I have filed a public interest submission in the Citizenship 7 case that will determine if 7 more people who were elected in the 2016 federal election will have to their election results ruled invalid and be dismissed from the Federal Parliament. Note the 2 extracts:
The above submission was submitted via the Registrar of the Federal Court in Adelaide on 6th October 2017.
[NOTE: The short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-183
In addition 3 emails were sent per a Senior Registrar of the High Court, Ms Carolyn Rogers. Below is a 4th email that will not be part of the official submissions; this email is notification that I am in the process of filing a complaint under the South Australian Police Complaints & Discipline Act and that the previous submissions will be part of the evidence submitted.
NOTE: This email will be submitted to Ms. Rogers on 24th October 2017.
I have posted a video on YouTube titled “The SAPOL Factor: See No Evil.” The URL for this video is:
Dear Ms. Rogers,
The Justices of the High Court presiding in Case 15 of 2017 may be in serious legal strife, a situation that may also apply yourself and any other Officer of the Court who may have processed my Case 15 submissions to the High Court. I know that as a Senior Registrar you have absolutely no legal jurisdiction to rule on the merit of the following points of law. However, as both an Officer of the Court and as a resident within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia you have an obligation to uphold the law. That means giving consideration to the following points and then taking appropriate action to bring these issues to the attention of either law enforcement authorities and/or the Chief Justice, the Honourable Sussan Feisal.
2 days the South Australian Police, a.k.a. SAPOL, shot and killed Mr. Matthew Morgan in circumstances that I am concerned may have been contrived for the express purpose of provoking a response from Mr. Morgan that may be used to now ‘legitimize’ SAPOL’s actions in shooting and killing him. My personal concerns about the short time-frame of the ‘siege’ before launching a heavily armed attack that was certain to provoke a seemingly hostile reaction from Mr Morgan is a matter of concern that I shall take up with the South Australian Coroner, Mr. Mark Johns.
That homicide, whether justified or not, is not the issue of concern for the High Court; it is events that took place 4 days earlier at the SAPOL police station in Hindley Street, Adelaide, when a SAPOL officer repeatedly refused to consider video and documentary information, a.k.a. ‘Evidence’, that the Australian Federal Parliament was engaging in abuses of power that had had substantial fatal consequences. The SAPOL officer actually turned around and walked away whilst another police officer watched the incident unfold. Since much of SA government infrastructure is equipped with video cameras, it is highly probably that one or more cameras recorded this incident, which is the basis for a complaint that I intend to file under section 41 of the South Australian Police Complaints & Discipline Act (2016).
One of the documents that I took to the police station for forensic evaluation was a printed compilation of the Emcott Report, IP 26 submission and my previous emails to you. This document will be part of the evidence file that will be submitted when I file that complaint later this week or early next week. A digital copy of that document is appended for your personal consideration.
Whatever determinations the High Court may make in Case 15 of 2017, one of the issues implicit in my submission to Case 15 is that the presiding Justices “ought to have known” that unconstitutional policies and practices of successive governments since the time of Hawke Government have resulted in what Senator Brandis has described as “mistakes” that have had “terrible human consequences”, a.k.a. FATALITIES. Because of the video provided with my written submission, the presiding justices in C15 “ought to have known” that these fatalities were deemed to be of less importance than the need for “appropriate compliance measures”, an official attitude that effectively is a reckless indifference to fatalities that have occurred because the federal parliament has not abided by either the constitution or a number of binding High Court decisions, and statutes in the Commonwealth criminal code.
In addition to violating federal laws, the Federal parliament has violated State and Territory laws, e.g. section 5 (2) of the South Australian Criminal law consolidation Act (1935), which states:
A person is taken to know a particular fact if the person, knowing of the possibility that it is true, is reckless as to whether it is true or not.
Section 140 (4) “Dishonest dealings with documents” further states:
A person is guilty of an offence if the person dishonestly engages in conduct to which this section applies intending—
(i) to deceive another, or people generally, or to facilitate deception of another, or people generally, by someone else;
(ii) to exploit the ignorance of another, or the ignorance of people generally, about the true state of affairs;
Section 140 applies to the fraudulent claims by Centrelink that conceal internal issues that cause data mismatch errors and the false statements to welfare recipients telling them that if they cannot prove a Centrelink error within 21 days, that Centrelink has the right to arbitrarily assign fault and “collect” the alleged overpayments by withholding welfare payments. Quarterly “public accountability” reports that omit details of post-breaching fatalities are also deceptive documents.
In the same manner, not forwarding my submissions to the High Court for consideration may also constitute ‘dishonest conduct’. When that person is a High Court judge, or a Senior Registrar of the High Court, the excuses “I did not know” and “I did not understand” are unlikely to withstand impartial scrutiny when it comes to Section 5 (2) above and similar laws that apply in other States and territories of the Commonwealth of Australia.
At paragraph 9 in his findings in Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ case”) HCA 54; 31 August 1920, Justice Higgins stated:
I take section 51 of the Constitution as defining subject matters for legislation, and covering sec. V. as defining the persons who are to obey the legislation… Organized bodies of persons, such as incorporated companies or municipal corporations or States, are not mentioned: for they always act through “people”—human beings: and these human beings have to obey the valid Federal Act…”.
The High Court itself is an “organized body” that is bound by the Constitution, i.e. Section 5 of the Constitution, which states that “the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, Judges and the people.” That provision places an obligation upon High Court judges and other Officers of the High Court to uphold Commonwealth laws, e.g. sections 3 and 4 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), which defines voluntary physical acts of omission and commission and section 142.2, a provision that addresses the “detriment” caused by abuses of power by public officials.
On 26th October 2011, in Poniatowska, (HCA 43) by a voluntary physical act of commission, the High Court unintentionally endorsed genocide and crimes against humanity by focusing upon the wording of a law instead of focusing upon the unconstitutional human impact of the legislation being considered. Any law that can foreseeably seriously harm or kill vulnerable people is not “good government” as is required in paragraph 51 of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. By ignoring my submission, the High Court is itself engaging in a voluntary physical act of omission by ignoring evidence that the Federal Parliament has been, and still is, persecuting, exploiting and killing welfare recipients, i.e. the High Court is endorsing on-going fraud and murder.
At this point in time, if asked to so by the Court, I could provide lines of inquiry into 5 fatalities and hundreds of “skip the courts” abuses of power that have caused significant economic and emotional harm.
I respectfully suggest that that is totally inappropriate conduct for High Court judges and/or Officers of the High Court.
In order to circumvent possible legal actions by parties that have knowledge of the on-going menacing, intimidation, exploiting, defrauding endangering and killing of welfare recipients that may be used maintain the current censorship of these abuses of power I have posted a video on YouTube titled “The SAPOL Factor: See No Evil.” The URL for this video is:
This video should be viewed as part of an on-going series with its most recent prequel,
“Williams re Glimpses of Genocide.”
In July 2009, Francis Neale, co-chair of the International Bar Association’s Rule of Law Action Group stated:
“All countries, even those governed by the crudest dictatorship, need or have laws, although they disregard the individual or collective rights of all or parts of the population. Indeed, apartheid was enforced with meticulous attention to form and detail.”
Just as was the case in South Africa where the Courts supported Apartheid laws for a century, an action that paralleled in some southern States in the United States of America with the racist “Jim Crow” laws, in Australia the High Court supported the disastrous “Stolen Generations” laws that were on the statute books for 60 years. In the same manner, the Australian High Court has tacitly supported and endorsed laws that result in genocide, crimes against humanity, fraud and murder by not ruling against the validity of laws that are unconstitutionally and manifestly dangerous.
In 2013 when the High Court ruled on the validity of section 65 in Poniatowska, the statement by Senator Brandis “the idea of data matching, introduced by Hawke… is the same methodology that we inherited from you” post-dated the High Court’s Hellicar Decision by 18 months and is also evidence that the practice of unconstitutionally skipping the courts had been in place for almost a quarter of a century when the Poniatowska decision was made in 2011. The Bhardwaj, “no jurisdiction – no decision” determination had been made 9 years earlier in March 2002.
The High Court’s Coco Decision was made 17 years before Bhardwaj, in April 1994 where, at paragraph 8 the Court ruled:
“(I)nconvenience in carrying out an object authorized by legislation is not a ground for eroding fundamental common law rights”.
At 9 in Coco, the Court cited Lord Bridge of Harwich in Raymond v. Honey:
“… a citizen’s right to unimpeded access to the courts can only be taken away by express enactment”.
Since the constitution places an obligation on the Commonwealth to resolve disputed torts in the court, this is a right that cannot be either over-ruled or abolished by the Federal Parliament and yet this has been happening for decades, sometimes with fatal consequences that have been dismissed as “irrelevant”.
At 12 in Coco, the High Court came up with this “too little, too late” finding:
In Bropho v. Western Australia ((10)  HCA 24; (1990) 171 CLR 1 at 18.), Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ pointed out that
the rationale against the presumption against the modification or
abrogation of fundamental rights is to be found in the assumption that
“‘in the last degree improbable that the legislature would overthrow fundamental principles, infringe rights, or depart from the general system of law, without expressing its intention with irresistible clearness; and to give any such effect to general words, simply because they have that meaning in their widest, or usual, or natural sense, would be to give them a meaning in which they were not really used’ ((11) Potter v. Minahan  HCA 63; (1908) 7 CLR 277 at 304.) “.
The appalling irony of the above statement is that when it was made the Federal Government was at that time already ‘pedal to the metal’ engaged in these activities with fatalities, i.e. the “terrible human consequences’ of these violations of rights not being reported for the very-obvious reason that no-one involved in causing these foreseeable “consequences” wished to be held accountable for these fatalities.
The High Court was way out of touch with reality and apparently labouring under the false perception that the commonwealth is a “model Litigant” as per the 1912 Melbourne Steamship decision. I believe that the Poniatowska case was itself empirical evidence that the Federal government was totally amoral in pursuing that case, a fact also evidenced by the “statutory fiction” findings in the May 8th 2013 DPP (Cth) v. Keating decision where the High Court quite correctly dismissed retrospective laws intended to valid 15,000 prosecutions for alleged violations of non-existent laws were extinguished.
These criminal abuses of power have been systemic for decades with not one member of the Federal Parliament doing anything to stop these crimes, possibly because welfare bashing in Australia is as popular as Apartheid was in South Africa.
The abuses of power that are intended to intimidate welfare recipients are potentially lethal as many welfare recipients suffer from potentially lethal health problems such as Hypertension and cardiac diseases such as Myocardia. The deaths of George Michael, Carrie Fischer and Debbie Reynolds in 2016 were all from natural causes. These three deaths underscore the fact of law that when unlawful activities trigger a fatal heart attack or stroke, whilst the cause may be due to ‘natural causes’, the Manner of Death is a Culpable Homicide, a fact of law that can be seen in the following Queensland statutes:
Queensland Criminal Code (1899) – 296 Acceleration of death
A person who does any act or makes any omission which hastens the death of another person who, when the act is done or the omission is made, is labouring under some disorder or disease arising from another cause, is deemed to have killed that other person.
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 following extract comes from the South Australian occupational health & Safety Act
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.
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;
In the 9-minute video that I presented to the High Court in the Emcott Report, Issues Paper #26, Senator Brandis made a tacit murder confession. The unknown factor in that confession is just how terrible are the “terrible human consequences” of decades of criminal abuses of power in which unreported fatalities have been casually disregarded, concealed with Senate suppression orders, and callously dismissed as “irrelevant”, i.e. how many people has the Federal Parliament murdered in the last 30 or 40 years?
It was also manifestly evident from the “appropriate compliance measures” comment that these were deemed by senator Brandis to be far more important than “mistakes’ that had resulted in “terrible human consequences.” I respectfully suggest that in placing unconstitutional, manifestly dangerous, “appropriate compliance measures” ahead of the safety and welfare of welfare recipients, Senator Brandis was demonstrating a reckless disregard for the lives of people that he is supposed to protect.
Politics is supposed to be about accountability and Due Process of Law should be even more transparent. Launched in 2006, the key elements of the social media, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, represent a relatively new paradigm that has dramatically changed the way people communicate. Whilst this email is addressed to you, the role of the High Court in failing to deal with genocide, crimes against humanity, fraud, exploitation and even serial murder, is a matter of grave public interest.
Just as the video sent to the High Court was first placed on YouTube, the video “The SAPOL Factor” has been placed on YouTube prior to filing a complaint under section 41 of the South Australian Police Complaints & Discipline Act. In the same manner, this email will be posted so that the public, especially the victims, can be made aware of the role played the High Court in an on-going humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions.
Ronald Medlicott – A Christian volunteer lay-advocate for Justice in Australia.