or the Australian High Court is not the ideal way to go. However, since I lack the $600,000 deposit to file an appeal in this court, plus the $30,000 a day for lawyers, other options are in short supply.

One practical alternative is for readers of this blog to demand an explanation from politicians; don’t hold your breath that you will get the truth.

Ronald Medlicott – A christian lay advocate for justice.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 24: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity”- Letter to Malcolm Turnbull

When it comes to Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity, about 5 minutes ago Malcolm Turnbull joined the ranks of Australia’s Prime Ministers who know about these murders through the medium of this letter which I have just uploaded to him via his Internet ‘Contact’ web page.

[Note the short link to this URL is:   http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-vm     ]

AAAA Turnbull email

Above is a screen capture of my email to Prime Minister Turnbull at about 9.00 AM this morning (Adelaide, South Australia – Central Standard Time).

The full text of the letter uploaded to Mr. Turnbull is shown below along with the EWRE “irrelevant” letter that Radovan Karadzic and his supporters may find to be of some use if he decides to go for a Manifest ostensible Bias appeal in the International Criminal Court of Justice, especially if Prime Minister Turnbull does not stop these murders from continuing to occur.

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

Dear Prime Minister,
The letters to the dead fiasco is a legal time bomb that may be about to put a real dent in your day. The following text is copied verbatim from a News Corp article published both on the Internet and in News Corp newspapers. As embarrassing as the article is, what turns it into legal and political “time bomb” is Assistant Secretary Neil Skill’s letter which is also published on the Internet.

News Corp extract:
The Department of Human Services says it sent letters to people who were deceased because it did not have a date of death recorded against their customer records.
“The department is aware that of the one million letters sent about the My Health Record trial, a small number have been sent to deceased individuals,” a spokeswoman said.
“The department sincerely apologises for any distress this has caused.”
The department says it is notified of a death from family members and other authorised persons such as health professionals, funeral directors and, in more recent years by data-matching with Birth, Deaths and Marriages registrations.
“If the department is not notified, a date of death will not be recorded on a customer’s record,” it said.

Minister for Health Sussan Ley offered a direct apology to any family affected by the ‘unfortunate’ administrative error.’

“What I find disheartening is Labor are quick to use this as an excuse to attack the Government’s IT and payment systems when something goes wrong, but are also actively blocking our attempts to upgrade them so they are more accurate and convenient for patients.”

Source; http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/dead-people-given-ehealth-records-in-latest-bungle-for-1-billion-government-program/news-story/966ec22c7fe8a40e7ecf66aa98b1ed90

Neil Skill extract:

“Centrelink does not collect post Breaching Terminal Outcome statistics and is therefore unable to assist with this information.”

Source: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-uR

TRANSLATION: The DHS, and by extension, the Federal parliament does not know the scale of the death toll caused by breaching.
(Un)fortunately, the suicides triggered by breaching are homicides and state coroners, the ABS and the AIHW all keep tabs on these.
In the 10-year period 1997-2006 there were 23,254 suicides with 1 in 3 being an impoverish Centrelink client. Extrapolating the average number of suicides per month over the full 11-years and 5-months of John Howard’s Prime Ministership, that is approximately 8,850 suicides that are ‘uncollected’ and unreported by DHS officials and the responsible Ministers for Social Security and Employment. Under Article 7 of the Rome Statute, Breaching is a ‘Crime against humanity’ with fatalities being murders under 7 (1) (a), a fact that Radovan Karadzic can utilize in the appeal against his conviction on March 24th.

In Australia, Gerard Baden-Clay can use these and all other breaching fatalities to argue a manifest ostensible bias case when the QLD DPP appeals his recent conviction being downgraded from murder to manslaughter. Locally, Cy Williams case goes to court in SA in June and he too can run the same argument through the court. In all, the total unreported, secretly classified, “irrelevant” death toll over the last 40 years or so may exceed 60,000.

Plus, on 1st January the DHS failed in an attempt to defraud 73,000 people when there received electronic “Account payable” notices.

“defraud”?

YES!

See ASIV v Hellicar [HCA 12 – 2012] at 141 & 143 and Bhardwaj [HCA 11 – 2002] at 53, and R v Coco v R [HCA 15 – 1994], Briginshaw v Briginshaw [CLR 1938] re Briginshaw Principle, plus <Redacted from this posting> & the Secretary of the DSS [AATA <Redacted from this posting>] for more details.

Finally, check out the constitution, para’ 51 (xxiii) (a), especially the clearly words bits about “the  PROVISION” of welfare allowances and not linking welfare payments to “civil conscription”, i.e. Work for the Dole.

Whatever the actual death toll caused by breaching penalties, the HIP Royal Commission capped the limit on government policy triggered deaths at 1 being 1 too many! (Thank you Tony for that inquiry.)

Prime Minister, now may not be a good time for double dissolution.

EWRE Irrelevant.jpgAPPENDED: The EWRE committee classification of the breaching murders as “irrelevant”.

Ronald Medlicott – Teacher and lay welfare justice advocate.

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

My comment about the rejected “irrelevant” submission.

I pointed out that Work Choices was bad legislation because, like breaching legislation, it was harmful to Australia’s most vulnerable people, i.e. low income workers and the unemployed. As you can see from the letter above, the EWRE Committee regarded the high number of unreported post breaching fatalities that I wrote about as being “irrelevant”.

These comments are in stark contrast to the Liberal Party’s concerns about the 4 Home Improvement Program fatalities which were the subject of a Senate ECA Committee inquiry in February 2010, coroner’s inquests in Queensland and New South Wales, a Royal Commission in 2013, and numerous criminal negligence prosecutions.

In 14.1.1 of the Home Improvement Program Royal Commission Report, Commissioner Ian Hanger QC made the following recommendations:

“This could be done by including a section in the briefing template which requires the author to air risks relevant to the proposal (a ‘devil’s advocate’ section)—this would provide Ministers with an opportunity to make decisions fully informed about the implications and consequences thereof. Officers must be supported to engage with personal risk when giving advice, rather than to remain complicit with a particular approach thought to be favoured by the Minister or a political adviser. Senior officials must likewise satisfy themselves that advice concerning risks is accurate, independent, and comprehensive. Additionally, advice on risk, whether delivered in a written submission or verbally, should not be pitched at such a high level that it is impossible for the Minister to discern real tangible risks therein. Ministers and their advisers must not, by subtle suggestion or otherwise, dictate what advice they receive.”

Within the above statement is this comment:

The APS ought to brief Ministers on the risks inherent in a recommended approach or advise on how the proposed approach might contain faults in the design or otherwise fail to work.”

Over the last 40 years since legislated welfare penalties came into force, how many times have Australian Public Service (APS) officials informed government ministers that these penalties are a Crime against humanity under international laws and violate state and territory homicide laws such as (WA) s 279.4, (SA) s 13.7, QLD s 302.4, (TAS) s 156, (VIC) s 4 and (NSW) s 18.1??????

Correct me if I wrong but I believe that there is not record in Hansard of senior DHS, DSS or DWEER officials having ever done this. If they did so, it was in private, not public meetings and there is therefore no published evidence that would exonerate these officials for acts of omission under s 4 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995).

As stated in my last posting and in the text of the information provided to Malcolm Turnbull, DHS do not know how many people have died as a consequence of being breached. In point of fact, Hansard minutes of a CALC hearing in February 2015 and a CARC hearing in June 2015 make it quite clear that they do not know how many people have had essential services cut off or have been evicted after being breached.

The reality is that whatever the potential danger to Australian citizens is posed by Islamic terrorist groups such as Islamic State and J.I., this risk is almost totally insignificant when compared to the risks created Australian politicians when creating public policies. The Queensland coroner’s inquest report into the three Home Improvement Program fatalities that occurred in that state heavily criticized the Rudd Government for focusing upon financial considerations ahead of public safety.

For those who did not read yesterday’s posting, hear are the views of Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey on the importance of saving money rather than saving lives:

“The entitlements bestowed on tens of millions of people by successive governments, fuelled by short-term electoral cycles and the politics of outbidding your opponents is, in essence, undermining our ability to ensure democracy, fair representation and economic sustainability for future generations.” … “It is ironic that the entitlements system seems to be the most obvious and prevalent in some of the most democratic societies. Most undemocratic nations are simply unable to afford the largesse of universal entitlement systems. So, ultimately the fiscal impact of popular programs must be brought to account no matter what the political values the government are or how popular a spending program may be. Let me put it this way the age of entitlement is over. We should not take this is cause for despair.”  [Joe Hockey’s London Institute of Economic Affairs speech on 17th April 2012]

“I am all in favour of rights. I am also in favour of the rights of taxpayers not to have their money abused. I am in favour of the rights of taxpayers to say that young people should be doing the right thing by themselves and by our society.”
[Question Time: 30th September 2014, Hansard, page 10,755. 30th September 2014]

The focus in these statements was upon saving money, not the “Mutual Obligations” that Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott owed to welfare recipients who had, and still have a range of constitutional and legally enforceable  rights to “the Dole”, i.e. a subsistence allowance.

Ron Medlicott

Posted in News and politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 23: Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity. Sending letters to the dead.

When it comes to Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity, i.e. Breaching penalties triggered fatalities+++, or Centrelink’s fraudulent “Waivergate” scam, these abuses are hard to top. However, when it comes to federal government departments doing outrageous and totally bizarre things that offend, nothing is impossible. How low can you go when the Department of Human Services dysfunctional computer systems sending letters to people who have been dead for 20 years? Below are extracts from a news article by a News Corp journalist, Sue Dunlevy, which provide insight into this latest blunder.

[The short link for this posting is:  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-uR   ]

Key points that I would make about this article are:

  1. Centrelink’s ISIS computer is too unreliable to provide evidence in either criminal prosecutions of welfare recipients for alleged fraud, i.e. Health Minister Sussan Ley’s comment about an “unfortunate administrative error.”.
  2. This computer system is also too unreliable to provide the “primary facts of the matter” that a court would require when trying to decide who was legally responsible for alleged over-payments to any  one of the more than 1 million people who have been over-paid about $5 Billion which Department of Human Services (DHS) bureaucrats have been trying to recover by skipping over the courts and arbitrarily (and unlawfully) deciding that they are not at fault and therefore welfare recipients should repay any over-payments made.
  3. Breaching is a Crime against Humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of Justice with Breaching triggered fatalities being murders under Article 7 (1) (a). What some of the comments below by the Health Minister, Sussan Ley, appear to indicate is that neither the Ministers responsible for Welfare or health have the slightest idea as to just how many people they have murdered through Breaching and Centrelink’s fraudulent tort claims!

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

ISIS Letters to the dead – for the full text and details, please go to:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/dead-people-given-ehealth-records-in-latest-bungle-for-1-billion-government-program/news-story/966ec22c7fe8a40e7ecf66aa98b1ed90

Dead people given e-health records in latest bungle for $1 billion government program.April 16, 20167:00am Sue Dunlevy News Corp Australia Network

 EXCLUSIVE. THE federal Health Department is setting up My Health records for people who have been dead for over two decades in the latest bungle to beset the troubled $1 billion project.It comes as a major international technology company CSC last month warned medical practices not to use the My Health Record because of a glitch that meant data for one patient “may be saved against an incorrect patient record”.

And as the Australian Medical Association calls for a major overhaul of the records to integrate them into existing medical software because just 300 GPs are using the records each week.’  Four years after it was launched only 75,000 records are populated with a patient health summary that makes them useful to doctors. As the project to drag health care into the digital age flounders it has emerged the government is setting up My Health records for people who are no longer alive.

  1.  Alison McLaren says her family was shocked and upset to receive a letter from the Department of Health in February informing them a My Health record would be established for her nanna Muriel Stratton who had passed away 20 years ago.
  2. “It was a real shock to mum because it was so close to the 20th anniversary of Nanna’s passing and was strange to get this letter out of the blue,” said Ms McLaren.  “I support e-health but what concerns me is if they are using information that old and getting that wrong, what else are they getting wrong?” she said.
  3. Roger Grearly says his wife Lillian passed away 23 years ago but he received a letter recently informing him a My Health record would be set up for her. “It bought back a few memories and was a bit emotional,” he says.
  4. He says another Facebook friend also received a letter informing her a My Health record would be set up for her 19-year-old son who had passed away.
  5. “Whether it’s blundering or carelessness it’s pretty pathetic,” he said.

The Department of Human Services says it sent letters to people who were deceased because it did not have a date of death recorded against their customer records.

  1.  “The department is aware that of the one million letters sent about the My Health Record trial, a small number have been sent to deceased individuals,” a spokeswoman said.
  2. “The department sincerely apologises for any distress this has caused.”The department says it is notified of a death from family members and other authorised persons such as health professionals, funeral directors and, in more recent years by data-matching with Birth, Deaths and Marriages registrations.
  3. “If the department is not notified, a date of death will not be recorded on a customer’s record,” it said.

Minister for Health Sussan Ley offered a direct apology to any family affected by the  “‘unfortunate’ administrative error.”

  1. “What I find disheartening is Labor are quick to use this as an excuse to attack the Government’s IT and payment systems when something goes wrong, but are also actively blocking our attempts to upgrade them so they are more accurate and convenient for patients.”
  2. Privacy groups fear those with a mental illness or who have had an abortion or sexually transmitted disease or other medical problems they want to keep secret from an employer, insurance company or former partner may be unaware of the privacy risk they face. 
  3. Labor candidate for Macquarie Susan Templeman was approached by potential constituents about the letters written to deceased people and has written to Health Minister Sussan Ley about the mistakes. “These people need an apology from the minster,” she said. 
  4. “The key question is how can anyone have confidence in the process, where such personal details are involved, if the government can’t even work out if someone is alive or dead?” she says in the letter. 
  5. Australian Medical Association president Professor Brian Owler says the real question is “why these letters were sent” and what data base was being used.

RONALD’S SPACE COMMENTS ON THE ABOVE STATEMENTS.

This statement was a monumental pre-election blunder by Sussan Ley:

‘unfortunate’ administrative error.”

It undermines constant claims by both politicians and Department of Human Services bureaucrats (and Australia’s mass media) that welfare recipients are “rorters” who exploit the system, or when over-payments occur, that it was because welfare recipients were at fault.

This statement was also a monumental pre-election blunder by Ms. Templeman:

“The key question is how can anyone have confidence in the process, where such personal details are involved, if the government can’t even work out if someone is alive or dead?”

As the letter below clearly reveals,six years ago in May 2010, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill wrote that Centrelink did not collect the statistical data on post-breaching fatalities and therefore could not make the information available to me.

Skill certified

I am not surprised that Centrelink bureaucrats have never “collected” the statistics on post-breaching fatalities because EVERY BREACHING is a crime against humanity and EVERY BREACHING FATALITY is a MURDER.

  1. My most optimistic assessment as to the scale of the “uncollected”, unreported, secretly classified, “irrelevant” death toll is that is its less than 15,000.
  2. My worst case estimate is that it may exceed 60,000 fatalities.
  3. Quite clearly, a third option is that the precise number of unreported, “irrelevant” murders is within the range of 15,000 – 60,000.
  4. Whatever the precise number of murders being concealed, whether through incompetence as is indicated in some of the statements in Sue Dunlevy’s article, or through deliberately not collecting the data as is indicated in Neil Skill’s letter, the plain and simple truth is that no-one can dispute my estimates.
  5. Adding weight to the validity of my estimates are the official statistics of the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the 1998 National Health Priority Areas Report on mental health. 
  6. During the ‘Howard Years’, i.e 1997 – 2006, there were 23,254 suicides and approximately one in 3 was an Centrelink clients, most of whom were unemployed people.
  7. Extrapolating to the full 11 years and 5 months that John Howard held office, that is a suicide toll in excess of 8,000 people, a figure that is directly comparable with the 1995 Srebrenica Massacre in Bosnia!

RADOVAN KARADZIC could exercise his right to a fair trial under Article 10 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”

Articles 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that “All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. .

  1. The catch 22 with Radovan Karadzic’s  conviction by the International Court on March 24th 2016 is that if he lodges an “APPREHENDED BIAS  or MANIFEST OSTENSIBLE BIAS appeal on the grounds that the United Nations , and Australia’s criminal justice system, have ignored the death toll caused by Breaching laws in Australia, then he may win an appeal on these grounds.
  2. A win is not about being found innocent of the Srebrenica murders; it is a legal loophole that allows EXCULPATION, i.e. the charges are tossed out and, thanks to the ‘double-jeopardy’ rule which prevents a person being tried twice for the same crime, he could be released.appeal avoid being held accountable before the courts for these murders.
  3. People who support Radovan Karadzic can research the Australian federal parliament’s HANSARD minutes over the last 40 years.
  4. Ditto for the various oversight committees for welfare, employment and human rights.
  5. They could also research and examine breaching laws contained in the 100s of variations of the Social Security Act and Social Security (Administration) Act over the last 40 years.
  6. In the same manner, the annual reports and quarterly public accountability reports from the departments of Human Services, Social Security, Employment, and agencies such as the Australian Human Rights Commission, The Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Australian Federal Police could also be vetted for evidence of the concealment of the death toll caused by the crimes against  humanity committed against Australia’s impoverished welfare recipients.
  7. Then there are the documents contained in this website that can also be used as starting points for identify the politicians, bureaucrats and police officers who are involved in the concealment of these crimes.s
  8. This would be an impossibly huge task for one person but no big deal for a co0rdinated team effort, especially one undertaken by the Bosnian Government which appears to be pro-Karadzic.

The irony is that people who want Radovan Karadzic to stay in jail for the rest of his life would need to research the same information and then lobby the United Nations to conduct a Crimes against Humanity  inquiry into Australia’s uncollected, unreported, classified, “irrelevant” death toll.

 

END NOTE: Sue Dunlevy can have the last word on the ‘letters to the dead” fiasco. Australia’s federal political parties like to claim that they are sound economic managers but as the points in Ms. Dunlevy’s article, including this point below, make quite clear, the primary skill of these politicians appears to be the ability to preside over hugely bureaucratic disasters.

The National E- Health Transition Authority (NEHTA) in charge of the record revealed in 2012 it had spent over $5 million on travel and entertaining stakeholders in five star hotels. This included one event at Sydney’s Intercontinental Hotel where guests were offered steak and seafood and crème brulee. A former policeman was the motivational speaker at the dinner and entertained guests with grisly details about murders while they were eating dessert.

Ronald Medlicott

A Christian lay advocate for fair and impartial justice in Australia.

 FOOTNOTES – TEXT IN CONTEXT: Why are Australia’s legislated welfare penalties ‘Crimes against Humanity’ and why do I believe that Breaching triggered fatalities are murders? the answer is complex but the Rome Statute provides significant insight and understanding:

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Article 7 of the Rome Statute deals with Crimes against Humanity. Section 7.2 contains the following definitions that are, under the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, are Facts of Law:

 (e) “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions; (A problem is that any parliament can create laws to by-pass this weak sanction!)

            (g) “Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;

Article 7 (1) (a) states: “For the purpose of this Statute, ‘crime against humanity’ means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack
directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination”

Article 7 (1) (k) further states: “Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”

The last sentence in Article 1 (2) of the International Convention for Civil and Political Rights states:  “In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.” 

Paragraph 51, sub-paragraph xxiii (a) of the Australian constitution also places an obligation upon the Australian Federal Parliament to PROVIDE A subsistence allowance to welfare recipients that cannot be linked to “civil conscription”, i.e. forced labour.

The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances:”

Legislated welfare penalties are intended to circumvent both the constitution and the human rights obligation not to deprive people of their only means of subsistence, i.e. the arbitrary imposition of the legislated penalties, commonly referred to as “Breaching” work by accusing a person of a “breach of contract” and the penalty is to deprive a person of their only means of subsistence for a period measured in months.

Survival for any person under such conditions would be almost impossible, a fact highlighted in September 2014 when a Senate human rights committee inquiry stated in Report #12  at 2.10 The committee thanks the Minister for Social Services for his response.

 2.11 However, the response does not provide any further information as to how young people are to sustain themselves during a six-month period without social security. The committee noted in its original assessment that information regarding the likely impact of the measure on individuals and their families, and how individuals subject to the measure will retain access to adequate shelter and food, is necessary in order to assess the human rights compatibility of this measure.

  • The core question that the Human Services Minister declined to answer was the question as to “how individuals subject to the measure will retain access to adequate shelter and food”.
  • This was a highly leading question that Kevin Andrews, the Human Services Minister, and a former barrister, did not provide an adequate answer too. However, that question opens up the question of how did people survive under the former 3-month breaching penalty period and the current 2-month breaching penalty period.
  • Further compounding the criminal negligence issue was a Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal decision in 1999, R v Faure  at paragraph 14 the Court ruled:“His Honour distinguished wilful murder from reckless murder – understandably, those expressions were not used – by telling the jury, by way of modification of what might be called the usual definition of murder given to juries, that there were two different intents, either of which would, in conjunction with the other elements of the crime, constitute the crime of murder. The first was the intent either to kill or to do really serious injury and the second was the knowledge that it was probable that death or really serious injury would result from the act done.”
  • In paragraph 29 the Court ruled “It is the placing of life in peril that constitutes the crime.” Breaching willfully placed life in peril by deliberately depriving impoverished people of their only means of subsistence but that was, and is, only part of the risk assessment problem.
  • In Chapter 2 of the 1998 National Health Areas Report – mental health, the most common cause of suiicde was listed as “Poverty”, e.g unemployment” whilst the best defence against a person committing suicide was “support”.
  • Breaching was, and still is, a violation of constitutional, legal, common law rights and human rights that protected by international laws and treaties, e.g. Article 1 (2) of the ICCPR. The risk of triggering a suicide is easily foreseen, an issued addressed in high Court appeals such as Boughey, where foreseeably fatal consequences determine whether a murder was due to either reckless indifference or willful intent.
  • In a speech given in London on April 17th 2012, Joe Hockey stated The entitlements bestowed on tens of millions of people by successive governments, fuelled by short-term electoral cycles and the politics of outbidding your opponents is, in essence, undermining our ability to ensure democracy, fair representation and economic sustainability for future generations.… It is ironic that the entitlements system seems to be the most obvious and prevalent in some of the most democratic societies. Most undemocratic nations are simply unable to afford the largesse of universal entitlement systems. So, ultimately the fiscal impact of popular programs must be brought to account no matter what the political values. The government are or how popular a spending program may be. Let me put it this way the age of entitlement is over. We should not take this is cause for despair.”
  • As far as Joe Hockey was concerned, fiscal priorities were more important than human rights and constitutional obligations to provide a subsistence allowance to welfare recipients.
  • On 30th September 2016, during Question time in the Australian Parliament, Prime Minister Tony Abbott expressed similar sentiments when the above mentioned senate report rejected his attempt to deprive unemployed people of a subsistence allowance for 6-months.
  • “I am all in favour of rights. I am also in favour of the rights of taxpayers not to have their money abused”.
  • There is a very frightening parallel between what Australia’s right wing politicians say and the Holocaust mantra of leading Nazi politicians such as Heinrich Himmler who in 1943 justified the mass murder of millions of Jewish people with this statement:  

 

 

 

Posted in News and politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 22: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes Against Humanity – Insight into the bloody-minded role of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

Centrelink glitchIt is my considered opinion that, as a Lay advocate, in 2014 I participated in an appalling failure of justice during an AAT appeal.

Please note that I am a school teacher, not a lawyer, and my personal opinion, for whatever it is worth, is that if you get hit with one of Centrelink’s  “Account payable” demands, you are probably the victim of a fraudulent civil rights violation and the most appropriate response that you can make  is to refer Centrelink’s “Account payable” demand to the police citing “Abuse of Power” fraud under Section 142 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.It is also my recommendation that you avoid appeals through the federal governments appeals tribunal system, e.g. the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, as you may find that your civil rights are ignored by this non-constitutional appeal system.

[Note the short link to this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-u2    ]

BACKGROUND to the ‘Waivergate 2016’ rip-off:

On the 1st January 2016, the Department of Human Services, aka Centrelink, electronically sent “Account payable” notifications to 73,000 welfare recipients. [See the URL link below for details:]

http://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/centrelink-sorry-for-computer-glitch-that-affected-73000-families/news-story/e59444029d37fb98456c898cdd8e65ae

Since Centrelink is a party to what is legally known as a “Tort”, a number of court decisions, and the constitution, underscore the fact that Centrelink cannot arbitrarily determine that the other party involved in a tort is at fault. As has been pointed in the last 3 or 4 Ronald’s space posting, according to the Australian High Court, the determination of “the primary facts of the matter” in Centrelink’s “Account payable” tort actions is a matter for the courts to decide.

IF THERE IS NO COURT DECISION AS TO THE PRIMARY FACTS OF THE MATTER, IT MEANS THAT THERE IS NO LEGALLY VALID DECISION THAT CAN BE REVIEWED BY THE SSAT OR THE AAT, I.E. WITHOUT A COURT MAKING FINDINGS OF FACTS, THERE IS “NO DECISION AT ALL.”

BEFORE any “Account payable” notifications can be issued by Centrelink, both parties as to who was responsible for the alleged over-payments, i.e. Centrelink and the individual welfare recipient must either agree as to what are “the primary facts of the matter” and the welfare recipient, without any duress, agrees that they are liable for the over-payment. If the welfare recipient disagrees, it is then a matter for a court, not Centrelink bureaucrats, to decide what are the relevant facts of the matter so that legal liability can then be determined.  At an average of $25,000 to Centrelink per court appeal, this is hugely expensive. Needless to say, Centrelink has a vested interest in totally by-passing this civil rights obligation which indicates the reason for the electronic “Account payable” notices being rolled on a long week-end to welfare recipients .

Tracie Mitchell – An Aussie Battler hero.

Fortunately for the 73,000 victims of the New Year’s day abuse of power, which I firmly believe was a criminal Abuse of Power violation under s 142 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), MS. TRACIE MITCHELL of Cowra in New South Wales spat-the-dummy and fought back by posting her plight on FaceBook. Inundated with a flood of responses by other people who were also hit with what I now call “Waivergate 2016”, Ms. Mitchell took these responses to the 7 network which investigated and blew the whistle on 7th January 2016. Hank Jongen, the chief spin doctor for Centrelink, then responded by claiming that the electronic “Accounts payable” messages to 73,000 was due to a computer “glitch.”

 BUNKUM! As stated above, it is my considered opinion that Waivergate 2016 was not a “glitch” as was reportedly claimed by Hank Jongen, but was actually a deliberate attempt to use Centrelink’s computer system to defraud 73,000 people who were unaware of their legal rights as set out in criminal law and case law decisions.

INSIGHT INTO THE PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED WHEN USING CENTRELINK’S UNCONSTITUTIONAL, BIASED APPEAL SYSTEM.

 I have written this posting because I cannot emphasize too strongly the pitfalls and dangers in relying on the administrative appeals system set up by the Australian federal parliament. To protect the identity of the welfare recipient, I have withheld the case file number in the text below which comes straight from a federal Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) case that I was involved in a few years ago.

The appalling  message buried in the legal jargon is that if Centrelink gives bad advice and people act on it in good faith, then these people, not Centrelink, have made a mistake and therefore Centrelink, i.e. the Commonwealth, is no longer “solely responsible” and consequently welfare recipients must repay the debt, i.e. had the 73,000 victims of the Waivergate 2016 “glitch” appealed through the federal government’s appeals system, all 73,000 people would have had to repay the millions of dollars in commonwealth errors that Centrelink was sneakily trying to recover by violating the civil rights of these people.

 UNBELIEVABLE BUT TRUE – THE AAT DECISION BELOW provides frightening insight into the appalling folly of relying upon the federal government’s welfare appeals system to receive justice. It is my considered belief that the defining of “special circumstances” in the findings below is a legal atrocity that prostitutes and perverts justice and further brings Australia’s ailing justice system into disrepute.

 Finding 39 statement: The question is, rather, whether there are “special circumstances” (other than financial hardship alone) that make it desirable to waive the right to recover all or part of Ms Locke’s debt to Centrelink.

Finding 40 statement: The expression “special circumstances” is not defined in the SSA or SSAA, but has been considered on a number of occasions by the Federal Court and Tribunal. The Tribunal has said that the expression “special circumstances’ in s 1237AAD(b) of the SSA should be interpreted and applied in the same way as the identical expression in s 1184(1) of the SSA is interpreted and applied: Re Secretary, Department of Social Security and Duzevich [1996] AATA 63; 41 ALD 461 at [32] per DP Hotop.

Finding 41 statement:  In summary, it has been held for circumstances to constitute “special circumstances” (for the purposes of s 1184(1) of the SSA and, it follows, s 1237AAD(b) of the SSA), they must be circumstances which are “unusual, uncommon or exceptional”, be “markedly different from the usual run of cases”, “special” or “out of the ordinary” and they include “events which would render the (strict application of the rule in question) unfair or inappropriate”: see for example, Re Ivocic and Director General of Social Services [1981] AATA 57 at [45]; Re Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD at 3 per Toohey J; Beadle and Director General of Social Security [1984] AATA 176; (1985) 60 ALR 225 at 228 as per Bowen CJ, Fisher and Lockhart JJ; Groth v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1995] FCA 1708; (1995) 40 ALD 541 at [545] per Kiefel J and Dranichnikov v Centrelink [2003] FCAFC 133; [2003] 75 ALD 134 at [66] per Hill J. Circumstances might be “special” although they apply to more than one person or class of persons, provided they are not of universal application (for example, they are a common or universal characteristic of social security recipients): see Fischer v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services & Indigenous Affairs [2010] FCA 441; (2010) 185 FCR 52 at [65].

Finding 42 statement:  <The applicant’s> contention that she 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” for the purpose of s 1237AAD(b) of the SSA.

The test underlined in finding 41 and highlighted in finding 42  make a farce out of the legal concept of Accountability for conduct. If mistakes are common, e.g. the 73,000 “Account payable’ claims sent out on 1st January 2016, the AAT accepts this gross incompetence to be a normal part of Centrelink’s operations and therefore mistakes made by Centrelink are not an acceptable reason for the waiver of debt rule in paragraph 1,237 (A) of the Social security Act being applied when Centrelink stuffs up and overpays welfare recipients. This logic is absolutely farcical as the following 3 real-world examples indicate:

Example #1 – Thousands of speeding fines are issued each day which meet the criteria of not so unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary.” Therefore logically, the more  speeding fines issues, the more “common” is this error when driving and therefore drivers who speed more often are exempt from the consequences of speeding. Yeah! Is that a squadron of pigs flying by?

Example #2 –  The Royal Commission into the sexual abuse of children in institutionalized care. The AAT decision was a FEDERAL tribunal decision that can only be overturned by the Federal Court or the High Court and so that AAT decision carries enormous potential legal implications that go far beyond the primary case issue of determining legal liability of alleged Centrelink overpayments to a welfare recipient. In section 14.1.1 of the Hanger Royal Commission Report into the Rudd Government’s ill-fated Home Improvement Program, Commissioner Hanger recommended that political advisers and public servants look at the ‘big picture’, especially what might be colloquially called “The Dark Side” of political policies, programs and practices. If you apply this ‘dark side-big picture’ to the above AAT decision in the context of the current royal commission hearings into the sexual abuse of children, the legal logic used by the AAT takes a flying leap into a legal quagmire.

  1. Over a period measured in decades, thousands of children, have been sexually abused. It is there reasonable, using the AAT legal logic above, to claim that since there is nothing exceptional that can be classified as “special circumstances” about the sexual abuse of children, then logically, the individual victims have nothing to complain about because Q.E.D. there is nothing exceptional about the sexual abuse of children that would qualify as “special circumstances”.
  2. However, in law, legal precedents have very broad applications and the legal logic used by the AAT establishes a dangerously idiotic legal precedent that because Centrelink errors are not so unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary,  the same principle applies to the sexual abuse of children. That precedent could be argued in any court in the nation. Heck, it could even be used as a Persuasive Precedent or as an Influencing Precedent in any court in the world that uses laws based upon British Crown Law principles, e.g. the United States.

Example #3 – THE APPREHENDED BIAS/MANIFEST OSTENSIBLE BIAS TIME BOMB.

The legal precedent implicit in Finding 42 above, i.e. <The applicant’s> “contention that she 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” is potentially a legal time bomb in murder cases!

  1. Murders have also been common throughout Australia’s history, e.g. March 2016 marks the 20th ‘anniversary’ of the Port Arthur massacre when 35 people were shot dead and therefore it is fair to say that “murders are not uncommon”.
  2. Using the AAT ‘s ‘not an uncommon circumstance’ because murders are so common, this AAT finding opens the legal door to anyone accused or convicted of murder potentially using this and similar AAT decisions based upon this legal precedent to  argue an Apprehended Bias or a Manifest Ostensible Bias case when seeking to have the murder charges dismissed.
  3. If an alleged murderer or a convicted murderer were to win an appeal using the AAT “not uncommon” logic above. every murderer in the nation could argue that they are the victims of Apprehended Bias.

 Ron, are you nuts? That could not happen, could it?

If you think I’m a nutcase, just remember  Queensland’s infamous ‘Dr. Death.’ Despite the fact that 87 of D. Jayant Patel’s reported patients died as direct consequence of his surgical procedures and another 106 patients reportedly required major corrective surgery, because of Procedural Fairness violations in the Morris Royal Commission Inquiry into these deaths, 50 days of evidence to the royal commission was turned into “poisoned fruit”, i.e. inadmissible evidence that the Queensland Supreme Court be shredded!   [Leck v Morris & Ors; Keating v Morris & Ors, [QSC 243] (1st September 2005) The downstream consequence of that was that in March 2013 a Queensland jury had no option but to bring in a “Not guilty” verdict to a re-trial that had been ordered by the High Court .

The legal reality of the issues that I am raising in these WordPress journal postings is that whether or not you agree or disagree with what I write, or even if you opt to totally ignore them, FACTS ARE TRUTHS THAT DO NOT CHANGE. So here are some more legal facts that all of Australia’s 7.3 million welfare recipients should be aware of.

The findings in the above AAT decision were justified using a number of case law precedents, some of which date back decades. The problem with the case law precedents quoted is two-fold.

In the case that I was involved in in 2014, the AAT ignored the constitution, statute laws, and binding High Court precedents that the presiding AAT Member should have been reasonably been aware of.

I believe that errors of law occurred because the AAT decision  ignored serious criminal law statutes that applied to this case, e.g. the withholding or possible destruction of evidence, specifically the telephone call recording at the centre of this legal dispute that contained what I believe were the primary facts of the matter. This disregard for the statutory and Common Law rules of evidence and provisions within the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act were more than an “errors of law”, it was probably a serious violation of the statute below.

 Statute 142 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995)

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

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

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years

Dial 13 32 76 and within seconds you will hear the statement “For your security this call will be recorded.”

  1. However, all attempts to obtain this recording, including requesting that the AAT Member hearing the appeal use their power under the AAT to order the handing over of this evidence, proved unsuccessful.
  2. The statement in finding 42 made it quite clear that the presiding AAT Member did not give a stuff about who said what in the recorded phone call.
  3. This was a very prejudicial, biased viewpoint that made it easy for the presiding AAT Member to rationalize that since the provision of erroneous information was “not uncommon” the phone call recording was “irrelevant.”
  4. In doing so, the presiding AAT Member was making a defacto finding as to the primary facts of the matter., i.e. the recording did not contain evidence that was a “primary fact of the matter.”
  5. How many courts would go along with the idea that a phone call recording which is central to a dispute is so irrelevant that the court would not bother to make it available to the applicant in a legal dispute?
  6. There are in fact 2 High Court decisions that I believe provide binding precedents as to the importance of the phone call that the presiding AAT Member ignored:

Coco v Queen [HCA 15] (13th April 1994)

In 1994 the High Court ruled in paragraph 8 of Coco v Queen (HCA 15) that “Statutory authority to engage in what otherwise would be tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and unambiguous language.”

This High Court decision was an “Invasion of Privacy” case dealing with the legality of a telephone call recording made by police officers.

As is stated above, the Court ruled that “tortious conduct must be clearly expressed in unmistakable and unambiguous language” torpedoed the Crown’s case because the Law of Trespass had been violated due to an oversight by the magistrate who issued the warrant to install a telephone tap.

Since trespassing is unlawful, the phone call was unlawfully recorded and the applicant wanted the phone call dismissed as evidence.

Conversely, in the 2014 AAT case, I wanted the disputed phone cal for the same reason that the Crown wanted the phone in the Coco case, i.e. it was irrefutable of evidence needed to impartially determine “the primary facts of the matter” in dispute. Without the relevant recording, in both legal actions, a police prosecution in Coco in 1994 and the Centrelink tort action in 2014, no valid determination of the primary facts was possible.

Trespassing is illegal and so the Coco recording was ruled invalid as evidence. Withholding evidence, in this case another phone call recording, is also unlawful and that means that the AAT had no legal right to make a decision that endorsed the unlawful conduct of Centrelink officials.

Kioa v West [HCA 81] (1985)

This is a landmark High Court decision which, in paragraph 6ofthe Court’s findings made it quite clear that the withholding of information from an applicant by a bureaucrat was a procedural fairness violation that invalidated the bureaucrat’s decision.

This determination was effectively a ‘grandfather’ precedent for the High Court’s Bhardwaj decision in 2002 in which the High Court ruled that a tribunal have no jurisdiction to make procedural decisions that were unfair and when procedural unfairness, e.g. the withholding of credible, relevant or significant information occurs, then as far as the High Court is concerned, there is no decision at all.

A key point in the Kioa ‘procedural fairness’ decision is the obligation or duty of care of administrative decision-makers to act fairly when making decisions that affect people’s rights or interests.

Unless statute laws expressly over-ride the procedural fairness principles enunciated in Kioa[1], in all cases before an Australian court or a tribunal, the following Common Law procedural fairness points of law now apply:

 The Hearing Rule the right to a fair hearing, which is also a right under Article 14 of the International Convention for Civil and Political Rights.

The No-Bias Rule The decision-maker is impartial; a rule or principle consistent with the common law principle that people should not sit in judgement in cases where they have a clear vested interest. This rule kills off the idea that Centrelink bureaucrats can arbitrarily determine who is responsible for overpayments invalidates the “Account payable” bills that are sent out as Standard Operating Procedure as per the 73,000 ‘Waivergate 2016’ notices distributed electronically on 1st January 2016.

The Evidence rule – the requirement for decisions to be based on empirical evidence, i.e. logically probative evidence. Suspicion may be speculation with reasonable foundation and provide logical grounds for an investigation, but suspicion is not adequate grounds for a decision that is based on biased, bigotry-driven personal assumptions, values or beliefs. The phone call recording at the Centre of the tort action was the only empirical evidence as to “who said what” and, given ‘The Evidence Rule”, which DHS/DSS bureaucrats and Crown Law lawyers would have been fully aware of, there is only one logical reason for the withholding or destruction of this recording by Centrelink, i.e. its content revealed that a Commonwealth error had resulted in a “good faith error” by the applicant and the alleged overpayment ‘debt’ should have been waived.

Readers should note that the Kioa and Coco decisions were included in the applicant’s statement of Claim to the AAT and the Kioa decision points above were raised during the hearing. Readers should also be aware that these legally binding High Court precedents, which now underpin courtroom procedures in all Australian courts, were ignored by the presiding AAT Member!

 By failing to order that Centrelink make the recording available, the presiding AAT Member was almost certainly committing a serious “Error of Law”. However, by withholding or destroying the phone call recording, Centrelink was almost certainly in violation of s 149.1 of the Commonwealth criminal Code Act i.e.

Obstruction of Commonwealth public officials

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

            (a)       the person knows that another person is a public official; and

            (b)       the first‑mentioned person obstructs, hinders, intimidates or resists the official in the performance of the official’s functions; and

            (c)       the official is a Commonwealth public official; and

            (d)       the functions are functions as a Commonwealth public official.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

In the AAT case that spawns the disgraceful findings mentioned above, the presiding AAT Member simply ignored these laws. I believe that by doing so, the presiding AAT Member may have therefore violated one or more of the above provisions in the Commonwealth Crimes Act (1995).

 There are many Federal Court or High Court decisions that invalidate the precedents used by Crown lawyers in the 2014 AAT case including:

In a speech to the NSW branch of the Australian Institute of Administrative Lawyers (AIAL) in August 2013, the president of the AAT, Justice Duncan Kerr, described lawyers as people who had “privileged expertise.” Since AAT Members are the equivalent of what are known in the United states as “Administrative Judges”, it is reasonable to assume that AAT Members are people with high levels of “privileged expert” and should have very levels of knowledge of all case law decisions that may apply to their very limited field of jurisdiction. In addition the previously mentioned Kioa and Coco High Court decisions, there are a number of other binding High court and Federal court legal precedents that the presiding AAT Member did not take into consideration.

ACCC V TPG Inc. [2013] HCA 54.

In ACCC v TPG Inc. [2013] HCA 54, the High Court’s December 12th 2013 determination of responsibility for wrong or misleading advice preceded a similar decision a year later in December 2014 by the Federal Court in ACCC v AGL (SA) [2014] FCA 1369. Both are recent examples of case law decisions in which the Courts placed accountability for incorrect or misleading advice on the givers, NOT the receivers, who may have then made good faith errors! The following concise legal opinion on the ACCC v TPG decision is by Clayton Utz lawyers, Matthew Battersby and Kirsten Webb and can be downloaded from http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/edition/19_december_2013/20131219/advertising_and_the_acl_fine_print_couldnt_save_tpg_internet_in_the_high_court.page

  On 12 December 2013, the High Court by a 4-1 majority overturned the Full Federal Court’s decision and reinstated the $2 million pecuniary penalty initially imposed on TPG Internet Pty Ltd for a misleading advertising campaign about its Unlimited ADSL2+ broadband bundle (ACCC v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54).

The key messages for advertisers from the High Court’s decision are that:

The “dominant message”test is central to any assessment of whether advertisements are misleading or deceptive; and

qualifying statements accompanying headline representations must be sufficiently clear and prominent so as not mislead consumers, particularly where the representation is about price.

The High Court’s decision is an important one for advertisers in understanding the nature and extent of their obligations under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). It will also inform the ACCC’s enforcement strategy in this area.

ACCC v Channel Seven Brisbane Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 19

The following comments on this High Court decision are sourced from: http://www.mondaq.com/australia/x/79848/Publishing/High+Court+Clarifies+The+Limits+Of+The+Publishers+Defence+In+S+65A+Of+The+Trade+Practices+Act

In ACCC v Channel Seven Brisbane Pty Ltd [2009] HCA 19, the ACCC alleged that in late 2003 and early 2004 Channel 7’s Today Tonight broadcast and thereby effectively adopted misleading representations about the benefits of the services offered by a property investment training program, Wildly Wealthy Women (WWW).

The broadcasts resulted from an agreement, brokered by a marketer, between Today Tonight and WWW, pursuant to which the marketer would receive a commission for every woman who signed up to the WWW investment program.

Channel 7 did not dispute that untrue representations were made about the success of WWW, nor that they were misleading and deceiving. However, it sought protection for its misleading and deceptive conduct under s 65A of the TPA.

Findings: The High Court upheld the primary judge’s findings that s 65A of the TPA did not provide a defence to Today Tonight. It was held that the “safe-harbour” does not apply to situations in which a media outlet, pursuant to an arrangement with a supplier of goods or services, publishes and, by adoption or otherwise, makes representations of a misleading or deceptive character in relation to those goods or services.

Lessons

Media outlets should be aware, that where an arrangement has been made with a supplier of goods and services to effectively “sell” or advertise those goods or services in a broadcast, the broadcaster itself can face liability for misleading and deceptive conduct, and will not be able to rely upon s 65A of the TPA for protection.

MY COMMENT: The clear, binding legal principle in the 2013 ACCC v TPG decision and the earlier ACCC v Channel 7 Brisbane decision in 2009 is that when legal entities give bad advice, they are fully accountable for the consequences of those decisions, i.e. there is no “safe harbour” for organizations or individuals who provide misleading or erroneous information that people subsequently act on “in good faith.” Whether erroneous or misleading advice is given intentionally or due to systemic problems, hen welfare recipients phone Centrelink and ask for advice and then receive incorrect advice, this legal precedent further underscores the fact of law that Centrelink is solely and fully responsible for the downstream consequences of that error. Centrelink cannot buck-pass the blame to welfare recipients on the basis that these errors “are not uncommon” and are therefore not “exceptional circumstances.” That the presiding AAT Member, who has what Justice Kerr described as “privileged expertise” failed to appreciate this very basic principle of law, is most disturbing. At the very least it indicatesincompetence on the part of the presiding AAT Member.

ACCC v AGL (SA) [2014] FCA 1369.

“The Court has found that AGL SA made false or misleading representations to consumers about the key benefit under their energy plan – the discount off energy usage charges. Other retailers should sit up and take note – they must not mislead consumers about the savings they will achieve under energy plans.”

 Okay, this decision post-dates the AAT decision by a short period of time, but the legal principle in both the ACC V TPG and the ACCC V AGL decisions was the i.e., if legal entities provide misleading information, then they are accountable for that misleading information. People who acted in good faith on that information are not legally liable for the consequences of acting in good faith. In point of fact the very reverse applies. In 2015 the Federal Court hit AGL SA with a $1 Million fine and required the company to make compensation payments that amounted to approximately $1 Million to customers who were financially disadvantaged by AGL’s misleading advertising. In making this determination, the Federal Court was being consistent with another earlier High Court decision in 2009

THE MISSION CRITICAL HIGH COURT DECISIONS IGNORED BY THE AAT:

In addition to the above points of law which are included in “The Emcott report”, I also made known the following case law decisions to the Chief Legal Counsel to the Department of Human Services in December 2015, i.e. just a few weeks BEFORE Centrelink hit 73,000 people with the electronic “Account payable’ notifications.

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

This decision was handed down on May 3rd 2012, i.e. 2 years before the AAT case decision mentioned earlier in this posting.

At paragraph 141 in the High Court’s decision the judges ruled:

“…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.”

In paragraph 143 of this case the High Court ruled that:

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

 NOTE THE LAST SENTENCE: “Deciding the facts of a case is a court’s task, not a task for a regulatory authority.”

 

This is not my personal opinion; this is a binding High Court precedent that applies as much to Centrelink as it did to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. This decision means that Centrelink has  never had the constitutional “jurisdiction” to arbitrarily decide who is responsible for over-payment errors. This principle of “no jurisdiction” is underscored by another even earlier High Court decision. Bhardwaj.

 

The flow-on implication in AAT hearings is very simple: if the Secretary of the Department of Human Services (the Chief Executive Office or boss of Centrelink) has no legal right to determine the primary facts of the matter” because this is the constitutional jurisdiction of the Courts, then the AAT also has no jurisdiction.

 

On 27th August 2013, Justice Duncan Kerr, the President of the AAT gave a speech to the New South Wales Branch of the Australian Institute of Administrative Lawyers (AIAL) in which he stated:

Ch III of the Constitution mandates a strict separation of powers which prevents the conferral of judicial power on any tribunal other than a court and precludes the admixture of Commonwealth judicial and non-judicial functions on a federal tribunal.

Justice Kerr then stated that “Merits review-that is the function of evaluating and substituting the correct or preferable decision standing in the place of a decision maker, as opposed to enforcing the law that constrains and limits the powers of the other branches of government-is, on that analysis, beyond judicial power.”

Source: http://www.aat.gov.au/about-the-aat/engagement/speeches-and-papers/the-honourable-justice-duncan-kerr-chev-lh-presid/keeping-the-aat-from-becoming-a-courtKangaroo Court

The AAT has no legal power to independently make findings as to “the primary matters of fact” in a legal dispute, e.g. a DHS/Centrelink “Account payable” claim.

The AAT only has the power to review any administrative decision made by a Federal Government bureaucrat but this should be AFTER a court has determined the primary facts of the matter in a dispute. As the following High Court decision makes perfectly clear, if a government decision maker, e.g. Centrelink, makes a decision that they have no jurisdiction to make, then there is no decision.

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

Paragraph [53] of the Australian High Court’s 2002 Bhardwaj Decision states,

“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.”

The the legal ramifications of the Hellicar and Bhardwaj Decision very made very clear in his August 27th 2013 speech to the NSW AIAL lawyers, many of whom may been AAT Members:

“Merits review-that is the function of evaluating and substituting the correct or preferable decision standing in the place of a decision maker, as opposed to enforcing the law that constrains and limits the powers of the other branches of government-is, on that analysis, beyond judicial power.”

The “correct” decision in the AAT “Kangaroo Court” hearing that I was involved in was very clear, i.e. since no court had determined “the primary facts of the matter” and neither the Secretary of the Department of Human Services nor the Secretary of the Department of Social Services had constitutional “jurisdiction” to so, the duty to make a legally valid decision had not been performed and therefore the only AAT determination possible was that “…in law, the duty to make a decision remains unperformed.”

It is important to realize that that this constitutional and legal reality applies to AAL AAT decisions, including those used by the presiding AAT Member to determine that the welfare recipient that I was assisting, e.g. Ivocic and Director General of Social Services [1981] AATA 57 at [45]; Re Beadle and Director-General of Social Security (1984) 6 ALD at 3 per Toohey J; Beadle and Director General of Social Security [1984] AATA 176; (1985) 60 ALR 225 at 228 as per Bowen CJ, Fisher and Lockhart JJ;

If the legal precedents above are legally “no decision” because courts had not determined the primary facts of the matter in each case, then they are invalid and meaningless precedents.

The decision made by the presiding AAT in the case that i was involved in was not based upon a determination of primary facts by a court and even worse, with no legal jurisdiction to do so, the presiding AAT Member made such determinations, e.g. the phone call recording withheld by Centrelink was apparently not deemed to be a “primary fact of the matter” and so the presiding AAT Member did not order that it be made available.

Indeed, I made the statement that In the 10-year period from 1st January 1997 until the 31st December 2006, there were 20,914 suicides; a significant percentage of which were unemployed people. It is not possible to state precisely how many were post breaching fatalities because Centrelink does not collect the data, the Federal Parliament has secretly classified the death toll as “confidential” and “irrelevant”… the Australian Federal Police has refused to investigate [these deaths] because of the “gravity/sensitivity” and in my summary pleaded with the Tribunal to use its statutory powers to obtain the precise number of fatalities caused breaching penalties.

As stated in numerous other postings, these deaths are A Crime against Humanity and are murders under Article 7 (1) (a) of the Rome Statute. By failing to do so, the presiding AAT member was making a defacto determination that, like the withheld phone call recording, these Australian Parliament sanctioned murders were not “primary fact of the matter”.

Please note that due to a calculation error, this statement incorrectly under-stated the true death toll which was 23,254 with approximately 1 in 3, i.e. an estimated 7,700 of these suicides being unemployed Centrelink clients at the at the time of their demise.

How many decisions have AAT members made that are constitutionally “No decision at all” because a court has not determined the primary facts of the matter in each case? In addition, how many  decisions have also disregarded case law decisions that hold accountable legal entities that provide bad advice, as per the ACC v TPG and ACCC V AGL (SA) court decisions. Those two decisions were not unique landmark cases as the examples below reveal.

Source: Maurice Blackburn website: https://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/work-behaviours/misleading-and-deceptive-conduct

“The Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) provides protection for prospective employees including executives against misleading and deceptive conduct. The provision of the Act cover the availability, nature or terms and conditions of employment, or any other matter relating to the employment, or a company’s financial status, including profitability and risk, or other material aspect of any business activity of the company that proposes to engage the prospective employee.”

Morton v Interpro Australia Pty Ltd [2009] FMCA 423

Mr Morton, a senior sales employee of Interpro, alleged his employer had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct regarding his employment contract. Mr Morton argued that the company made representations about its commission based bonus scheme during contract negotiations. And that (in good faith) he had accepted the offer of employment on the basis of these representations and had subsequently relocated from the United Kingdom to Australia to join the company. After commencing in the role, the company unilaterally revoked the commission based scheme. –

Source: http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/legal-services/employment-law/employment-law-services/work-behaviours/misleading-and-deceptive-conduct/#sthash.hVtdeCAK.y5aGZw14.dpuf

Anor [2009] FMCA 423 and Moss v Lowe Hunt & Partners [2010] FC 1181

In 2010 Maurice Blackburn represented Mr Moss in a case of misleading and deceptive conduct. Mr Moss was an advertising and research consultant who ran his own company. He worked on a consultancy basis for Lowe Hunt & Partners (Lowe Hunt). Rather than using Mr Moss on a consultancy basis, Lowe Hunt wanted to employ Mr Moss directly and tried to recruit him to the company. In the course of this recruitment, Lowe Hunt made representations to Mr Moss, including that that the company was a financially successful agency and was in a strong business position. Moss became an employee of Lowe Hunt after relying on these statements, but within 18 months his role was made redundant. The judge in the case stated it was misleading or deceptive to describe a business as being successful when it did not have the continued support of its parent company.

The court held that Mr. Moss was induced to enter into the contract by the misleading conduct on behalf of Lowe Hunt and ordered compensation for damages plus all legal expenses to be paid to Mr. Moss for the losses he suffered.

Source: http://www.mauriceblackburn.com.au/legal-services/employment-law/employment-law-services/work-behaviours/misleading-and-deceptive-conduct/#sthash.hVtdeCAK.dpuf

 In both the Morton v Interpro and Anor v Lowe hunt & Partners cases conducted by Maurice Blackburn, the applicant in each case was misled.

In law, the respondents in these 2 cases were legal entities who had given bad advice or misleading that was acted upon in good faith by the ‘applicants’. In both cases, the respondents were held by the presiding courts to be fully accountable for the erroneous or misleading advice.

These two decisions further underscore the absurdly farcical, thoroughly disgraceful AAT finding above which that Centrelink cannot be held accountable for its mistakes simply because Centrelink makes so many of these mistakes that there is nothing “exceptional” about this conduct and therefore welfare recipients who are overpaid because of these frequent errors are partially to blame and , under the “soley” provision in s1,237A of the Social Security Act, therefore welfare recipients must repay the overpayments caused by Centrelink’s ‘Commonwealth errors’.

At this time, that is about $5 BILLION that were most likely caused primarily by Centrelink’s inadequately training, badly over-worked staff making such frequent errors that they are not “exceptional” but in fact the norm a fact made even worse by the inadequate 1980s era ISIS computer system which receives a mind blowing 50 million keystrokes per day, each of which has a 50% margin of error.

These disgraceful AAT decisions occur for two primary reasons; firstly welfare recipients cannot afford the thousands of dollars per day to fight such absolutely disgusting decisions whilst Centrelink has access to taxpayer funds and is prepared to spend $565,000 of this money in legal costs to recover a paltry, by government budget standards, $6,000 from a welfare recipient.

Secondly, the underlying problem is that the ISIS computer system was not fit for purpose when first purchased in the early 1980s and once this was realized, rather than own up to this waste of taxpayer’s money, it is now Standard Operating Procedure for politicians and DHS management to automatically blame welfare recipients for the overpayments and send out “Account payable” notifications in a fraudulent violation of civil rights that the AAT endorses with its unconstitutional, and quite possibly, unlawful, determinations.

Make no mistake, AAT Members ARE aware of the High Court and Federal Court decisions mentioned above. However, in the appeal that I was involved in, the presiding Member ignored the decisions that pre-dated the 2014 hearing in favour of home-town AAT decisions and other court decisions that enabled the AAT Member to rationalize the ridiculous and ordering the welfare recipient to repay the overpayments that I believe do not have to be repaid because they are solely ‘Commonwealth errors.’ Had the welfare recipient that I assisted been able to afford a lawyer and the case was argued in a Magistrates Court, instead of in the AAT, Centrelink’s claim would have been “booted out of court.

[1] Paragraph 7 findings: “The precise content of the requirements of procedural fairness which must be observed by a particular administrative decision-maker is controlled by any relevant statutory provisions and may vary according to the circumstances of the particular case.”

In December 2015, Alice Linacre, the Acting Chief Legal Counsel for the department of Human Services ignored these decisions and 2 weeks later 73,000 people were hit with Waivergate 2016! Ms. Linacre had a copy of “The Emcott Report” which included most of the above information.

Emcott cover page

 

At a Malaysian law conference in 2010, a former High Court judge, The Honourable Michael Kirby said:  

“As a principle, the rule of law is essential. However, it is only so as it safeguards and promotes the higher principle of justice. Justice for all. Harmony in society and its laws through justice. Not simply justice for the majority, as expressed in democratic elections. Justice also for minorities. Justice, especially for vulnerable and unpopular minorities. It is when minorities demand the protection of the law that our discipline, the law is tested.” [1]

In his speech to the AIAL lawyers on 27th August 2013, Justice Kerr made the following statements which I have bullet-pointed for clarity:

  1. Thus section 2A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act) directs that in carrying out its functions;
  2. the Tribunal must pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick.
  3. Section 33(1)(b) of the AAT Act then directs that the proceedings of the AAT;shall be conducted with as little formality and technicality, and with as much expedition….as a proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permit.

The reality of what actually happens is the very opposite. Crown Law lawyers prepare complex documents that are hundreds of pages in length and which quote obscure legal precedents i9n an attempt to legally justify the “solely” component of s1,237(A). Impoverished welfare recipients, who may be functionally illiterate and have no knowledge of the law are not provided with taxpayer funded access to the “privileged expertise” provided to the Secretary of the DHS and the Secretary of the DSS at taxpayers expense.

A very sick joke – the commonwealth as a “Model Litigant”.

Way back in 1912 a court ruled that because of the power that the the Commonwealth had in legal actions and because it was the rule maker in civil litigation the Commonwealth has a duty to act as a Model Litigant. The development of this obligation in conducting litigation can be traced to Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead (1912) 15 CLR 333 where Griffith CJ explained it as ‘[t]he old fashioned traditional, and almost instinctive, standard of fair play to be observed by the Crown in dealing with subjects’[1]. In that case the Court criticised that ‘[t]he Crown should not take technical points’.

  1. The idea that the Crown should not take technical points is a joke when you consider the extremes used to avoid being “solely responsible” for Commonwealth errors.
  2. If Centrelink makes a mistake and you do not read the form letters that they send you, that is used as the technical error excuse to claim that the Commonwealth, i.e. Centrelink, was not solely responsible for the over-payment error!
  3. Note that although the Court decision was in 1912, the Model Litigant rules were not introduced until 2005, i.e. 92 years later. This begs the question, why stall on obeying the court ruling for 92 years? The answer is found within the Model Litigant Rules introduced in 2005.The obligation states:
  4. 1                 Consistently with the Attorney‑General’s responsibility for the maintenance of proper standards in litigation, the Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies are to behave as model litigants in the conduct of litigation.Nature of the obligation2                 The obligation to act as a model litigant requires that the Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies act honestly and fairly in handling claims and litigation brought by or against the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency…

[1] Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead (1912) 15 CLR 333, 342.

  • Note that the Commonwealth must act “honestly and fairly” in handling claims and litigation. Dail 13 32 76 to report income and a recorded message message will  state, “For your security this call will be recorded.”
  • When a request was made to have the recording provided, Centrelink would not make it available and the presiding AAT Member did not order that it be made available.
  • That was neither “honest” nor “fair”; it was in point of fact, an abuse of power for the purpose of obstructing justice, i.e. it was a violation of 2 criminal statutes that the AAT Member opted to ignore.
  • This was not justice; rather it was a systemic denial of justice with the AAT and Crown Law lawyers effectively giving the proverbial “1-finger-salute” to the Hellicar principle that it is for the courts to determine “the primary facts of the matter.”
  • What I both witnesses and experienced may best be summed in this statement by the Queensland Chief Justice, Tim Carmody:

“I will not allow this court to become a Dickensian Bleak House, where parties will be ‘tripping one another upon precedents, groping knee deep in technicalities [and making mountains of costly nonsense]’. Otherwise, to cite Dickens, it will become a ‘scarecrow of a suit… so complicated that no man [or woman] alive knows what it means’.”     May 7th 2015 (Brett Cowan Appeal)

I cannot in all honesty recommend the Federal government’s “appeal” system. It makes a farce out the concept of the “Model litigant” to the extent that if evidence has to be hidden to win a case, then it will be hidden. In December 2015 I provided Justice Kerr, the president of the AAT, with a detailed summary of many of the points above, including the classified breaching death toll caused by human rights violating laws, the Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions and my “sacking” by the Ombudsman’s Office on the 25th November after sitting on the detailed appeal that I had lodged with Adelaide branch of the Commonwealth Ombudsman on the 16th November 2015.25-11-15 Redacted OCO

  1. Apart from being ‘sacked’ by the Ombudsman’s Office, which had no legal right to do so, the only responses to the Hellicar and Bhardwaj case law precedents have been Acting Chief legal Counsel Alice Linacre’s letter  and the failed attempt to violate the civil rights of 73,000 on 1st January 2016.

    7-1-16 Redacted Centrelink response

    This letter was written just hours before the 7 Network blew the whistle on Centrelink’s attempt to by-pass due process of law by electronically billing 73,000 for small claims that collectively amount to tens of millions of dollars.

I cannot show you Justice Kerr’s response to a letter from me dated 15th December 2015 because I have not received any response. If “actions speak louder than words”, then the failed attempt by Centrelink to bully and intimidate 73,000 into repaying amounts of up to $800 is, by ‘A Physical  Act of Omission’ on Justice Kerr’s part, his response to my correspondence.

If the President of the AAT, a Federal Court judge, is apparently prepared to ignore High Court decisions such as Kioa, Bhardwaj and Hellicar, is it any wonder or surprise that AAT Members presiding in appeals do likewise?

I cannot say it too often: Avoid what appears to be an exceedingly corrupt and dysfunctional federal government appeal system if you receive an “Account payable” demand from Centrelink and refer the Centrelink demand for repayment to the police. Do not let the police accept the “computer glitch” excuse used by Hank Jongen on January 7th 2016. Point out that ‘on the balance of probability’, it may have been a deliberate abuse of power that violated s 142 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.

This URL,  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-u2  

The above short cut URL link can be provided to the police who can then contact me. I can provide them with further evidence indicating why federal politicians and DHS/Centrelink officials should be investigated for both the Waivergate fraud scams and Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity.

QUICK TIP: If you are using Microsoft Windows, right-click your mouse and Copy this website to your computer desktop folder so that you will be able to locate this posting on your desktop screen whenever you boot your computer.  Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for justice in Australia.  

  FOOTNOTES:

[1] The Hon. Michael Kirby AC CMG. “The rule of law beyond the law of rules.” Address to the 15th Malaysian Bar Association Conference, Kuala Lumpa, 29 July 2010.

 

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for justice in Australia.   make

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 21: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Once more the Federal Police are asked to investigate these crimes.

Based upon available such as the Denley Letter and Federal Agent Pearce, both of which have been published in a number of previous Ronald’s space postings, it appears that the policy of the The Australian Federal Police is to officially ignore any and all Crimes against Humanity perpetrated against welfare recipients by the Australian Federal parliament of federal government agencies acting to enforce unconstitutional, human rights violating laws. Below is my my “Plan B” submission to compel the Queensland Justice3 Minister, Yvette D`Arth, to provide me with contact details for Gerard Baden-Clay and his solicitor. By using the ‘Forward’ button in  Microsoft Outlook, I forwarded my last email to Ms. D`Arth to the Federal Police and will again ‘Forward’ the AFP email back to Ms. D`Arth to underscore the fact that if she continues to ignore my requests for Gerard Baden-Clay’s contact information, then there is a risk that she could wind up facing Obstruction of Justice charges under s 132 of the Queensland crimes Act and s 149 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. 

The irony is that if the Federal Police Commissioner, Andrew Colvin, continues to stonewall on my repeated requests to investigate the unreported, secretly classified, “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity that may have impacted the lives of several million people over the last 3- – 40 years, then he too may face the same obstruction of justice charges.  Please note that the original email text contained some typos which are edited out in this Copy & Paste of the email sent to Commissioner Colvin.

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

Tue 23/02/2016 8:45 PM

Attention: Commissioner Andrew Colvin,

 PLAN B:

 The email daisy-chain is genuine, a fact easily confirmed by AFP cyber-crime unit experts. The email to the QLD Justice Minister, Yvette D`Arth represents “Plan B” in dealing with Crimes against Humanity and fraudulent tort actions by the Department of Human Services and the Department of Social Services against welfare recipients.

 Matters of fact that have interesting questions of law implications:

 The legislated welfare penalty system commonly known as Breaching is a Crime against Humanity under Article (7) of the Rome Statute of the International Court of Justice with breaching triggered fatalities being murders under Article 7 (1) (a). The fatalities are also homicides under a plethora of state and territory laws, e.g. s 302 of the QLD Crimes Act, s 279 of the WA crimes Act and s 13 (7) of the SA Criminal Law Consolidation Act. The question of law is how many of the 23,254 suicides that occurred in the 10-year period from 1st January 1997 until 31st December 2006 where breaching triggered homicides, i.e. how many qualify as Crimes against Humanity murders?

  1. As is pointed out in the email below, on 1st January 2016, the DHS (Centrelink) attempted to defraud 73,000 welfare recipients but were prevented from doing so by the gritty determination of Tracie Mitchell, a resident of Cowra in NSW. Centrelink’s chief spin doctor, Hank Jongen, claimed that the computerized roll-out of 73,000 “Account payable” emails/SMS was a computer “glitch”. It is my contention that the computer was pre-programmed to send these messages and that the Acting Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS, Ms. Alice Linacre, was fully aware that the High Court’s Hellicar decision in May 2012 and the Bhardwaj Decision in 2002 made quite clear the fact that assigning legal liability for overpayments first required a court to determine the “primary facts of the matter” upon which a fair and correct decision could be made. The appended redacted copy of Ms. Linacre’s letter, dated 7th January 2016, is empirical evidence that she abused her lawful power by disregarding these and other court decisions that constrain Centrelink from making tortious conduct determinations that are financially advantageous to her employer and gravely detrimental to welfare recipients. Again, as is made quite clear in the letter to Ms. D`Arth, a question of law is the number of welfare recipients who may have died as a direct consequence of unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful, roll-out of 73,000 “Account payable” notifications.
  2. Justice Kerr’s “Keeping the AAT from becoming a court” speech to the NSW AIAL in August 2013 raises the question of law as to why such a speech was necessary? I experienced first hand just such a ‘Kangaroo Court’ experience and so I KNOW that he has failed to achieve this goal. The flow-on question of law is again, how many people have died as a consequence of this unconstitutional abuse of power?
  3. I would draw your attention to the redacted letter that I received from Centrelink via the MyGov website. It is a matter of fact that this letter contains a blackmail threat that violates s 172 of the SA Criminal Law Consolidation Code, a statute that contains a clearly worded note that abuses of power by public servants for the purpose of achieving government policies constitutes a violation of this criminal law statute. I do not appreciate being the target of systemic blackmail that threatens to endanger my life by unlawfully depriving me of what was at that time, my sole source of subsistence and I demand a police investigation into the extent of this unlawful conduct. Again, the question of law is how many times have federal government bureaucrats engaged in this blatantly unlawful conduct with fatal consequences?
  4. It is a matter of fact that paragraph 5 of the constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth are binding on the Courts, judges, and the people. Since politicians are people, s 134 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code also applies to them and the Completely Ridiculous And Preposterous excuses offered by the AFP for not investigating the Howard Government’s s 142 violating “Performance Indicator Targets” and brazen rorting of the Parliamentary Entitlements Fund by simply ignoring the rules and then claiming “I made a mistake,” are, in more simple terms, C.R.A.P.

As you can see from the content of the 2 emails concatenated below, in 2016 it is my intention to bring the above issues to the attention of the courts. The reason why I have targeted the Baden-Clay appeal should be fairly obvious, i.e. it will be argued before the High Court. However, any fraud or murder case will do in any state as any court can order Centrelink to disclose the unreported, secretly classified “irrelevant” death toll that I believe collectively constitutes a humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions.

 Whether or not you (finally) act on the issues that I am raising or continue to stick with the existing AFP policy of doing nothing about the state sanctioned defrauding and murder of welfare recipients is not something that I can do anything about, i.e. you will decide to do what you decide to do. However, the emails below and the appended files emphasize the fact at some point in the future, your decision will be a matter for consideration by a court. Statistics are not really a valid benchmark for a trial; however they do provide the basis for valid grounds for investigation. In the period 1997 – 2006 about 1 in 3 of the 23,254 suicides that occurred in that 10-year period were Centrelink clients. That is approximately 7,700 fatalities by suicide alone and to this can be added deaths by ‘Misadventure’ and so-called ‘natural causes’. I hold to the genuine belief that once the DHS is compelled to answer the following questions concerning tortious conduct by the DHS/Centrelink that my estimate in Volume I of ‘The Emcott Report’ of a cumulative toll between 15,000 and 60,000 will be validated.

 Questions of law to consider are:

 Is “Breaching a Crime against Humanity, i.e. a targeted action by the federal parliament that recklessly endangers life by deliberately depriving people of what may be their only means of subsistence?

  1. If so, how many people have died after being breached, i.e. how many such fatalities are unreported by DHS/Centrelink official who should have the computerized data as to the numbers of people who did not resume receiving a welfare payment after the breach penalty period expired because they were deceased? (The DHS pays a funeral allowance to dependents of such victims and generally stops paying dead people and so the data is available.
  2. Have DHS/Centrelink bureaucrats exceeded their lawful authority by issuing, verbal, printed or electronic “Account payable” demands, and if so, how many people have been so traumatized, i.e. stupefied and placed under extreme duress, that these unlawful demands have triggered fatal consequences such as happened in Case Study #1 on page 16 of The Emcott Report and/or as outlined below?
  3. Does the legislative charter of the AFP allow federal police officers to turn a blind eye to apparent rorting by members of the federal parliament, e.g. Bronwyn Bishop’s infamous “Chopper-gate’” incident in which she reported abused taxpayers with a $5,200 charter of a helicopter to fly to Geelong from Melbourne and Tony Abbott reportedly spending $9,400 of taxpayers money to fly to his own book launch? I would remind you that in the High Court Boughey case, Justice Briggs looked very closely at Dr. Boughey’s professional qualifications when deciding if he should reasonably have known that strangling a person could prove to be fatal. This logic applies to all members of the federal parliament who hold law degrees, e.g. Bronwyn Bishop and Tony Abbott, or other professional qualifications that would reasonable indicate that they knew what they doing when they decided to spend taxpayers money for person benefit without first checking with their allocated Parliamentary Expenses managers.

 I cannot emphasize too strongly that the July 7th 2004 decision not to investigate the concerns that I raised with Commissioner Mick Keelty in May and June 2004 may have resulted in horrific hardship and an appalling death toll that includes the 4 Home Improvement Program fatalities. I am not qualified to determine how many members of the federal parliament have a sociopathic mindset in which political ideology is deemed to be more important than the lives of welfare recipients. With an election looming, it is my contention that all voters need to be aware of MPs who may have unlawfully endangered lives with fatal consequences for some people.

 In closing, I would repeat that the emails below are evidence of my intention to push the deaths toll caused by government policies into the courts as quickly as is possible. I shall shortly be forwarding “Legal & Confidential” emails to Ms. D`Arth for forwarding to the legal representative of Gerard Baden-Clay and the QLD DPP. These emails will contain copies of original documents that are not redacted. As with the emails below, I shall forward them to you for your consideration.

 Yours truly

Ronald Medlicott – registered teacher and a Christian lay advocate for justice.

 P.S. I require an investigation into the Centrelink threat to deprive me of my civil right to a subsistence allowance and if you do not indicate that this will occur, as the social justice coordinator for Playford Baptist Church, I shall report this fail to uphold the law to the membership, more than 50% of whom are welfare recipients.

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

Reader should note that Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court of Justice contains the following provisions:

7 (2) (g) “Persecution” means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;

7 (2) (e) “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions; (A problem is that any parliament can create laws to by-pass this weak sanction!)

7 (1) (h) “Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political,
racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph
3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under
international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph
or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;”

Breaching is a targeted act of destitute that is intended to deprive welfare recipients of what may be their only (sole) means of subsistence, i.e. ‘the Dole’. If doing this triggers a fatality, regardless of the specific cause of death, this violation of Article 1 (2) of both the International Convention for Civil & Political Rights and the International Convention for Economic, Social & Cultural Rights is a Crime against Humanity under 7 (1) (a) of the Rome Statute which states:

7 (1) (a) “For the purpose of this Statute, ‘crime against humanity’ means any of the
following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack
directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;

Breaching fatalities, and fatalities triggered by Centrelink’s unconstitutional “Account payable” scam, i.e. ‘Waivergate’, are also homicides under criminal laws in every state and territory in Australia. The irony therefore is that by asking the Federal Police to investigate these crimes against Humanity, the failure of the federal Police to do so provides an opportunity for any person accused or convicted of fraud, reckless endangerment, manslaughter, or even murder, to mount a valid Apprehended Bias or Manifest Ostensible Bias appeal.

If the 120,000 Queensland residents who reportedly pressured Ms. D`Arth into a High Court appeal of the recent Baden-Clay appeal decision want to be just and fair, they have to accept that Gerard Baden-Clay could mount a very persuasive argument that his prosecution was invalid as he is entitled to be treated in the same manner as the politicians, bureaucrats and lawyers who have ripped-off welfare recipients and then hidden the death toll by the simple process of non-disclosure of these deaths.

That is the legal significance of the 2nd paragraph of the letter below:

Skill certified

When it comes to Centrelink “giving you options”, the legal reality is that any and all options that involve depriving impoverished people of their sole source of subsistence, i.e. the Dole, are criminal violations of international laws. When fatalities do occur, they violate state or territory homicide laws. With the very real possibility that the cumulative death toll from “Breachgate” (Breaching) and “Waivergate” (Centrelink’s unconstitutional ‘account payable’ demands, could be in the range of 15,000 – 60,000 undisclosed “irrelevant” fatalities, it is no wonder that Centrelink bureaucrats do not collect and report the mounting death toll.

Either a Royal Commission or UNHRC investigation is required but the chances of that are very slim as Federal Agent Pearce’s email makes quite clear. Check out the reasons why the Federal Police do not investigate any crimes involving federal politicians or unconstitutional, human rights violating legislation. The excuses are utter garbage. How many people in Queensland, or indeed anywhere else in Australia, would accept such excuses for alleged fraud or serial abuses of power that have killed people?

Agent Pearce’s email: C.R.A.P – Completely Ridiculous And Preposterous.

The AFP email about is about perverting and obstructing justice in order to protect politicians who may have ripped off some $4.,640,000 of taxpayers money by ‘double-dipping’ on entitlements. What ever the email is about is therefore not upholding either justice or the Australian constitutional imperative that the law is binding on the Courts, judges, and the people! Such  completely ridiculous and preposterous excuses such , do NOT uphold the law; rather these crap excuses undermine the law and bring the concept of justice in Australia into international disrepute. The dismissal of the breaching fatalities as “irrelevant” by the Senate’s Employment. Workplace relations and Education Committee is also disgraceful. However, since this is one of the committees with legal oversight, and therefore legal accountability, for these crimes against humanity, their response is understandable for they do not want to spend the rest of their lives either in jail or bankrupt after being sued by families of those who died.

Back in January, when Tracie Mitchell in Cowra, New South Wales, copped one of Centrelink’s fraudulent “Account payable” demands, she fought back and within a few days that attempted rip-off was dead in the water and centrelink’s chief spin doctor, Hank Jongen, was claiming that it was all a terrible mistake caused by a computer “glitch”

That excuse may hold water to anyone who does not know about the Linacre Letter and the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions but to those who are aware of the true facts of the matter, it is not unreasonable to be of the opinion that Centrelink deliberately violated the Abuse of Power laws in s 142 of the Commonwealth Criminal code Act for the purpose of ripping millions of dollars off of unsuspecting welfare recipients.

7-1-16 Redacted Centrelink response

This letter was written just hours before the 7 Network blew the whistle on Centrelink’s attempt to by-pass due process of law by electronically billing 73,000 for small claims that collectively amount to tens of millions of dollars.

 

that familiar with the Remember. the “me” in the catch phrase, “If it to be it is up to me.”  “Me” is not Ronald Medlicott; it is you

You have to do more than just read these postings, which  is good; however, forwarding the website URL below to your friends, to your state and federal MPs and best of all, to your state police, is far more appropriate. If you are one the 7,300,000 people who are at risk of such injustice, you should be demanding  a criminal investigation into why Australia’s political and legal systems treat welfare recipients as life unworthy of life.

The short link URL to include in emails or letters to friends, the police, politicians or the mass media is:

http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-tl

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for justice in Australia.

P.S. If you have not seen ‘Burn Notice – The Others’.  If you reckon that it has a real message for the community, then share the Burn Notice URL with your friends on YouTube. please check it out at:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in News and politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 20: Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity. Another email to Queensland’s Justice Minister, Yvette D`Arth, with yet another example of Centrelink’s Waivergate rip-off.

 Below is another email to the Queensland Justice Minister, Yvette D`Arth, with details of another victim of Centrelink’s civil rights violating “Account payable” scam. I strong recommend that readers check out the ABC’s AM program web link below for details of how Centrelink tried to defraud a woman of $25,000 by falsely accusing her of failing to provide information when in point of fact a human error, i.e. a “Commonwealth error” had occurred and the Waiver of Debt rule in paragraph 1,237 (A) of the Social Security Act should have been applied.

[Note: The short link URL for this website is http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-td ]

Keep in mind that the civil rights issue is simple; Centrelink has NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, and therefore no legal right, to issue demands for repayment until a court has independently and impartially determined “the primary facts of the matter.” Consequently, anyone who gets hit with a demand for repayments should immediately ask “When did a court decide that I was to blame for the over-payments and why didn’t the court ask for my input?”

REMEMBER: If there is no court decision, then there is no legally valid claim.

Okay, below is my email to Yvette D`Arth:

Dear Minister D`Arth, In case you think that the information that I am providing to you is a load of bunkum, check out this ABC AM web link from 6th February 2016. Complaints against Centrelink soar, Govt blames IT can be found at the following web link.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4401576.htm

I would draw your attention to the following comments on that ABC webpage:

MEREDITH WARD: I received a phone call from somebody from Centrelink just saying, “You owe us $25,000.”

ANGELA LAVOIPIERRE: Centrelink staff had made a mistake in registering her income four years prior, recording a zero instead of what she declared.
Having discovered the error, Centrelink investigated Ms Ward – and then confronted her.
MEREDITH WARD: It was an attack, basically, on my integrity because at first, with the first phone call I thought, you know, “Am I up for criminal charges? Am I going to be- Am I going to go to jail?” You know, “Is this… you know, what’s going to happen?”
ANGELA LAVOIPIERRE: With the help of a free community legal service, she won a lengthy appeals process to clear the debt.
But the problems haven’t stopped there for her, or thousands of others.
AM can reveal there were 3,896 complaints about Centrelink to the Commonwealth Ombudsman in the second half of last year.

Conveniently omitted in Centrelink being forced to finally acknowledge this traumatizing ‘Commonwealth error’ is the no so minor detail that the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions invalidate Centrelink’s practice of automatically blaming welfare recipients for overpayments and rudely demanding repayments. It is standard operating procedure and it is also a criminal abuse of civil rights for financial gain. Note that where Centrelink refuses to acknowledge fault and welfare recipients are forced to repay thousands of dollars, Centrelink does NOT refund monies claimed even though it is legally a “Commonwealth error.” The civil rights reality, as set out in 141 and 143 of the ASIV v Hellicar decision (HCA 17) on May 3rd 2012 is the constitutional fact of law that regulatory authorities cannot determine the “primary facts of the matter” in legal disputes in which they may be involved because it is a matter for the courts to do this. Like Tracie Mitchell in NSW, Meredith Ward fought back and obtained justice. Your problem, is that this abuse of power kills people, and some have been Queenslanders.

Consequently, Gerard Baden-Clay may be able to ‘wipe-the-floor’ with the QLD DPP appeal and may even eventually have the conviction overturned if he opts to use the thousands of pages of data/evidence that I can provide to him.

Homicide by heart disease                       (See also Serve and protect below)

Centrelink’s fraudulent torts or breaching can easily kill a person but producing a fatal emotional shock, a textbook scenario that violates s 295, s296,s297, s 302(4) when the death of person is hastened by criminal misconduct, such as the deliberate abuse of the civil rights of an at-risk individual, or worse, the deliberate violation of the civil rights of a large group of individuals, with the result that there are a number of potentially fatal or fatal cardio-vascular ‘events.

Aortic Valvular Stenosis (AVS) is a thickening of the muscle wall in one or more of the heart’s pumping chambers. This can easily be caused by s throat infection, e.g. a Strep’ infection that develops into Rheumatic Fever. It is a matter of medical fact that any person who has ever had Rheumatic Fever is potentially at risk of AVS which produces medical symptoms such as shortness of breath, fatigue, or heart palpitations. Unless a doctor tests for AVS, a person may never know that they are at risk of death from cardiac arrest due to AVS which could have been triggered by the acute emotional stress caused by recklessly dangerous, criminal misconduct by Centrelink officials. Either Breaching, which is a crime against humanity because it violates the basic human right to what may be the only assured source of subsistence, or alternately, Centrelink’s fraudulent “Account payable” scam which by-passes the courts, can trigger such an emotional stun that it triggers heart failure and results in the death of the victim of this criminal misconduct.

Another easily foreseen danger posed by traumatizing people with unlawful, civil rights violating tort actions is the problem of undiagnosed circulatory problems, e.g. MSSCH, i.e. Massive Spontaneous Subarachnoid Cerebral Haemorrhage.

This medical problem can cause death within moments as can a similar problem known as OAS, i.e. Abdominal Aortic Stroke. The sudden traumatizing of vulnerable individuals can place a person under such duress that they are emotional overwhelmed and stupefied and the resulting hypertensive event proves fatal.

As pointed in a previous communication, welfare recipients are top of the list for suicides and high on the list for causes of death due to heart failure or stroke. The role played the DHS/DSS in ‘fast-tracking’ the recovery of over-payments to welfare recipients by violating the civil rights of welfare recipients may be the single most common cause of both suicides and deaths by heart attacks. The statistical data is in the state and territory coroner’s courts databases and the New Year’s day “Account payable” rip-off of 73,000 people may have triggered a ‘glitch’ or a ‘blip’ in the statistics that will be evident once the statistical data on causes of death is published. In the meantime, police or investigators working for insurance companies or defence lawyers should be looking very closely at the available data. Unfortunately, the track record of police forces across the nation is not good when it comes to addressing systemic abuses of vulnerable people, a point underscored by the Royal Commission into the Sexual Abuse of Children, e.g. the findings in Interim Report #9, the HIP disaster report, and the Bundaberg Hospital massacre being just a few horrific examples of how those who duty is to serve and protect the public failed to do so.

The farce of “Serve and protect” is highlighted by the failure of the Federal Police to uphold the law when dealing with people who appear to have been regarded as “life unworthy of life.”

In 1979 the original mandate or charter of the Australian Federal Police was basically to serve and protect the Australian public. However, as both Federal Agent Denley’s letter dated 7th July 2004 and Federal Agent Pearce’s email on 14th September 2009 make quite clear, over the last 25 years that mandate has morphed into something else. Protecting politicians from the public appears to have become a more important priority so as to provide them with immunity from prosecution when caught out breaking the law, e.g. Bronwyn Bishop and the disgraceful “Chopper-gate” scandal which the AFP have failed to investigate despite what appears to be numerous “physical acts of omission” violation of 4.6.5 of the Parliamentary Entitlements Fund rules that indicate that Ms. Bishop was in violation of s 134 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. Such blatantly biased and unlawful abuse of statutory powers by the AFP is totally unacceptable for it involves Broad Ultra Vires decision-making by senior AFP officers.

Even worse, the AFP appears to have morphed into a vigilante organization:

The slaughter of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran on 29th April 2015 is further empirical evidence that the Federal Police have abandoned their original mandate. The action of Federal Agent Phelan in passing on information to the Indonesian police was inconsistent with the provisions contained in s 115 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), e.g. 115.1 – Murder of an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia

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

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

(b)  the conduct causes the death of another person; and the other person is an Australian citizen or a resident of Australia; and

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

Penalty:                Imprisonment for life.

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

Australia; and

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

Penalty:                Imprisonment for 15 years.

It is my belief that all of the provisions contained in s 115 should be evaluated when considering the conduct of Federal Agent Phelan and his team in regard to the information provided to the Indonesian Police why ultimate resulted in the executions of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran. Ditto to the repeated refusal of the Federal Police to investigate the deaths of welfare recipients caused by the unreported, secretly classified “irrelevant” deaths of welfare recipients, either from Breaching or from the fraudulent “Account payable” Waivergate rip-offs.

I would again remind you that if you fail to conduct an inquiry into the deaths caused by the civil rights violating Breaching legislation and the civil rights violating “Account payable” frauds that have occurred in Queensland then you will be obstructing justice, a crime that violates s 132 of the Queensland crimes Act:

132 Conspiring to defeat justice

(1) Any person who conspires with another to obstruct, prevent,

pervert, or defeat, the course of justice is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.

(2) The offender can not be arrested without warrant.

(3) A prosecution for an offence defined in this section shall not be instituted without the consent of the Attorney-General.

Clearly s 132 (3) above would create a serious conflict of interest given your official position.

In addition, s 133 of the Queensland Crimes Act may also be relevant if you fail to either pass this email to Gerard Baden-Clay and his legal representative.

133 Compounding an indictable offence

(1) Any person who asks for, receives, or obtains, or agrees or

attempts to receive or obtain, any property or benefit of any kind for himself, herself or any other person, upon any agreement or understanding that the person will compound or conceal an indictable offence, or will abstain from, discontinue, or delay, a prosecution for an indictable offence,

or will withhold any evidence thereof, is guilty of an indictable offence.

(2) If the indictable offence is such that a person convicted of it is

liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life, the offender is guilty of a crime, and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.

(3) In any other case the offender is guilty of a misdemeanour,

and is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.

(4) The offender can not be arrested without warrant.

In addition to being the Justice Minister, you are also a member of the Australian Labour Party, hereafter the ALP. You are a thus a member of a political party in which members who were or currently are Members of the House of Representatives or senators, have violated the civil rights of vulnerable Australian residents and in doing so have caused and concealed fatalities that may have been triggered by those violations of civil rights.

To say that you have a serious conflict of interest is a gross understatement.

Unless you make available the contact details for Gerard Baden-Clay and his legal representative, I shall have no option but to forward this email to the Clerk of the Court for the High Court and request that this email be further forwarded to the legal representative of Gerard Baden-Clay.

My legal authority to do this is found in the provision in paragraph 5 of the constitution that states that “the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, judges and the people.” This is actually a very empowering provision in the constitution for ordinary people like myself. If all people, which includes myself, have a constitutional obligation to obey the law, then we have a responsibility to ensure that the courts and judges also comply with this provision, i.e. to act as a ‘Good Samaritan’ in ensuring that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done.

The legal determination of Gerard Baden-Clay’s actions in regard to the death of his wife is a matter for the courts and, regardless of the emotional response of a vocal minority in Queensland who are outraged at the downgrading of his conviction from murder to manslaughter, ensuring that he receives justice is an obligation upon everyone, including both you and I. Consequently, if you opt for politically expediency to withhold information from Gerard Baden-Clay by not passing on the information that I am providing to you, then you must accept both the political and legal accountability for your actions.

I would remind you that all breaching triggered deaths in Queensland that are unreported by government officials, including politicians, public servants, Crown Law officers, the mass media or members of the public, are homicides:

300 Unlawful homicide

Any person who unlawfully kills another is guilty of a crime, which is called murder or manslaughter, according to the circumstances of the case.

 302 Definition of murder

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

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

person some grievous bodily harm;

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

(c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender

may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;

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

(e) if death is caused by wilfully stopping the breath of any person for either of such purposes; is guilty of murder.

(2) Under subsection (1)(a) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt the particular person who is killed.

(3) Under subsection (1)(b) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to hurt any person.

(4) Under subsection (1)(c) to (e) it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to result.

 The statement in s 302 (4) above that “it is immaterial that the offender did not intend to cause death or did not know that death was likely to resultcannot be applied to Breaching triggered fatalities.

Please note warning in the appended Centrelink letter dated 11th December 2015 which I downloaded from the MyGov website on 16th December 2016. This letter contains a blackmail threat that, just for starters, violates s 172 of the SA Criminal Law Consolidation Act, i.e.

A Centrelink form letter that violates South Australia's criminal laws.

A Centrelink form letter that violates South Australia’s criminal laws.

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

That is a clearly worded, easily understood threat to deprive me of my constitutional right to an age pension if I do not contact Centrelink by that date.

The justification for this blackmail threat? My wife had obtained a casual job over the Christmas season and had filed a tax form with her employer which had been lodged with the Australian Tax Office. The purpose of my contacting Centrelink was so that Centrelink could arbitrarily record a phone call advising me that my wife needed to report income earned. Had Centrelink bothered to check their ISIS computer system records, they would have discovered that my wife’s earnings in the previous two reporting periods when she had been working had been reported. Rather than check my wife’s file, I was threatened with having my sole source of subsistence withdrawn if I did not contact Centrelink on a contact number where “For security, this call will be recorded.”

 

This threat also violates the human rights obligations set out in Article 1 (2) of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, hereafter the ICCPR. This convention is found in Schedule 2 of the Human Rights Act (1986), i.e. a federal law.

You need to come to grips with the legal reality that when it comes to the federal crime of Abuse of Power as set out in s 142 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), our parliamentary peers in the Federal Parliament have been “putting the pedal to the metal”. The situation is now so out of control that the Federal Parliament and a number of federal government agencies are “red-lining the tacho” when it comes to abuses of power.

At best, I can only estimate the cumulative death toll caused by Breaching and Centrelink’s fraudulent “Account payable” rip-offs. I believe that the death toll may fall within the range of 15,000 – 60,000 from all causes, i.e. suicide, misadventure, and hastening of death through ‘natural causes’ such a heart attacks and strokes, exposure, or fatal asthma attacks caused because Breached people had no means of meeting “their basic costs of living” which just happened to include the need to buy asthma medications needed to sustain life in the event of an asthma attack. Even 1/100 of that death toll, an absolutely unrealistically low figure configuring the degree of risk and huge numbers of people involved, would be 150 – 600 fatalities.

Even that is still an appalling figure

Fouled Up Beyond Any Recovery

FUBAR – yielding to intense emotional public pressure instead of upholding the Queensland Appellate Court’s impartial decision to downgrade Gerard Baden-Clay’s to manslaughter makes sense from a political viewpoint. However, from a legal perspective it was extremely foolish, especially given the information that I sent to your electorate office in December 2015. The law applies 24/7/365 and as the Justice Minister, you need to be on-the-ball 24/7/365. Justice in Queensland, and indeed all over Australia, took a long-weekend break over the new year period and this provided an opportunity for the Waivergate rip-off to target 73,000 people.

When you and your staff took a long-weekend break, you left Queensland’s vulnerable citizens fair game for bureaucratic predators. Therefore my consistent mantra is how many died?

Even one fatality is one too many.

Concatenated below is an email to Playford Baptist Church containing 2 reported that were tabled to the church members on 29th November 2015. Take note of the content of the Social Justice report; the pastor, Rev. Denis Hillson, asked members to report instances where Centrelink abused its power to me.

The decades of the DHS/Centrelink criminally abusing the civil rights of vulnerable people are coming to an end. Once I get these issues into court, either via Baden-Clay or via someone else who is facing criminal charges, or even by filing a criminal complaint against Centrelink for the appended letter, Centrelink’s unreported, secretly classified “irrelevant” death toll will be exposed to the courts and quite likely, the federal ALP will face bankruptcy at the very least.

The Emcott Report is again appended as it is my intention to forward this email to numerous people and organizations who may be able to use the information in this communication.

This is a 328 page report that is still being edited. it identifies politicians, public servants and police officers involved in hiding the death toll caused by both Breaching and Centrelink's "Waivergate" rip-off. It also looks at other deaths caused by lousy decision making by politicians, bureaucrats and police.

This is a 328 page report that is still being edited. it identifies politicians, public servants and police officers involved in hiding the death toll caused by both Breaching and Centrelink’s “Waivergate” rip-off. It also looks at other deaths caused by lousy decision making by politicians, bureaucrats and police.

Please note the “Proceed to trial” WAV file. Legally recorded during an AAT Directions hearing, the Crown Law lawyer makes specific reference to the case proceeding “to trial on that date.” Given that the AAT has no legal jurisdiction to hold trials, the failure of the presiding AAT to then inform me of this critical fact is in itself a serious procedural fairness violation that that invalidated the government’s case but this was ignored by Ombudsman’s Officials who even hid my appeal submission for a week. The criminal abuses of power are mind boggling, as is the lethal harm done. However, the body of evidence of this criminal abuse of power is now at the stage where the focus can switch to accountability.

As stated above, if you do not pass on this information to Gerard Baden-Clay, you could face serious criminal charges in relation to both the fraud and the fatalities that have occurred as a consequence of the violation of the civil rights of millions of very vulnerable people.

Yours truly,

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

Below is a printout of the email to Playford Baptist Church’s office which was posted in the Quarterly Reports to Members, a public document, which was tabled and accepted on 29th November 2015.

From: Ronald Medlicott [mailto:ronald48@optusnet.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, 15 November 2015 6:25 PM
To: ‘Playford Baptist Church’ <office@playfordbaptist.org.au>
Subject: Multi-media and social justice reports

 

Multi-Media Report.

It is likely that in the next 2 – 4 months the multi-media computer will be upgraded to Windows 10. As the current Easy Worship 2009 presentation software is incompatible with this operating system, it will be necessary to upgrade to the newest version, Easy Worship 6.

This version is already installed on the computer but, ironically, it does not work well with Windows 7 with users around the world reporting minor reliability problems caused by Windows 7 drivers. Once Windows 10 is installed, updating of presentation skills may be required and I have therefore decided to defer a proposed multi-media presentation training course until that time. I shall provide details of this training in the church newsletter at the appropriate time.

Ron Medlicott – Multi-media Coordinator.

Social Justice Report.

With a major regional hospital and an average of 1 doctor for every 1,000 people serving our community, we take medical services for granted. However, in many countries, doctors and medical services are rare. At the moment, John and Lorraine Foote are in Papua-New Guinea providing much needed medical services to indigenous people in an isolated area. Communications from John and Looraine via email indicate that they are fulfilling a vital role at this time, a timely reminder that individuals can make a big difference in the lives of others when they respond to God’s call to be of service in time of need.

Locally, we live in a community where a very a significant proportion of people subsist on a welfare allowance. Sometimes, errors in payments can occur and the government attempts to recover these overpayments in a manner that is inconsistent with its legal obligations and due process of law and this is an area where anyone in this church may be able to help individuals, some of whom may be asked to repay  thousands of dollars that they do not have.

Paragraph 1,237A of the Social Security Act contains a “Waiver of debt due to Commonwealth error” provision that requires that if the overpayments were caused by a mistake made by Centrelink, then that agency has just 6 weeks to discover and rectify the error. After that period, the entire overpayment “debt” must be waived. However, with some $4 Billion in overpayments since the start of the century, successive governments have been keen to recover as much of this money as possible and people who do not have to repay this “debt” have been asked to repay it. If you know someone in this situation, you can inform them of the waiver of debt law and the following High Court decision.

The High Court’s decision, Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17 was handed down on May 3rd 2012. Paragraph 143 of this decision states:

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

 The court also ruled that:

 “…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.”

 This little known High Court decision, based upon a 1912 decision (Melbourne Steamship Co) and more recent High Court decisions in 1985 (Kioa) and 2002 (Bhardwaj, means is that whilst Centrelink auditors can determine that overpayments may have occurred, they do not have the constitutional or legal authority to make any ruling or determination as to who was responsible for the error that caused the overpayments because it is a matter for a court, not Centrelink officials to make this legal decision.

Unfortunately, when seeking to recover alleged overpayments, at the moment with $4 Billion in overpayments having been made, it is very much a case of this ruling being honoured more in the breach than the observance. Therefore, if you hear of someone who has received a Centrelink letter of demand, i.e. an “Account payable” bill from Centrelink which asks them to repay the alleged debt within a week, you may be able to help in this situation by advising them of the waiver of debt rule and the Hellicar Decision.

Ron Medlicott – Social Justice Coordinator.

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

Final Comment in this posting:

The implication for politicians is that violating the civil rights of welfare recipients and then concealing the consequences is going to far harder to do in the future as more people become aware of their civil rights. Sooner or later, those politicians and bureaucrats who mistakenly believe that it is their “right” to commit these crimes are going to be held accountable. Hopefully, it will be sooner rather than later, because of the very dangerous, very traumatic hardships imposed upon very fragile, very vulnerable people.

 

 

Posted in News and politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment