International Criminal Court case file OTP-CR-188/19 re more information about Australia’s national genocide and crimes against humanity problem.

The following information is intended for Mr. Mark P. Dillon, the head of the Information and Evidence gathering unit of the International Criminal Court, in relation to case file OTP-CR-188/19

Note: the short link for this posting is:  https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1kM

As has been stated in some of my previous email contacts to you, Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution places an obligation upon the Australian Federal Parliament to make “PROVISION” for the payment of welfare allowances to a range of socio-econoimically disadvantaged people. However,as the following information reveals, in violation of human rights obligations and the Constitution,this obligation is deliberately being ignored on a massive scale.

SECTION 51(XXIIIA) – CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS:

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

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

  1. Note the key obligations are:

  2. The provision of welfare allowances;

  3. that cannot be linked to “civil conscription”, which is better known as “Work for the Dole.

How then can the following, unconstitutional, genocidal matters of fact be explained?

Genocide (2)FACT #1: Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s “Tough stand on dole”, i.e. the payment of welfare allowances, is both unconstitutional and, since it deprives people of the means to survive, is a crime against humanity.

 

Genocide by poverty CROPFACT #2 If the informnation in this News Corp’ report, dated July 31, 2019 is accurate, the Morrison Government is committing GENOCIDE on a massive scale, i.e. 2,696,196 times the Morrison Government deliberately violated the constitution by depriving vulnerabvle people of their right to a welfare benefit.

Check out the following examples, which provide more details of this  ruthless genocidal activity :

120,000 suspensions crop

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/aug/08/more-than-120000-people-whose-welfare-was-suspended-were-not-at-fault-data-shows

Extracts:

The data showed that of the 744,884 participants on the flagship welfare-to-work scheme last financial year, 581,866 had their payments suspended for failing to meet their mutual obligations.

The Daily Telegraph story was later cited by the employment minister, Michaelia Cash, as evidence the government’s new compliance regime was working.

Only 460,262 people were handed a “demerit point” by their job agency under the new system, meaning 121,604 people who had their income support suspended were found to have had a reasonable excuse.

After changes introduced in July last year, welfare recipients have their payment automatically suspended when their job agency records them as not meeting a “mutual obligation”. The providers do not have discretion and must issue a suspension.

Parent suspensions

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/sep/15/parentsnext-80-of-recipients-who-had-payments-suspended-not-at-fault-data-shows

Extracts: More than 80% of the welfare recipients who had their income support suspended under the controversial ParentsNext program were not at fault, new figures show.

After the Coalition expanded the national pre-employment scheme last year, about 75,000 people who get parenting payments – mostly single mothers – were for the first time required to attend meetings and undertake education, training, or parenting programs such as playgroup to keep their payments.

“When you put on top of that the fact that a whole lot of [the suspensions] are because the provider has stuffed up, people … basically have nothing to fall back on. People talk about having to go to Food Bank and not knowing whether they’re going to be able to feed their kids.”

“In one case lasy year, a woman had her payments suspended because she was admitted to hospital while 33 weeks pregnant and could not report to Centrelink.”

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/apr/04/parentsnext-provider-urged-staff-to-avoid-granting-exemptions-ex-employee-says

A for-profit ParentsNext provider told staff to avoid granting medical exemptions to sick welfare recipients to keep them on the company’s books, a former employee has alleged. The $350m scheme, which has faced significant criticism in recent months, places compulsory activity requirements on people receiving parenting payment who are classified as “disadvantaged” by Centrelink.

Providers are paid $600 per participant to get them ready to return to work, but the service fee does not apply when an exemption is granted.

 PeoplePlus, which has 24 ParentsNext offices across New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria, is accused of telling staff to avoid granting these exemptions when participants present evidence from a doctor saying they are too sick to take part.

A former case worker told Guardian Australia staff at PeoplePlus were told “not to accept a medical certificate” from participants.

“What we were told to do if somebody had a medical condition, or a lot going on, a complex situation, we were told to not exempt them but go easy on them.”

Staff were also told not to inform parents with more than three children they did not have to take part in the program, according to the former employee, who asked not to be named due to a non-disclosure clause in their contract.

The chief executive of PeoplePlus, Con Kittos, denied the allegations. “If there is any evidence … we’ll jump on that,” he said.

MY COMMENT; The problem with the content of all of above news articles is that, as stated above, the Australian Federal Government does not have the constitutional right under Section 51(xxiiiA) of the Australian Constitution to deprive people of a welfare allowance.

In addition, depriving people of the means to survive is a dangerous violation of human rights, i.e. a crime against humanity under UNHCR conventions:

ICCPR crop

CCPR crop

https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx

Note the last line of Article 1: “In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.”

In Australia, meeting the sole means of subsistence for unemployed people is the welfare allowances that the Federal Government is constitutionally required to provide.

ICESCR crop

CCPR crop

Again, note the last line of Article 1, which is the same right as under the International Convention for Civil and Political Rights, i.e. “In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.”

Scott Morrison’s clearly expressed views on the civil and political rights of vulnerable Australian’s was made quite clear 5 years ago with the following statement:

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

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

The Morrison Government is deliberately depriving people of the means to survive, which is a Crime against Humanity under provisions contained in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Rome Statute 1

Rome Statute Article 7

https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library/Documents/RS-Eng.pdfare,

As the prosecutors of the International Criminal Court are fully aware, the Morrison Government’s brutally repressive actions violate several provisions contained in Article 7(1) of the Rome Statute, e.g. 7(1)(h) “Persecution” and 7(1)(k) “Other inhumane acts… causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”

Every fatality caused by these violations of human rights is a murder under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute.

Welfare recipients and International criminal Court prosecutors, along with Australia’s legal profession and law enforcement agencies, need to pay close attention to the following statements on page 14 of the Hansard Minutes for a Community Affairs senate committee hearing held on 8th March 2017. The person testifying at the hearing is Ms. Lisa Newman, the Deputy President of the Community & Public Sector Union:

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

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

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

The Morrison Government is violating Australian Crown Law, Federal, State and Territory, whilst also violating international laws, e.g. fraud driven suicide is murder under section 13(7) of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act:

13A—Criminal liability in relation to suicide
(1) It is not an offence to commit or attempt to commit suicide.

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

The Robo-Debt fraud triggered death of Jarrad Madgwick occurred in Queendsland on 30th May 2019, i.e. exactly one-month after you notified me that the ICC had issued a case file number for my complaint: 

Please note Jarrad’s death is almost certainly a murder under Section 302 of the Queensland Criminal Code. 

QLD 302

Jarrad’s death is part of a horrific series of Robo-Debt driven murders that the Morrison Government denies being responsible for:

Triple J Hack page

https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/2030-people-have-died-after-receiving-centrelink-robodebt-notice/10821272

Section 137 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code act deals with the issue of Dishonest dealings with documents.

Crimes Act crop

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A04868

Division 137—False or misleading information or documents

137.1       False or misleading information

137.2       False or misleading documents

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

                     (a)  the person produces a document to another person; and

                     (b)  the person does so knowing that the document is false or misleading; and

                     (c)  the document is produced in compliance or purported compliance with a law of the Commonwealth.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 12 months.

[Reader note: I provide URL links so that my statements can be confiirmed – If they were untrue, I could be prosecuted under this and similar laws in South Australia.]

A question of law is just how many welfare policy triggered deaths have  not been mentioned in the Department of Human Services Annual Reports over the last 30 years?

Report 2018 crop

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018/10/8802-1810-annual-report-web-2017-2018.pdf

Keenan lie crop

https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/centrelink-robo-debt-deaths-data/

MY COMMENT:

Tell that to Kath Madgwick, the mother of Jarrad Madgwick. 

The fact is that Robo-Debt claims are unsubstantiated, unaudited claims that, once challenged, must be referred to the Courts for a decision. Without a court finding of the facts, Robo-Debt is a fraudulent demand made without legal right of claim.

ASIC v Hellicar & Others at paragraphs 141 to 143 states the following:

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

142 First, the proposition ignores that even a criminal trial “is not, and does not purport to be, an examination and assessment of all the information and evidence that exists, bearing upon the question of guilt or innocence”. Each side in a criminal trial “is free to decide the ground on which it or he will contest the issue, the evidence which it or he will call, and what questions whether in chief or in cross-examination shall be asked; always, of course, subject to the rules of evidence, fairness and admissibility”.

Proceedings for declaration of contravention or pecuniary penalty order engage no more stringent requirements.

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

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

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

The moment a person challenges a Centrelink decision, it becomes a matter for the courts, i.e. neither Centrelink nor contracted agencies have any jurisdiction to make a legal decision concerning welfare payments.

Skipping the courts is fraud, a fact driven home by the High Court’s 2002 Bhardwaj decision at paragraphs 51 and 53:

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

53. In our view, logic and legal principle both direct the conclusion that the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada is correct. As already pointed out, a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all.

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

http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/11.html

What the High Court made clear in tthe Bhardwaj decision is that if an agency, e.g. Centrelink, has no juridiction to make a decision, in law, it is to regarded as no decision at all.”

A crucial point of law is to be found in this statement regarding violations of the Constitution:  “A fortiori in a case in which the decision in question exceeds constitutional power or infringes a constitutional prohibition.”

 

Politicians and Centrelink officials cannot claim not to have known about the rising death toll caused by the unconstitutional welfare policies and practices.

EWRE Submission

Certified Linacre

Centrelink document LEX 21021

The Acting Chief Legal Counsel for the Department of Human Services, Alice Linacre, took it upon herself to ignore binding High Court decisions – why she did so is a matter for the courts.

As I have pointed out in this communication, welfare payments are both a constitutional right and a fundamental human right that cannot be extinguished arbitrarily by the Morrison Government enacting and enforcing randomly lethal, unconstitutional, human rights violating laws.

HOW IS SCOTT MORRISON ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH THESE CRIMES?

AAA Miles card

As has been mentioned in my email of May 7th 2019, when Dectective Brevet Sergeant Richard Miles and another officer who would not identify himself visited my home just after 11.00a.m. on that day, they misused their lawful authority in an attempt to persuade me that “no court” would pay heed to my complaints about the defrauding and muirder of welfare recipients. They treated these crimes as funny joke, with the unidentified officer describing himself as “He who will be gone in 3 weeks”.

It is my contention that if Detective Miles and the othe police officers identified in the original on-line complaint of 31st March 2019*, then Jarrad Madgwick would not have been murdered, i.e. Murder by suicide, and all of the other crimes that I have identified in this communication would almost certainly not have occurred.

*See https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1h5

See also: https://www.news.com.au/finance/money/costs/centrelink-debt-drove-man-to-suicide-says-family/news-story/317208e77b3c634c16baa4224f899642

“RHYS Cauzzo, 28, took his own life after a barrage of letters from debt collectors. His family says it should never have happened.”

Implicite in the above statement is the inference that if the prosecutors at the International Criminal Court had taken a far more proactive stance in initiating an investigation of OTP-CR-188/19, then literally hundreds of thousands of people would not have been traumatized and defrauded by the Morrison Government.

Please, expidite OTP_CR188/19 so that those responsible for the persuction, terroizing, exploitation, endangerment and random murder of welfare recipients can be held accountable before the courts.

Ronald Medlicott – Plaintiff for OTP-CR-188/19

 

g

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
Posted in burden of proof, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, international criminal court, murder, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Part 2: A Distant Trumpet – Too late for Jarrad Madgwick and thousands of others.

The purpose of this posting is to empower people to defeat the Australian Federal Government’s lethal Robo-Debt Fraud.

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

From the  perspective of Scott Morrison and his government, Robo-Debt is “fair, reasonable and just” because so many of the victims of this randomly murderous fraud do not know their rights or the legal facts needed to debunk spurious Robo-Debt claims. Consequently, if you want to fight Robo-Debt and win, you need take the time to learn how to fight back.

STEP 1: KNOW THESE COURT DECISIONS.

[A] ASIC versus Hellicar at paragraphs 141 to 143

This decision is an absolute “no-brainer”: the moment you dispute a Robo-Debt claim, a court must decide the facts of the matter. Until that happens, any decision by Centrelink is not legally valid and any claims by Centrelink officials that their decision is legal is a fraudulent act of misrepresentation under federal, state, and territory Crown Law:

The URL for Hellicar is:

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

The “guts” of what you need to know are at 141 – 143:

141. And insofar as the duty was said[132] to stem from a proposition “that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth, in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred”, that premise is false for at least two reasons.

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

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

[B] BHARDWAJ at paragraphs 51 to 53

This 2002 High Court decision is yet another “no-brainer”: If there is no legal decision to make a decision, in law, no legally valid decision can be made.

The URL for Bhardwaj is: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/11.html

Read paragraphs 51 to 53 and take note of the text that I have underlined below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • “In our view, logic and legal principle both direct the conclusion that the approach of the Supreme Court of Canada is correct. As already pointed out, a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all.”

    Once that is accepted, it follows that, if the duty of the decision-maker is to make a decision with respect to a person’s rights but, because of jurisdictional error, he or she proceeds to make what is, in law, no decision at all, then, in law, the duty to make a decision remains unperformed.

  • Thus, not only is there no legal impediment under the general law to a decision-maker making such a decision but, as a matter of strict legal principle, he or she is required to do so. And that is so, regardless of s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act.

The Key to understanding Bhardwaj’s impact on the fraudulent Robo Debt scam is very simple:

“As already pointed out, a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all.”

Once you say that Centrelink has made a mistake, Centrelink has no legal ‘jurisdiction’ to make a decision until a court decides the facts of the matter and therefore any subsequent decision that ‘skips-the-court’ is a fraudulent con job that is, in law, “no decision at all.”

SOME MORE ‘FINE PRINT’ LEGAL STUFF: REVEALING WHY ROBO-DEBT IS A FRAUD:

Under Article 17 of the Rome Statute, the  International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction if national justice systems deliver fair and just decisions re fatal policies and practices such as the deaths of 2,030 welfare recipients between 11syt July 2016 and 31st October 2018.

To understand why prosecutors at the International Criminal Court may regard Robo debt is systemic fraud, check out paragraphs 141- 143 of ASIC v. Hellicar (HCA17 on 3rd May 2012) , paragraphs 51 – 53 of immigration Minister v. Bhardwaj (HCA 11 on 14 March 2002),  Justice Gaudron’s findings at 6 –  9 in Williams v. Spautz (HCA 34 on 22nd July 1992) and the UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE points of law in the following more recent South Australian Supreme Court cases:

Police v. Butcher, (SASC 130 on 17 August 2016)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SASC/2016/130.html#

Police v. Hanton (SASC96 on 19th July 2018)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SASC/2018/96.html

Police v. Miller (SASC97 on 19th July 2018)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SASC/2018/9.html

Police v. Henderson(SASC98 on 19th July 2018)

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SASC/2018/98.html

EVIL DAYS: At 32 in Hanton, Justice Peek indirectly described Robo Debt (an averment based claim system) with these comments:

“The common law courts have made very clear that averment and certificate provisions are to be strictly construed and strictly complied with.”

“The time-honoured common law rule has, however, of late fallen on evil days, and grievous inroads have been made on its integrity by many Commonwealth Acts which enact that in the proof of offences against the Act the averment of the prosecutor shall be deemed to be proved in the absence of proof to the contrary.”

At 33, Justice Peek furtherstated:

In similar vein, Mr Kevin Anderson (later Anderson J of the Victorian Supreme Court) observed in a later number of that same journal:

A development of what Higgins, J, in Baxter v Ah Way (1909) (10 CLR 212 at p 216) describes as “apparently subversive of the first principles of justice” has made its appearance in a substantial and increasing number of enactments, particularly those of the Commonwealth Parliament.  This disturber of first principles is the “averment section”.  Though, as Higgins, J, points out, experience has found such an expedient to be necessary in consequence of the peculiar difficulty of proving offences against the Customs (and, he could have added, other) Acts, the courts, especially the High Court of Australia, have looked with scant favour upon the handiwork of the draftsman who has sought to extinguish “the beacon light of British Criminal Law”, the rule that every element of a criminal charge must be strictly proved.

In Hellicar at 142, the High Court ruled that the principles of law regarding evidence and that applied to criminal  cases also applied to civil cases involving “pecuniary” matters.

The High Court has been concerned since 1909, i.e. for 110 years, that ‘averment based claims by Commonwealth agencies may undermine the Rule of Law, i.e.

Higgins, J, in Baxter v Ah Way (1909) (10 CLR 212 at p 216) describes as “apparently subversive of the first principles of justice” has made its appearance in a substantial and increasing number of enactments, particularly those of the Commonwealth Parliament. 

For 110 years,the Courts have held the viewpoint that unproven government claims are “subversive to the first principles of justice” and a clue is spotting when the averment certification process is skipped by the government agency pushing the claim, e.g. the skip-the certification’ Robo Debt claims by Centrelink, which also ‘skip-the-courts’ when challenged.

SO, EXACTLY HOW SHOULD  ROBO DEBT’S  CLAIMS CERIFICATION PROCESS  REALLY WORK?

ROBO DEBT CLAIMS ARE CERTIFICATION BASED CLAIMS THAT MUST MEET “STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH” LEGAL REQUIREMENTS.

  1. Centrelink’s computer system should be certified as 100% accurate EVERY DAY.

  2. 100% data entry accurate EVERY DAY.

  3. PLUS 100% data processing accuracy EVERY DAY,

  4. PLUS 100% data output accuracy, EVERY DAY.

  5. Since data is cross-matched to the ATO computer, PRECISELY the same certification process is required by with the ATO computer system.

NO CERTIFICATION BY CENTRELINK AND THE ATO?

  1. Then ‘PLAN B’ should be implemented.

  2. An appropriately qualified, currently certified auditor conducts an audit in accordance with Australian Standards financial auditing standards;

  3. The auditor then produces a report which the (Centrelink) decision-maker uses as the basis for a “please explain” request for information.

  4. A copy of the auditor’s report should be provided along with the “please explain” letter.

  5. WHAT! NO CERTIFIED AUDIT?

  6. Then, as per the High Court’s Bhardwaj decision, in law, there are no legally valid grounds that provide “probable cause” for Centrelink to issue a “please explain” letter to a welfare recipient.

WHEN ROBO DEBT IS DISPUTED:

REMEMBER HELLICAR at 141 – 143?: If a welfare recipient challenges the validity of an alleged overpayment claim, legal jurisdiction automatic ally defaults to the court for a determination of the facts upon which a fair and just decision can be made, i.e. Centrelink no longer has any right to make a judgement in the matter until a court makes a decision.

REMEMBER BHARDWAJ at 51 – 53?: Any disputed Centrelink decision made that is not based on a court decision is, “in law” no decision at all” and a legally valid decision has yet to be made.

Administrative Review Officer [ARO] decisions MUST be based upon a court’s decision and if there is no court decision, the ARO must dismiss Centrelink’s claim on that basis. Not doing so is a criminal abuse of power by the ARO under Section 142(2) of the Commonwealth criminal code. (You and I call this FRAUD!)

HOWEVER, if the ARO does ignore the fact of law that no court decision has been made and upholds a legally invalid Centrelink decision, then the only decision that the AAT can hand down is one that upholds Hellicar and Bhardwaj, i.e. no court decision has been made and therefore, in law, no legally valid decision has been made.

If the AAT also ignores Hellicar and Bhardwaj, then the Federal Court must uphold Hellicar and Bhardwaj. Again, not doing so is a criminal abuse of power by the ARO under Section 142(2) of the Commonwealth criminal code. (Again, you and I can call this FRAUD!)

TAKE NOTE: Consistent with Justice Brennan’s decision at paragraph 38 of his findings in Kioa, you can ask the court to direct that Centrelink provide details of how many times they have ‘ignored the High Court’ binding Hellicar decision, i.e. how many times have they ‘skipped-the-court’. You can also ask the court to direct centrelink reveal the number of people, like Jarrad Madgwick, eho have died as a direct consequence of Centrelink violating Section 142(2) of the Commonwaelth criminal code?

The bad news for both Centrelink officials and federal politicians, is that once information about the number of fatalities is requested, the information must be provided, as per  Justice Brennan’s ruling at paragaph 38 in Kioa versus West:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1985/81.html

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

NOTE: Based on my personal experience, and comments by Professor Terry Carney, Centrelink officials, and politicians will hide their criminal activity behind the Privacy Act; however, that legislation was never intended to conceal fraud and murder, especially mass fraud and serial murder on a holocaust scale.

Murder by Suicide: The law in Section 302 of the Queensland Criminal Code.

302 Definition of murder

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

Call lifeline

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/centrelink-referring-twitter-users-to-lifelife-amid-debtrecovery-efforts-20170105-gtmg1u.html

Any claim that Centrelink officials or politicians that they did not know the lethal harm being caused by Robo Debt gets blown away by the fact that Centrelink advised potentially suicidal victims of the Robo Debt scam to “Call Lifeline”. With a whistleblower revealing that 2,030 deaths occured in just 28 months, i.e. an average of a death very 10 hours, the word that best describes this massive death toll is “Genocide”.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-18/hundreds-have-already-beaten-centrelinks-robodebt/11523278

Robodebt class action could deliver justice for tens of thousands instead of mere hundreds. The Conversation Terry Carney  Updated on 18-09-2019 at 12:06pm

Between July 2016 and March 2019 the government issued 500,281 robodebt notices, asserting debts of $1.25 billion, with the average being $2,184, but not uncommonly as much as $10,000. Much less has as yet been collected, but tax return garnishees, debt collection agencies and staff “quotas” are driving it up.

https://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/centrelinks-flawed-robo-debt-system-is-killing-our-most-vulnerable/

01-07-2019 by Sonia Hickey

SLC croppoed web page

Triple J Hack page

In 1946, Australia was at the bleeding edge in leading the fight against genocide and crimes against humanity.

UN Genocide convention

in 1946, Australia sponsored the first UN human rights convention.

In 2019, Australia is at the bleeding edge in committing genocide and crimes against humanity.

Ronald Medlicott:  Semi –retired 71y.o. teacher and volunteer lay-advocate.

Posted in abuse of power, burden of proof, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, international criminal court, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Robo Debt: A Distant Trumpet – the 7:30 Report and Victorian Legal Aid are finally responding to this lethal fraud.

Far too late for the dead, like the distant trumpet sound of a cavalry charge, both the 7:30 Report and Victorian Legal Aid are now making the right noises when it comes to the randomly lethal Robo Debt Fraud.

Note: The short link for this posting is:  https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1k3

Survivors of this viciously brutal fraud should check this out:

https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/centrelink-accused-of-chasing-debts-that-dont-exist/11259084

7-30 Report on Robo Debt

MY RECOMMENDATIONS:

(1) Watch the video and, if you are a victim of the fraudulent Robo Debt scam, use the Contact link on the webpage and contact the ABC and ask to speak to a 7:30 reporter.

(2) Alternately, contact Victorian Legal Aid and tell your story to one of their lawyers or para-legal assistants. If you can’t afford an STD call from another state, either write a letter or send an email.

(3) Victims of the Robo Debt fraud are not just entitled to have their money back; they are also entitled to Victims of crime Compensation.

(4) If a close family member died as a result of Robo Debt, whether from suicide, heart attack, stroke, or another linked cause, then $28 million in compensation is not an unreasonable amount. That was what the family of a Sydney woman, Justine Damond, accepted as compensation for her murder by a Minneapolis police officer.

https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2019/05/04/justine-damond-compensation/

Damond payout

The compensation paid to Justine Damond’s family represents just the baseline amount as her death was not classified as either “confidential” or “irrelevant” by the US Senate, and her convicted killer, Minneapolis police officer Mohamed Noor, was not allowed to continue to randomly kill other innocent people who had done no wrong.

Keenan lie cropSuicide rate 2018

Check out the following responses to my November 2005 submissions to 2 Senate committees concerning the mounting death toll caused by Austral;ia’s recklessly dangerous, randomly lethal welfare policies and practices.

 

EWRE irrelevant deadEWRE Submission

EWRE IrrelevantLEGCON Suppression Order page 1

In 2005 and 2006, the Australian Senate considered the political policy driven deaths of welfare recipients to be:

  1. “not relevant”;

  2. “irrelevant”;

  3. “confidential”.

At $28 Million per death, the Senate may now be less inclined to dismiss these deaths as “irrelevant”.

However, that is $28 Million per death worth of reasons to maintain the slowly crumbling wall of official secrecy that surrounds these murders.

Ronald Medlicott – Christian volunteer lay-advocate

 

 

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

The Donoghue Decision: “Good neighbour” versus Australia’s “appropriate compliance measures” murders.

Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562, [1932] UKHL 100, 1932 SC (HL) 31, [1931] UKHL 3

AAA DonoghueThis posting is an on-line submission to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court concerning my complaint, OTP CR-188/19, and the relevance of a 1932 House of Lords “Good neighbour” decision that I believe should be considered when assessing the legal merit of this complaint against the Australian Federal Parliament.

No-one in the OTP, or anyone else who reads this posting, should be in any doubt that I am accusing the Australian Parliament of engaging in Crimes against Humanity on a sophisticated holocaust scale.

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

1 death per 10 hours

One of my allegations is that in the 753 day period between 1st July 2016 and the 31st October 2018, the federal government of Australia misled some 900,000 people and knowingly defrauded over 400,000 of these people of a reported $2.9 Billion. I further allege that in the commission of this criminal activity, that the Australian federal government may have caused the wrongful deaths of as many as 2,030 people, as per the Triple J Hack internet report that was published on 18th February 2019.

In addition, I allege that the above criminal activity is merely the proverbial ‘tip-of-the-iceberg’.

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

“Now, this system involves a review of potentially millions of transfer payments, so of course there will be mistakes made, and I agree with what Piers Ackermann said, that when mistakes are made and they have terrible human consequences, then off course that’s a tragedy. But we do have to have appropriate compliance measures and the idea of data matching, introduced by Hawke and the idea of automated letters being sent to people when there is a discrepancy evident from the data-matching between the ATO data and the Centrelink data; it was introduced by you, is not a bad system. The methodology that has been used by this government is the same methodology that we inherited from you.”

In this statement, Senator Brandis admitted that Centrelink “mistakes” randomly killed innocent people that were justified on the basis of the need for what he described as “appropriate compliance measures.”

The following comments should also be noted:

  1. the idea of data matching, introduced by Hawke

  2. and the idea of automated letters being sent to people when there is a discrepancy evident from the data-matching between the ATO data and the Centrelink data;

  3. it was introduced by you, is not a bad system.

  4. The methodology that has been used by this government is the same methodology that we inherited from you.”

This was not a ‘flash-in-the-pan’ policy that randomly killed innocent people. It was a long-term practice that has been violating the civil rights of vulnerable people for decades.

Criminal Abuse?

I make that definitive statement because, in ASIC v. Hellicar, the Australian High Court ruled that once a regulator’s decision, which has pecuniary implications, is challenged, the determination of the facts becomes a matter for the courts and not the regulators who made the original decision.

It is also my contention that what Senator Brandis described as “appropriate compliance measures” was, and still is, in law, a criminal abuse of public office.  The fact of the matter is that the “appropriate compliance measures” are government initiated administrative policies and practices that randomly kill innocent people. As such, they are anything but “appropriate”.

I would make the point that the assumption that a data mismatch between 2 government computer systems that use totally different algorithms for calculating gross annual income earned is also not reasonable grounds for assigning legal liability for mismatches between these government computer networks.

The ability of Australian federal politicians, over a timeframe measured in decades, to enact laws that ruthlessly menace, intimidate, defraud,recklessly endanger and also randomly kill people is not the same as the right to do so. It is a fact of law that national parliaments have a duty of care not to engage in activities that foreseeably cause serious or fatal harm,  a fact of law made quite clear in a House of Lords determination in 1932.

Donoghue v. Stevenson

Donoghue versus Stevenson [1932] AC 562, [1932] UKHL 100, 1932 SC (HL) 31, [1931] UKHL 3 is a House of lords decision that was handed down on 26th May 1932. On-line access to this decision is at:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1932/100.html

The leading decision was presented by Lord Atkin, with 2 other judges supporting the lead decisions and 2 judges opposing, i.e. a 3:2 decision, with the majority decision prevailing. The following citations are from the Donoghue v. Stevenson majority decision:

Lord Atkin:

The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer’s question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.

Lord Macmillan

I have no hesitation in affirming that a person, who for gain engages in the business of manufacturing articles of food and drink intended for consumption by members of the public in the form in which he issues them, is under a duty to take care in the manufacture of these articles.

That duty, in my opinion, he owes to those whom he intends to consume his products. He manufactures his commodities for human consumption; he intends and contemplates that they shall be consumed. By reason of that very fact, he places himself in a relationship with all the potential consumers of his commodities, and that relationship, which he assumes and desires for his own ends, imposes upon him a duty to take care to avoid injuring them.

Lord Thankerton

The respondent, in placing his manufactured article of drink upon the market, has intentionally so excluded interference with, or examination of, the article by any intermediate handler of the goods between himself and the consumer that he has, of his own accord, brought himself into direct relationship with the consumer, with the result that the consumer is entitled to rely upon the exercise of diligence by the manufacturer to secure that the article shall not be harmful to the consumer.

Duty of Care:

  1. Lord Atkin: You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.

  2. Lord Macmillan: By reason of that very fact, he places himself in a relationship with all the potential consumers of his commodities, and that relationship, which he assumes and desires for his own ends, imposes upon him a duty to take care to avoid injuring them.

  3. Lord Thankerton: the consumer is entitled to rely upon the exercise of diligence by the manufacturer to secure that the article shall not be harmful to the consumer.

I conclude this posting with a bullet-pointed presentation of Commissioner Ian Hanger’s statement in 14.7.3.2 of the 2014 Report of the Royal Commission into the Home Improvement Program:

  1. “Risk cannot be abrogated

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

  3. The responsibility of Government is to care for its citizens

  4. and to exercise care and diligence to do everything reasonable to ensure citizens are not placed in danger by its actions,

  5. particularly risk of death and serious injury.”

1 death per 10 hours

Every one of the 2,030 deaths that is linked to the foreseeably dangerous, fraudulent Robo Debt claims, needs to be explained, not to the media or the Australian parliament but to a court of law.

The entire Australian criminal justice system, from the High Court down to police officers in a shop front police station, have all abrogated responsibility for the foreseeably dangerous, randomly fatal consequences of decades of ideology driven, unconstitutional, welfare policies and practices, the International Criminal Court is literally the Court of Last Resort when it comes to accountability for the persections of millions of vulnerable people and an as yet uncounted death toll that is likely to now exceed 100,000.

Ronald Medlicott.  Registered teacher and volunteer lay-advocate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in abuse of power, burden of proof, Case law, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, international criminal court, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Genocide complaint filed with the International criminal Court” Will families of Centrelink’s fatal “mistakes” get almost $29 Trillion in compensation?

ICC

I have filed a Genocide and Crimes against Humanity complaint with the International Criminal Court. – see https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1h5

 

1 death per 10 hours

US$20 Million compensation per death?

Are each of the 2,030 families of Centrelink’s Robo Debt (Mark 2) fatal “mistakes” entitled to US$20 MILLION in compensation?

Check out the following link:

http://www.startribune.com/minneapolis-agrees-to-pay-20-million-in-fatal-police-shooting-of-justine-ruszczyk-damond/509438812/

The family of Justine Damon will receive US$20,000,000 as compensation for her murder. This compensation sets an international benchmark for deaths caused by public officials or public agencies.

For the record, at the time of posting, 11.00 A.M. on 13th may 2019, US$20 Million converts to $28,643,036 Aussie dollars:

Currency

Do the Maths:

$28,643,036 x 2,030 Robo Debt victims:

$58,145,363,080

Every victim of the Department of Human Services, ‘Skip-the-courts’ tort actions against welfare recipients is entitled to compensation. With a death toll that the Secretary of the Department of Social Services did not dent may now exceed 100,000, that is an absolutely mind-blowing amount of compensation:

$28,643,036 x 100,000

= $28,643,036,000,000

[ALMOST $29 Trillion]

This URL: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1jG

Ronald Medlicott. Registered teacher and a Christrian volunteer lay-advocate

 

Posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, burden of proof, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, European Parliament, genocide, Human Rights violations, international criminal court, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

An appeal to the European Parliament for assistance in ending the commission of genocide and crimes against humanity by the Australian Parliament.

In order to draw the attention of the world to the genocidal conduct of the Australian Federal Parliament, I have sought help from James Carver, a member of the European Parliament.

Note: the short link for this posting is: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1jx

Carver home page

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/124971/JAMES_CARVER/home

 

Carver email

The text of my appeal for the European Parliament’s sub-committee on Human Rights to look at what is happening in Australia is set out below.

I would point out that any welfare recipient who hold dual citizenship in a European Union country can do what I have done, i.e. select a representative of the European Parliament who serves on the Human Rights Committee and appeal to them for help in ending the crimes being committed by the Australian Parliament.

THE MAYDAY EMAIL TO JAMES CARVER

james.carver@europarl.europa.eu

Ronald Medlicott 40 Siddall Road Elizabeth Vale South Australia 5112, 11th April 2019

Dear Mr. Carver,

Re: The unthinkable; the reality of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity being committed by the Australian Federal parliament on behalf of her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, the Queen of Australia.

In my MAYDAY email on the 9th April 2019, at Issue #4, I drew your attention to extracts from page 14 of the Hansard Minutes for the Senate’s Community Affairs Reference Committee (CARC) meeting that was held on 8th March 2019. The following extracts, which are from pages 1 and 2 of the same Hansard Minutes of that meeting provide chilling insight into how the Australian Federal Parliament has successfully mislead over 900,000 vulnerable people; successfully defrauded  over 400,000 of these people of almost $3 Billion and, worst of all, at this point in time appears to have succeeded in not being held accountable for the murders of over 2,000 people.

The following comments, which have been bullet-pointed for clarity and emphasis, were made by Dr. Cassandra Goldie, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Council of Social Service. It is my contention that these statements, constitute credible, relevant evidence that is of grave significance in underscoring the matter of fact that under the leadership of the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and the leadership of the current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, between the 1st July 2016 and the 31st October 2018, the Australian Federal Government deliberately set out to defraud hundreds of thousands of welfare recipients and, in the commission of those crimes, callously murdered over 2,000 people.

  • We know this Online Compliance Intervention program has affected, in one way or another, at least 200,000 people around the country.

  • We know that towards the end of last year 20,000 letters were sent out by the department every single week.

  • This is since November 2016. Using the government’s own figures, we know at least 20 per cent of these so-called discrepancy notices, generated automatically, are in fact incorrect.

  • What we do not know is how many more have been sent in error.

  • We do not know how many have been sent that have alleged debts that do not in fact exist.

  • We do not believe we know how many debts have been pursued that were higher than what was actually owed.

  • We certainly do not know how many people have entered into agreements to repay debts that they did not owe, or certainly a level of debt that they did not owe.

  • And we do not know in how many cases people have entered into debt repayment arrangements that they simply cannot afford.

  • The impact of this ‘robo-debt’ system, as it has been come to be known, has been to cause extensive distress and suffering right across the community, with thousands of people affected.

  • The full scale of this, as I said, hit just seven weeks out from the end of the year, from Christmas.

  • We know that in the community this is overwhelmingly a time when financial pressure is very real for households, and most particularly for people who have interaction with the social security system—many of whom are on low incomes or in otherwise vulnerable circumstances.

  • It should also not go unnoticed that when this kind of program is unleashed on the scale that it was just weeks before the end of the year, it was at a time when legal services and other services were typically understaffed.

  • In many cases, this created an extremely difficult situation in terms of being able to respond as rapidly as we would have liked to. We know that thousands of people have been worried sick about receiving these kind of notices.

  • We also know that, because of the communications from the responsible minister in the lead-up to this program being unleashed, there has been a perception created that if you do not comply you may go to jail.

  • This has been completely unacceptable in terms of the tone associated with this exercise.

  • We believe that the first time over 6,500 people heard about an allegation of having a Centrelink debt was from a debt collector because the department had sent letters to old addresses.

  • We have heard many stories about the behaviour of debt collectors, which has been completely inappropriate. It is certainly important for the Senate inquiry to get the bottom of this.

  • We believe the actions of the government have culminated in creating a serious climate of fear around this program.

  • We note that as chair of this inquiry, Senator, you have made the protections associated with people giving evidence before you very clear.

  • We have today, again, expressed our serious concern that by releasing public details to the media that are associated with a person commenting about Centrelink matters, it has had a major chilling effect and created a real climate of concern for people that if they speak up their private information may be provided to the media.

  • When this program was first announced in the context of budget savings, ACOSS warned the government that in setting a large target—we believe it is about $4 billion of overall revenue to be pursued—and pursuing it in an aggressive way, it would lead to deep distress and human damage.

  • Our warnings were not heeded. We have always said that if there is an overpayment received by a person involved with Centrelink, then any kind of debt collection process associated with that must be done in a fair, humane and just way, taking into account the individual circumstances of people affected by it.

  • The extraordinary result of this auto data-matching system is that the government has used its extensive and extraordinary powers to completely shift the onus of proof from Centrelink on to the individual when investigating whether or not a debt exists.

  • It has created a dragnet approach and we believe that its core features have overwhelmingly operated as an abuse of government power.

  • We know that there are thousands of people who have been forced to try and track down evidence of their fortnightly income, in many cases going back over six years.

  • This has created impossible circumstances for many people with the spectre of them being pursued for a debt that they do not believe they owe if they do not comply. We believe stories of depression, anxiety, fear and frustration will be heard by senators.

  • It has also completely ignored the understandable implications for people who do need assistance to deal with this kind of pursuit of alleged debts on services, particularly community legal centres.

  • I do not think the committee should ignore the fact that this particular budget saving measure, which we clearly believe is the bigger context for this, should ignore that this is in addition to serious cuts that are being made through the federal budget processes to community services generally and to community legal services in particular.

  • As soon as the program was unleashed, as quickly as we could, we urged the minister to halt this system, to shut it down and to bring together people from across the community with deep expertise to look at the way in which we could ensure that technology and data matching could be used in a way that was beneficial to people interacting with social security.

  • We believe that, if designed well, this can be achieved, but this has clearly not been done in the way that this system has been designed.

  • The system has completely stripped out any human participation in terms of the careful assessment of whether a debt is owed and the appropriate level of engagement with an individual before any kind of debt process is pursued.

  • We do not believe the minor changes that the minister announced early in January have addressed the fundamental flaws in this program, so again today we will be submitting to you that the system needs to be shut down.

  • The government needs to conduct an investigation to ensure that, where people have entered into arrangements to repay debts that they did not owe, appropriate and immediate action is taken to reverse that.

  • There needs to be an investigation into the impacts on people at the human level to ensure that appropriate compensation is provided or action is taken to ensure that people’s wellbeing is at the heart of this inquiry.

  • Finally, we believe that it is vital that the government and the committee get to the bottom of how this happened. Who was responsible, what were the processes that led to this extraordinarily damaging outcome, and how do we ensure that, as we look to secure the benefits of technology, this never happens again?

  • Thank you.

There most definitely does need to be an investigation, but not by the Australian Government, or by any Australian law enforcement agency.

The actions described by Dr. Goldie are acts of State-sanctioned-terror that constitute genocidal crimes against humanity on a holocaust scale. I would remind you again of the statement by the former Australian Federal Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis QC:

 “Now, this system involves a review of potentially millions of transfer payments, so of course there will be mistakes made, and I agree with what Piers Ackermann said, that when mistakes are made and they have terrible human consequences, then off course that’s a tragedy. But we do have to have appropriate compliance measures and the idea of data matching, introduced by Hawke and the idea of automated letters being sent to people when there is a discrepancy evident from the data-matching between the ATO data and the Centrelink data; it was introduced by you, is not a bad system. The methodology that has been used by this government is the same methodology that we inherited from you.”

Senator Brandis made it quite clear that any fatalities caused by the automated ‘Robo-Debt’ collection system were an acceptable consequence, at least to himself, because they were justified by the need for what he termed “appropriate compliance measures”. However, as I have pointed out in some of the videos that I have posted on YouTube, there is absolutely nothing appropriate about these measures as they violate binding High Court decisions and Crown Law criminal law and public safety statutes. Four of Australia’s 6 States, Queensland, New south Wales, Tasmania and South Australia, the Northern Territory and the Australian capital territory share common legislation with their Work Health Safety Acts.

Section 31 of the South Australian Work Health & Safety Act states:

31—Reckless conduct—Category 1

(1) A person commits a Category 1 offence if—

(a) the person has a health and safety duty; and

(b) the person, without reasonable excuse, engages in conduct that exposes an individual to whom that duty is owed to a risk of death or serious injury or illness; and

(c) the person is reckless as to the risk to an individual of death or serious injury or illness.

Maximum penalty:

(a) in the case of an offence committed by an individual (other than as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking)—$300 000 or 5 years imprisonment or both; (b) in the case of an offence committed by an individual as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking—$600 000 or 5 years imprisonment or both;

(c) in the case of an offence committed by a body corporate—$3 000 000.

(2) The prosecution bears the burden of proving that the conduct was engaged in without reasonable excuse.

 32—Failure to comply with health and safety duty—Category 2

A person commits a Category 2 offence if—

(a) the person has a health and safety duty; and

(b) the person fails to comply with that duty; and

(c) the failure exposes an individual to a risk of death or serious injury or illness.

Maximum penalty:

(a) in the case of an offence committed by an individual (other than as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking)—$150 000;

(b) in the case of an offence committed by an individual as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking—$300 000;

(c) in the case of an offence committed by a body corporate—$1 500 000.

 33—Failure to comply with health and safety duty—Category 3

A person commits a Category 3 offence if—

(a) the person has a health and safety duty; and

(b) the person fails to comply with that duty.

Maximum penalty:

(a) in the case of an offence committed by an individual (other than as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking)—$50 000;

(b) in the case of an offence committed by an individual as a person conducting a business or undertaking or as an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking—$100 000;

(c) in the case of an offence committed by a body corporate—$500 000.

In Insight #7 of my email on 9th April 2019, I pointed out that a welfare allowance was a constitutional right and yet, on 1st July 2016, he Majesty’s appointed representative in Australia, Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove, gave Royal Assent to an unconstitutional, reckless dangerous, human rights violating statutory amendment, i.e. the “Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker compliance)Act 2015, a Bill that altered Section 42C of the Social Security Act to strengthen the supposedly legitimate ‘right’ of the Federal Government to deprive impoverished people of the right to subsist, i.e. the right to survive.

Subdivision B—No show no pay failures

42C No show no pay failures

(1) The Secretary may determine that a person commits a no show

no pay failure on a day if:

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

(i) the person fails to participate, on the day, in an activity that

the person is required to undertake by an employment

pathway plan that is in force in relation to the person;

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

This law is unconstitutional, for any determination of the primary facts of the matter in an alleged ‘Breach of Contract’ or a ‘Compliance Failure’ is a matter for a court to determine. In addition, the penalty imposed is “cruel and inhumane” depriving a person of their sole means of subsistence violates both human rights treaty obligations and Australian statute laws dealing with criminal acts of reckless endangerment. The express purpose of this legislation, as is indicated in the title of the Bill put to the Australian Federal Parliament, was to deliberately place lives in peril for the express purpose of enforcing compliance with other unconstitutional statutes, e.g. Work for the Dole. The legislation is an unconstitutional, criminal act, an aggravated threat to life, that poses a clear and present danger to life. However, as the March 2006 letter from the Australian Senate’s Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Reference Committee (EWRE) made quite clear, any fatalities caused by Australia’s unconstitutional laws are “irrelevant”.

It is my contention that in addition to violating every Crown Law homicide statute in Australia, these so-called “irrelevant” fatalities are murders under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute. Indeed, the Section 42C amendment that Governor-General Cosgrove gave Royal assent too on 1st July 2016 violates a raft of provisions within Article 6 (Genocide) and Article 7 (Crimes against Humanity) of the Rome Statute. The word “attack” is usually associated with physical violence, e.g. force of arms. However, Segregation in the southern states of the United States of America and Apartheid in South Africa are two examples of the use of legislation to attack the human rights of a targeted societal group. In Australia, legislation is used to attack and endanger the right to life of a very clearly defined societal group, i.e. welfare recipients. The use of harsh, unconstitutional legislation that violates the following Articles of the Rome Statute is Standard Operating Procedure to such an extent, that, as has been mentioned previously deaths caused by these laws are contemptuously regarded as “irrelevant” not only by politicians, public servants, and the mass media, but also by every law enforcement agency in Australia with whom I have raised these issues, e.g. the Australian crime Commission and the Australian Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission.

Article 6: Genocide

For the purpose of this Statute, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about

its physical destruction in whole or in part;

[7.1] 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;

(c) Enslavement;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(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;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

As I sure you are fully aware, Article 7(1)(k) is the ‘catch-all’ provision for all potential forms of harm caused by national governments that lose sight of the fact that State-sanctioned- acts-of-Harm are a serious crime, i.e. an Act of State Terrorism.

Mr. Carver, you cannot serve effectively on the European Parliament’s Sub-Committee on Human Rights whilst European Union citizens who reside in Australia, along with vulnerable Australian born citizens, are being persecuted and randomly slaughtered on a holocaust scale by the Australian Federal Parliament. To ignore this politically driven humanitarian disaster would be a totally unconscionable and reprehensible act of omission on your part that would dishonour both yourself and the European Parliament.

In my last email, I requested that you contact the office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court to ascertain whether-or-not they had received my request for an investigation into the Robo-Debt (Mark 2) Massacre of over 2,000 welfare recipients.

My very grave concern is that since I have not been contacted to provide detailed information about the genocidal conduct of the Australian Parliament, it is possible that my email communication was unlawfully intercepted by an Australian security agency for the express purpose of protecting the Australian parliament from accountability by the international community for the commission of crimes against humanity.

The world must no longer ignore the very overt commission of genocide and crimes against humanity that has been occurring in Australia for decades. Australia’s vulnerable, the unemployed, the aged and the impaired, desperately need the European Parliament’s human rights committee to focus the world’s attention to the silent holocaust that is occurring in Australia.

Please, help us.

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

 

Posted in abuse of power, burden of proof, burking, Case law, crimes against humanity, election, European Parliament, genocide, Human Rights violations, international criminal court, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Turner Law legal briefing that provides insight into why the Robo Debt (Mark 2) Massacre is a case of Mass Averment Fraud and Murder.

The following link is to a free, on-line  legal briefing by Karen Turner of Turner Law that unintentionally provides case law insight into why the Robo Debt (Mark 2) Massacre is an extreme case of Mass Averment that has resulted in mass fraud and potentially one of the the worst cases of serial murder since Federation in 1901.

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

Karen Stanley, a hot-shot lawyer gives a FREE legal summary of the South Australian LIDAR Speed Gun fiasco. This briefing is posted at:

http://www.stanleylaw.com.au/stanley-law-supreme-court-speeding-fines-judgment/

I strongly recommend that you either read the briefing, or, alternately, watch and listen to the video that I have prepared that includes an avatar reading  Ms. Stanley’s briefing paper.

You should pay very close attention to the inserted case law citations, especially the definition of AVERMENTS and the dangers in the  misuse of this legal trickery.

For example, at paragraph 38, in Police versus Hanton Justice Peek cited Justice Derrington in Charlton versus  Rogers; 1985

“It must not be forgotten that although they are ascribed the status of prima facie evidence, averments are none the less mere allegations.”

Their employment can create a risk that a conviction may be recorded against an individual where there is actually no evidence adduced against the alleged offender other than the making of such an allegation

“Averment” is actually the legal term for the randomly lethal, fraudulent Robo Debt claims that George Brandis reckoned was “not a bad thing” even though he knew that it was randomly killing innocent people.

Once you have seen this video, you will know how and why the Robo Debt (Mark 2) Fraud has worked so well  at the systemic level for at least 30 years.

 

Ronald Medlicott.

[Registered teacher and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate]

 

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