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.

 

Advertisements
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

Surviving the Robo-Debt Massacre: A guide that explains how to kill off a fraudulent Robo-Debt claim before it kills you.

1 death per 10 hours

ICC Link

(By email to: otp.informationdesk@icc-cpi.int )

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IS THE OPENING PARAGRAPH OF MY COMMUNICATION TO THE  OTP OF THE ICC at 3.00PM on 31st October 2019:

HELP, S.O.S., MAYDAY.

Attention: Office of the Prosecutor: International Criminal Court: The first trial of Radovan Karadzic took over 4-years, there were more than 600 people who testified, and 330,000 documents scrutinized. This disaster may be more silent, but it just as bad as the Bosnian Holocaust. The information presented here is a semi-retired school teacher’s efforts to prevent over 7 million vulnerable people from being exploited, defrauded and massacred by a democratically elected parliament that crossed a line that no parliament should ever cross.

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

SECTION 1: In order to assist both welfare recipients and the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to understand the collective political and administrative mindset that underpins the systemic defrauding and murder of Australia’s Socio-Economically Challenged, the following documents, which precede the SECTION 2 Robo-Debt survival instruction set, the following documents citations and documents are provided.

WELFARE RECIPIENTS: FOR DETAILS OF HOW TO KILL OFF ONE OF CENTRELINK’S  FRAUDULENT ROBO-DEBT CLAIMS, FAST-SCROLL DOWN TO SECTION 2 – Scroll down about 2/3 of this posting.

==================================================================-=====

‘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

“This is a glorious page in our history and one that has never been written … We had a moral right, we had a duty, to destroy this people which wanted to destroy us … All in all, we can say that we have fulfilled this most difficult duty for the love of our people. And our spirit, our soul, our character has not suffered injury from it.”

Heinrich Himmler speaking to leaders of the SS at Posen in 1943. (Nuremberg Document PS1919.) In all, some 16 million people, including 10 million Jews, were murdered in Nazi concentration camps because Adolf Hitler and his Ministers genuinely believed that they had the right to commit genocide.

Keenan lie

900,000 victims: “overall death rate of 0.21%”

In law, Robo-Debt (Mark 2) is a viciously brutal, randomly lethal fraud that may have been slaughtering vulnerable welfare recipients at the mind-boggling, staggering average rate of one person every 10 hours.

Take note that an “overall death rate of 0.21%” is a completely meaningless statement as the 1st murder was one too many and every successive death represents one more death too many.

However, like Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and Scott Morrison, I have not the slightest doubt that just as Heinrich Himmler believed that the extermination of the Jewish race was reasonable, fair and lawful, Michael Keenan also appears to believe that the Robo-Debt Massacre of as many as 2,030 vulnerable people was a “reasonable, fair and lawful” implementation of the Australian Federal Government’s so-called “appropriate compliance measures.”

When national governments like Hitler’s Nazi Regime and the current Australian Federal Parliament believe themselves to be above and beyond accountability for Genocide and Crimes against Humanity on a holocaust scale, then Rule of Law has been displaced by the Rule of Power. The above statements by Heinrich Himmler, Scott Morrison and Michael Keenan makes very clear their personal belief that they were/are only accountable to their ideology, however homicidal and psychopathic that ideology may be.

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

HOLOCAUST:

The Event Cascade

Experts in disaster analysis call what you are about to read, an Event Cascade. This is a series of seemingly unrelated events that collectively amount to a major disaster.

Each letter that you are about to read is a link in a decades long lethal chain of events that is of holocaust proportions. As is always the case in an event cascade, the irony is that if just one link in the chain of events was broken, i.e. if just one person with the authority to take action did so, then the Robo-Debt (Mark 2) Massacre would never have occurred.

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

As the following documents reveal, within Australia, the Federal Parliament currently is beyond accountability by Australia’s law enforcement agencies.

Bryce 1

Just days before the first of the 4 home Improvement Program fatalities, Quentin Bryce and Kevin Rudd each received a copy of a  Grassroots discussion paper titled “Fair game, Dead, Meat’.  As page 1 reveals, this ‘discussion paper’ was a frank and abundantly clear protest at the role of of the Australian Federal Parliament in the  ongoing, systematic defrauding and murder of vulnerable welfare recipients.Bryce 3

Despite my numerous typing errors, Quentin Bryce ought to have  understood the basic message, i.e. people were being slaughtered.

Bryce 2

“Karadzic was the only person with the power to intervene and protect those being killed. Far from that, the accused ordered Bosnian male detainees to be transferred elsewhere to be killed. With full knowledge of the on-going killing, Karadzic declared a state of war in Srebrenica.”
the hon. O-Gon Kwon, International Criminal Court of Justice. 24th March 2016.

Under both Australian Crown law, and international law, as the Governor-General of Australia, Quentin Bryce had legal obligations to do everything within her power to stop the exploitation and random murder of welfare recipients, e.g she could have dismissed  the Federal Parliament and asked the Federal Police to investigate these crimes. HOWEVER, THIS DID NOT HAPPEN.

As the following documents reveal, the Australian parliament was well aware of the lethal consequences of the welfare laws that had been enacted:

LegCon 1

LegCon 2

The undated letter was posted to me on 30 November 2004; At the time of this Internet posting, the secret “confidential” classification of SUBMISSION 287, titled “WHO ARE THE REAL TERRORISTS?”, remains in place, as does the ‘do not copy and distribute’ Senate Suppression Order. (SSO).

Irrelevant

In a clear parallel with Nazi Germany, in Australia, the persecution, intimidation, exploitation and random murder of welfare recipients is officially “irrelevant”.

EWRE irrelevant dead

EWRE Irrelevant

 

“Your most recent letter attempts no argument as to the relevance of your submission and only replicates earlier irrelevant claims.”

The Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Reference Committee saw no credible significance or relevance in to its deliberations concerning the unconstitutional,manifestly dangerous, human rights violating laws that exploited and killed vulnerable people, many of whom were semi-employed or unemployed people.

ECA

THE ECA HIP DISASTER INQUIRY:

TERM OF REFERENCE #3 – ‘ANY OTHER MATTERS

“In light of the committee’s terms of reference the committee concluded that your submission fall outside the scope of its inquiry”.

Term of Reference #3, “Any other matters“, was meant to be a muck-racking ‘catch-all criterion that could be used to discredit the Rudd Government. However, in law,  this Term of Reference was so vague it unintentionally “opened the door” to ultra-sensitive issues that the Liberal-National Coalition did not want to have scrutinized, i.e. any other fatal mismanagement in any other government program under the management of any other government minister in any other government at any other time.

As is transparently obvious by the above response to my submission, the committee did not endorse my logic that the deaths of other people who may have died because of corruption or mismanagement in other government welfare programs run by other governments, e.g. the Howard Government’s extremely profitable, but recklessly dangerous  enforcement of the unconstitutional, illegal enforcement of Breaching Quotas identified by Cheryl Kernot in her 27 June 2000 media release.

 

THE KERNOT MEDIA RELEASE

PERSECUTING PEOPLE FOR BEING ON WELFARE

“Imposing minimum quotas for fines [that were not scrutinized by the courts] for unemployed people reflects this government’s determination to punish people on social security without concern for their individual circumstances.”

27-06-00 Kernot press release

The Balanced Scorecard

Who said crime does not pay?

Scorecard

In the 24-month period from 1st July 2000 to 30th June 2002, the Howard Government’s recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional, human rights violating Breaching quotas ‘skipped-the-courts‘ over 600,000 times, thereby  successfully defrauding these unemployed people by depriving them of their constitutional right to $1.623 Billion in welfare payments.

It is therefore no surprise that when confronted with the unreported, officially “irrelevant” death toll caused by this systemic fraud, the 3 Senate Committees, and Governor-General Bryce, steadfastly maintained a wall of silence about the fatal consequences of these illegal breaching quotas.

THE POLITICIANS

John Howard & Mal Brough

2003 Brough

Consistent with the Federal Parliament’s “We only kill ’em, we don’t count ’em” approach to welfare fatalities, I’m still waiting for an informed response from either Mal Brough or John Howard.

THE ARBIB FACTOR

ArbibNote the date of this letter from Mark Arbib, i.e. June 2010.

At this time Mark Arbib was ‘a person of interest’ in the Home improvement program and 4-years alter would be target of strong criticisms by Commissioner Ian Hanger in the Report of the Royal Commission into the Home Improvement Program. However, I’m also still waiting for an informed response from Mark Arbib concerning the scale of the Breaching triggered death toll.

 

The Kevin Andrews Factor

AAT 2014/2456 and the Privacy Act Cover-Up

Andrews letterTo understand the legal nuances in the letter above, it is important to realize that I was acting as the lawfully appointed representative of Mrs. Locke and my authority to request the information had the statutory weight of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (1975)

AAT 2

Just as the Secretary of the Department of Social Services may be  represented by a tag team of 3, or more, Australian Government Service lawyers, (take note of that fact any Centrelink clients who be thinking about lodging an AAT appeal), the Applicant in an AAT can appoint a Representative who has the same legal responsibilities as the team of government lawyers representing the Secretary.

Consistent with Justice Brennan’s Kioa determination at paragraph 38 of his findings* that information that is “credible, relevant and significant” cannot be withheld, I requested information that Kevin Andrew should have provided but failed to do so.

What ministerial support staff and Centrelink staff apparently either do not comprehend, or do not care about, is the fact that Robo-Debt claims are civil tort actions and neither government ministers not Centrelink officials can hide behind the Privacy Act and withhold information.As the information below from Section 39A (8) – (10) of the Administrative Appeals tribunal Act (1975) reveals, information that is subject to a Security Certificate cannot be disclosed without the permission of the Minister responsible for the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act (1979).

AAT Act 3

Take note that the legislated responsibilities of a representative of an AAT applicant can face serious penalties for any violation of a Security Certificate. The flip side to that is that if a representative of a welfare recipient, i.e. a lawyer, lay-advocate or a friend, requests information on behalf of an AAT Applicant, without an ASIO Security Certificate, Centrelink staff, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, Centrelink staff and even government ministers, must either provide the requested information or withdraw the Robo-Debt claim.

WHO DARES WINS: Once a person receives a [fraudulent] Robo-Debt claim, Centrelink officials, or even government ministers, who try to hide sensitive information are risking the obligation to disclose sensitive information that could potentially trigger a genocide investigation that brings down the Federal Parliament is possible.

The obvious discovery question is, how many times has the Department of Human Services ‘skipped-the-courts’ and triggered a fatal outcome?

EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW: DISCOVERY

DISCLOSURE, officially known as ‘DISCOVERY‘ goes with the territory:

CENTRELINK’S RIGHT TO REQUEST INFORMATION IS MATCHED BY A WELFARE RECIPIENT’s RIGHT TO ALSO REQUEST INFORMATION THAT THE GOVERNMENT MAY NOT WANT TO BECOME PUBLIC.

However, as the letter above from the office of Kevin Andrew reveals, despite a procedural fairness obligation to provide the requested information, Kevin Andrews failed to so. This was a serious procedural fairness violation that undermined the subsequent AATA 904 decision.

Unfortunately, it was also yet another link in the chain of fatal abuses of public office that has resulted in the deaths of more than 2,000 vulnerable welfare recipients.

*See Section 2, part [4F} for more details on this High Court ruling.

The ANAO

Count the Dollars, Not the Dead

ANAO 2004

“The Australian Federal Police (AFP) is responsible for investigating serious or complex crime against the Commonwealth.”

See No Evil:

The Australian Federal Police

Another key question of law for ICC prosecutors is “Who investigates serious or complex crimes committed by the Commonwealth of Australia against its citizens”?

AFP 2009

“…government protocols exist for this purpose.”

The Australian Federal Police, and every other police service in Australia, will not investigate the Federal Government’s genocidal persecution, defrauding and murder of welfare recipients.

Why is this so?

As Federal Agent Pearce stated in the ‘Perksgate Response;

“…government protocols exist for this purpose.”

 

THE ACMA

Operation of the (Australian) Constitution and Laws:

This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State;

As the following letters from officials of the Australian Communications & Media Authority reveals, they most definitely disagree with that apparently ridiculous constitutional constraint.

ACMA 1

The key issue in my request to investigate my complaints about Channel 7 Adelaide,  allowing its broadcasting service to used for socio-economic vilification, i.e. welfare bashing” is the unconstitutional manner in which the so-called “investigation” was conducted. The following letter is page 2 of a 3-page letter written by Ms. Rochelle Zurnamer, the unit manager of the ACMA’s broadcasting investigation uni,t on 1st November 2011:ACMA 2

“… socio-economic vilification is not listed in clause 1.9.6 of the code”.

Since the commercial television broadcasters wrote the voluntary Code of Conduct, this not surprising.

However, State and territory criminal codes make such defamatory actions a crime that carries 3-years jail time, under the South Australian criminal code:

257—Criminal defamation

(1) A person who, without lawful excuse, publishes defamatory matter concerning another living person—
(a) knowing the matter to be false or being recklessly indifferent as to whether the matter is true or false; and
(b) intending to cause serious harm, or being recklessly indifferent as to whether the publication of the defamatory matter will cause serious harm, to a person (whether the person defamed or not),
is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years.

The violation of Section 257 of South Australia’s criminal code makes the last sentence of the above ACMA letter a statement of significance:

“The ACMA does not investigate politicians or participants in broadcasts”.

Given my concerns about the unlawful  “serious harm”, i.e,  suicides, that verbal bullying by Tanya Slibersek, the Minister for Human Services, who was also the Minister for Social Inclusion (I kid you not)  and Hank Jongen, the Manager of Centrelink’s Media Relations Unit, could cause, I appealed the ACMA’s unconstitutional decision as it constituted a serious case of Obstruction of Justice.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman

“… relation to post breaching terminal outcomes”.

img204

On 24th May 2012, the best advice that I could obtain from the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman concerning the vilification, exploitation and random murder of welfare recipients was:

“such an authority appears to be the High Court …seek an audience with an academic“.  (What a farce!)

THE HIGH COURT

D.I.Y.

On the 6th October 2016, I utilized an  unconstitutional Hybrid election blunder by the Australian Electoral Commission and filed a submission with the High Court. As the information below makes quite clear, as an Elector, I had a valid interest in the Australian Electoral Commission conducting unconstitutional elections since 2004 and under Section 5 of the constitution, the High Court was legally bound under the following provisions in sections 364 and 378 to hear my submission.Electoral Act 2However, in what would be yet another link in a seemingly endlessly disastrous chain of events, the Senior Registrar of the High Court, violated my constitutional right to make representation in the High Court in Case C17 of 2017, i.e. Re Joyce.

C17 High Court

THE ROGERS FACTOR

As an Elector, and as a taxpayer, under Sections 364 and 378, I had a legally valid Right of Claim to be a party of interest in the hearing and was entitled under the constitutional obligation upon the High Court to comply with the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia.

AAA Posting of IP 26

As the above lodgement receipt for registered post envelope number 518185389013 reveals, on 6th October 2017, I lodged at submission at the Elizabeth Vale Post Office, (South Australia), that was addressed to the High Court per the Registrar of the Federal Court in Adelaide. It was sent to the Adelaide High Court registry office due to the limited time available in which to lodge the submission to the High Court.

AAA IP 26 certiied

As the text of the cover page of the submission made abundantly clear, this was a national interest submission that called into question the validity of the 2016 federal election due to the Australian Electoral Commission failing to comply with Section 44 of the Australian  Constitution. Any person who was a registered Elector could have filed such a submission, which was legally valid under Section 364 and Section 378 of the (Australian) Commonwealth Electoral  Act (1918).

AAA IP 26 text

The opening comments of my “personal submission” (as a Registered Elector) to the High Court. Note that it is addressed to the “The Federal Court Registrar Acting as the Registrar for Australian High Court.”

Note that Section 364 of the Electoral Act requires that “Real Justice be performed… without regard to legal form or technicalities.”

However, my legally valid efforts to  intervene in this High Court hearing were unsuccessful because I failed to factor in the human impact factor, i.e. the systemic reaction by High Court officials such as Ms. Caroline Rogers, to my ‘outside-the-box’ initiative, which was “without regard to legal form or technicalities”,  to Ms. Rogers who used her lawful authority to ‘torpedo’ my legally valid attempt to to intervene in this appeal.

High Court 1

As can be seen in the above letter, a Senior Registrar of the High Court, Ms. Caroline Rogers, blocked the presentation of my submission to the High Court.

Had my lawful attempt to seek leave to be heard in this appeal, I would have argued the primary issues contained in the documents submitted, i.e. that that it was highly inappropriate for an unconstitutionally elected Federal parliament to engage in in Genocide and the commission of crimes against Humanity.

The downstream consequences of  Ms. Rogers’ decision in relation to the Robo-Debt Massacre appears to have been appallingly profound. As has been shown above, the certified mailed documents had been posted to the High Court’s Adelaide registry on Friday 6th October 2017. Australia Post delivered the documents on the 9th October 2017, but for reasons unknown, the submission was not forwarded to the High Court in Canberra until the 13th October 2017.

Concerned about possible delays, I emailed the High Court Registrar on 12th October 2017.

From Ms. Rogers above response, even if I had express posted the submission directly to the High Court in Canberra, Ms. Rogers would still have misused her lawful authority and blocked my submission.

THE ROGERS DECISION & ROBO-DEBT

Based upon the information is the public domain, the ‘BALL PARK ESTIMATE‘ of the human impact cost of Ms. Rogers’ decision to violate my civil rights, when applied to the Robo-Debt Massacre is, in very generalized figures:

  1. The period of days from12th October 2017 to 31st October 2018 is 384 days, i.e. 9,216 hours.

  2. With Robo-Debt fatalities occurring on an average of one every 10 hours, that represents potentially 921 deaths that could have been avoided once the High Court became aware of the scale of the ‘skip-the-courts’ slaughter.

  3. Approximately 410,000 people were defrauded of a reported $2.9 Billion over a period of 753 days, i.e. 28 months.

  4. The above figure equates to approximately 540 people per day being defrauded of approximately $3,850,000 per day.

  5. Those figures round off at a tally of approximately to 205,000 vulnerable people being defrauded of approximately $1.3 Billion.

  6. When it comes to bad errors of judgement, Ms. Rogers decision was significant to say the least.

The caveat to the above statements is that they are only ‘ball park  estimates’ that have been extrapolated from the very generalized information that is currently in the public domain. These estimates  provide a ‘helicopter overview’ to the scale of the consequences of the decision to block my submission. Determination of precisely how many people were defrauded, how much each individual was defrauded, and how many people died as a direct consequence of the Robo-Debt Fraud will require a massive criminal investigation before any definitive data is available.

The purpose of these estimates is not to be presented in a Court, for the constitute unsubstantiated, unreliable evidence ans as  Justice Brooking correctly pointed out at 29 in R v Faure [1999] VSCA 166 (24 September 1999), statistical probabilities are not empirical facts upon which a court or a jury can base a legal determination:

But the case is not to be approached as Pascal would have approached it. Juries are not to be directed in terms of an “odds on” chance: La Fontaine v. R. (1976) 136 C.L.R. 62 at 99 per Jacobs, J.; Boughey v. R. [1986] HCA 29(1986) 161 C.L.R. 10 at 15 per Gibbs, C.J. and at 19-22 per Mason, Wilson and Deane, JJ.; R. v. Piri [1987] NZCA 6[1987] 1 N.Z.L.R. 66. The approach of the law has been pragmatic in matters of this kind.”

‘LIFE IS NOT DIGITAL – LIFE IS ANALOGY- MESSY’

My take on this is that life is not digital; it is analogue, i.e. life is messy and uncertain and computer aided statistical evaluations that produce statistical trendlines and averages is no substitute for a hands-on criminal investigation to ascertain the facts. Only a criminal investigation of the Robo-Debt Massacre that is undertaken by an appropriate qualified team of expert criminologists will be able to determine the facts of the matter that could be presented to a court, e.g the International Criminal Court.

Given some exceedingly partisan decisions by the Australian High Court, e.g. Keating [2013] HCA at 47, where the High Court ignored the brazenly illegal actions of the Australian Parliament and stated:

“It is presumed that Parliament does not intend to act unjustly.”

With an unreported, secretly classified, “confidential” officially “irrelevant”, death toll that the Secretary of the Department of Social Services was unable to deny may exceed 100,000, precisely who were the High Court judges actually trying to fool with that statement?

Keenan lie crop

THE ROBO-DEBT MASSACRE COVER-UP

The statement that “Any suggestion that the Department of Human Services’ debt recovery efforts have contributed to customer deaths is simply not supported by the facts or statistics” is at stark odds with the truth of the matter.[Think big lie.]

Over a period of decades, official statistics have long indicated a deadly link between arbitrary pecuniary welfare penalties and a death toll that is now of holocaust magnitude.

MICHAEL KEENAN’s statement above underscores the matter of fact that ideology driven, assumptions-based, vested interest risk assessments by politicians ARE A SIGNIFICANT RISK FACTOR for vulnerable, at-risk welfare recipients.

W.H.O. expertise in a broad range of RISK assessment areas my be required to impartially quantify the risk factor, degree of exposure and the consequences of exposure to those risks, i.e. the task is beyond individual Australians who may be at-risk because of Australia’s lethal welfare policies and practices.

WHO Mental Health

The August 2014 report of the Royal Commission into the Home Improvement Program identified the failure to conduct and adequate Risk Assessment of the potentially life-threatening dangers to people involved in the delivery of this Rudd Government ‘initiative’.

THE CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT INADEQUACY OF HUMAN IMPACT RISK ASSESSMENT

When dealing with millions of people, many of whom are impoverished and have high-risk comorbidity problems associated with poverty, the risk factors are diverse and exceeding complex. This calls into question that adequacy of Department of Haman Services risk factors, especially given that the foreseeably fatal consequences of recklessly danger, unconstitutional policies and practices that violated the Commonwealth of Australia’s human rights obligations were not monitored, e.g. the failure to monitor “Post Breaching Terminal Outcomes”.

Under international law, just how legally valid are welfare policies and practices that are based upon the foundation principle of ‘Do as we we say or we will deprive you of the means to survive.”

A credible threat to life“?

As unbelievable as it may seem, the letter below is an example of Centrelink’s standard method of communication with literally millions of these very real human rights violating, aggravated threats to life issued every year:

Redacted Centrelink demandThe documented facts of the matter pertaining to the above threat to deprive me of my constitutional right to Age Pension allowance, are that all of my statutory obligations had been met in the weeks before this letter was produced.

Rather than task a Centrelink staff member to manually raise a database query in Centrelink’s dysfunction STATE-OF-THE-ARK, 1983 COMPUTER SYSTEMS 204 database system, an action that would have verified my compliance with statutory obligations, the above computer generated “Do as we say we will will deprive you of your means to survive” letter was sent to me via the Internet.

These letters are a criminal abuse of public office that violates both Commonwealth “Menaces” statutes and State “Blackmail*” laws that carry penalties of up to 20 years in jail. However, no police service in the nation will take action to stop this very overt criminal abuse of public office by politicians and department of Human Services offices.

[*Section 172 (2) (2) of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935)]

Blackmail

My statutory obligation under Section 65 of the Social Security Act to report any earnings does not imply the right of Commonwealth  personnel, or Federal Government Ministers, to engage in blackmail for the administrative purpose of avoiding the inconvenience of first checking for compliance or non-compliance with statutory obligations.

It is for medical experts with the appropriate expert to determine the long-term impact that such aggravated threats to life may have on a targeted socio-economic section of Australian society.

FORESEEABLE CARDIO-VASCULAR RISKS

Myocardia 4

Myocardia

Myocardia 2

Myocardia 3

Myocardia 5

THE MYOCARDITIS TIME BOMB: The above text may be difficult to read and is copied here for clarity of reading.

[The 2nd paragraph – DEFINITIONS]

Acute myocarditis has been defined as a condition with symptoms of heart failure (HF) developing over three months or less, while chronic myocarditis has been defined as developing over greater than three months . Inflammatory cardiomyopathy is defined as myocarditis accompanied by cardiac dysfunction. Inflammatory cardiomyopathy can lead to dilated cardiomyopathy or other cardiomyopathies.

TAKE NOTE: Common time frames for the development of CHRONIC MYOCARDITIS IS A TIME FRAME GREATER THAN 3 MONTHS.

Michael Kennan’s reported statement that Robo-Debt cannot be the cause of fatalities amongst Robo-Debt recipients because the delay between receiving a Robo-Debt claim and death averages 222 days is totally consistent with the onset of stress-related Myocarditis.

[The 3rd paragraph – CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS]

Variable presentation — The clinical manifestations of myocarditis are highly variable, ranging from subclinical disease to fatigue, chest pain, HF, cardiogenic shock, arrhythmias, and sudden death. There is no population-based epidemiologic study that has defined presenting symptoms of acute or subacute/chronic myocarditis; this is due in part to the absence of a safe and sensitive noninvasive diagnostic test that can confirm the diagnosis.

TAKE NOTE: RUSSIAN ROULETTE

  1. There is no population-based epidemiologic study that has defined presenting symptoms of acute or subacute/chronic myocarditis;

  2. this is due in part to the absence of a safe and sensitive noninvasive diagnostic test that can confirm the diagnosis.

For at least 3 decades, Robo-Dent (Mark 1) and Robo-0Debt (Mark 2) have been playing Russian Roulette with the lives of vulnerable welfare recipients.

  1. Points 1 and 2 above explain why the ’20 Point Disability Assessment Test” is a recklessly dangerous lethal fraud that the Australian Medical Association should have discredited in the courts when it was first introduced.

  2. Data entry operators, who may not even be AS 2708 Keyboard skills certified, let alone have medical qualifications, make medical judgements based upon their interpretation of treating doctors reports, when following on-screen prompts.

  3. These ‘best guess’ inputs are entered into a 35-year-old database system with 30 million lines of system code.

  4. Some of that code is undocumented code and produces (documented and video-recorded) ‘wildcard’ outputs.

  5. Centrelink staff then treat the output from this dysfunctional system as legally valid.

  6. I reiterate my statement at Point 1 above, the Australian Medical Association has a professional obligation, i.e. the medical practitioner’s Duty of care to their patient and should have discredited this “assessment” in the courts when it was first introduced.

  7. The ’20 Point Disability Assessment Test” is an exceedingly dangerous fraud by the Australian Federal Parliament , poossibly to to save money, that places the lives of vulnerable people in life-threatening peril.

  8. An independent review of the ’20 Point Disability Assessment Test”  by an impartial body, e.g. the World Health Organization is required to ascertain the medical validity of this scheme,

    LINKAGE: WELAFRE POLICES AND SUICIDE IN AUSTRALIA

Urgent  independent scrutiny of Australia’s welfare poliices is urgently required to review the linkage between Australia’s human rights violating welfare poliices and the nation;’s rising suicide rates.

NSMHWB 2003

Within Australia, there is literally decades of data that quantifies the fatal impact of unconstitutional welfare policies and practices.

The following extract is from paragraphs 24 and 25 of my lay-advocate’s submission in AAT 2014, Locke & the Secretary of the Department of Social Services.

AAT2456 risk assess

AAT 2014/2456: Statement of Facts & Issues, In the 10-year period 1997 to 2006, a miscalculated figure of 21,914 suicides was cited.

The Howard years

The actual suicide rate was 23,254 with 30% being UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE. The statistical data was sourced from official data such as the 1998 National Health priority Areas Report – Mental health:

NHPAR 1998

 

Pages 23 and 24 of the 1998 National Health Priority Areas report.

AAA Suicide rates 1998

Suicide 2010

Suicide rate 2018

“There are calls for a national target to reduce Australia’s suicide rate as new statistics show 3,128 Australians took their own life in 2017.”

“This represents 262 more deaths than the previous year.”

[Source:] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/26/australias-rising-suicide-rate-sparks-calls-for-national-target-to-reduce-deaths

Lifeline Suicide

  • The overall suicide rate in 2015 was 12.6 per 100,000 in Australia. This is the highest rate in 10-plus years

  • The most recent Australian data (ABS, Causes of Death, 2015) reports deaths due to suicide in 2015 at 3,027

  • This equates to more than eight deaths by suicide in Australia each day.

[Source:] https://www.lifeline.org.au/about-lifeline/lifeline-information/statistics-on-suicide-in-australia

Between 1998 and 2017, there was 30.7% increase in the suicide rate with Centrelink’s clients accounting for perhaps as many as 2 out every 3 suicides. It should be noted that for every fatal suicide attempt, it is estimated that there are 30 unsuccessful attempts.

The message of death contained in Australia’s suicide statistics is very clear; Australia’s welfare policies and practice can, and do, kill some of Australia’s most vulnerable people. The question of law is just how many of these suicides were triggered by the ruthless enforcemnent of blatantly fraudulent schemes such as the Robo-Debt alleged debt ‘initative’?

The Queensland Crimes Act (1899)

In the 2013 Keating Decision, the High Court ruled that “A person cannot rely on ignorance of the law and is required to obey the law.  It follows that he or she should be able to trust the law and that it should be predictable.”

It is therefore a fortiori that if people are to trust the law when lives are in danger, then law enforcement agencies MUST uphold the law in order to protect the lives of those in peril.

QLD Crimes Act

The above laws, and similar laws in every State and Territory in Australia are being ignored by law enforcement agencies, and the consequences of that are best summed up in one word, i.e. HOLOCAUST.

Fatal cardio-vascular events, i.e. heart attacks and strokes, and suicides are just two of the primary risk factors that Australia’s criminal justice system, is ignoring. A truly despicable practice being ignored by law enforcement agencies is  practice of withholding sickness or disability benefits from people with CANCER, or refusing to provide a care benefit to people caring for cancer victims.

AAA Cancer

Enforcing fraudulent Robo-Debt claims on people with Cancer, or withholding a sickness benfit and compelling Cancer victims to seek employment, are just two of many reprehensible tactics being used by Australian political parties to “save taxpayers money”.

Cancer Rhys

“During one chemotherapy session, Rhys’s Max Employment case worker called her multiple times. In frustration, a Lifehouse senior nurse faxed a medical certificate to the agency. But Mrs Pagalday said she was told the certificate was not valid because it was not a designated Centrelink form.”

[Sourtce:} https://www.smh.com.au/healthcare/terminally-ill-cancer-patient-rhys-pagaldays-centrelink-support-cut-off-when-he-failed-to-go-job-hunting-20170323-gv4j7p.html

What is manifestly apparent is that Australian politicians are enacting recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional laws and Centrelink staff, who are totally unaware of the civil rights of welfare recipients, are enforcing these legally invalid laws in violation of both Crown laws and international laws that make it quite clear that their actions are dangerous and unlawful.

The Australian Constitution: Section 51, sub-paragraph (xxiiiA) places an obligation to provide a welfare al;lowance to serious ill people, i.e. a sickness benefit.

Constitution 51 23 a

The following statement by Francis Neale is as applicable to the murderous Socio-economic Apartheid that exist in Austyralia as it was to the racial Apartheid that once existed in South Africa:

“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.”

Francis Neale. Co-chair: International Bar Association – Rule of Law Action Group. (July 2009)

The above statement is underscored by the Robo-Debt (Mark 2) Massacre of a reported 2,030 people in just 28 months. As is evidenced above, Robo-Debt is just one of several recklessly dangerous, systemic frauds that are used by Australia’s Federal Parliament to deprive vulnerable people of security of person.

News Corp genocide

NEWS CORP – GENOCIDE -R-US

In a supposedly democratic nation, a national parliament cannot commit genocode and crimes against humanity on a holocaust scale for decades without the active support of the mass media. News Corp’ media in Australia is at the forefront when it comes advocating Genocide and Crimes against Humanity on a holocaust scale, e.g. support driving 100,000 people of their sole means of support.

Work for the Dole is unconstitutional in Australia, a fact that News Corp’ newspapers never seem to ever mention. In this blatantly defamatory news article, depriving almost 100,000 people of their constitutional right to an unemployment benefit because of alleged non-compliance with Work for the Dole ‘obligations’ is touted as a well deserved punishment. Howevber, under internationasl law, it is a crime against humanity.

The fact of law that no impartial court in Australia could have authorised these unconstitutional penalties is not mentioned in the news article, as is the fact that no court authorised even one of the penalties that were arbitrarily imposed almost 100,000 times.

HELP, S.O.S, MAYDAY!

As a matter of EXTREME URGENCY, an international investigation into the role played by Australia’s recklessly dangerous, brutally ruthless, Socio-economic Apartheid welfare policies and practices is urgently needed. Until such an investigation is undertaken, as is already happening with the false claim that there are no statistics to support the role played by Robo-Debt in causing the deaths of at-risk, vulnerable people, the Australian Federal Parliament will exploit the public uncertainty and lack of empirical facts that surrounds the Robo-Debt Massacre in order to avoid being held accountable before the courts .

IN ORDER TO PREVENT FURTHER LOSS OF LIFE, THAT MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.

Ronald Medlicott.  (South Australian registered teacher and a volunteer lay-advocate.)

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

Section 2: Surviving the Robo-Debt Fraud.

As my last posting so graphically demonstrated

Robo-Debt is an incredibly lethal fraud.  One of the “justifications” used to explain these deaths was that they represented only 0.21% of the people who received Centrelink’s [fraudulent] Robo-Debt Letters-of-Demand

In point of fact, Robo-Debt is just one of several lethal welfare policies and practices that that have been randomly killing welfare recipients for several decades, e.g. Australia’s unconstitutional, Rome Statute violating No show, no dole“, law, which deprives impoverished people of their sole means to survive,  may be the biggest killer of all with an unreported, officially “irrelevant” scorecard”  that may be close to, or even exceed, 100,000 deaths since this penalty was introduced in the 1980s.

TAKE NOTE: The primary purpose of this posting is to provide a brief ‘heads-up’ overview of the mechanics of a politically motivated and driven humanitarian disaster that is, in terms of victims, comparable to the  Bosnian Holocaust.

THE PRIMARY AUDIENCE:

  1. The Office of the Prosecutor – International Criminal Court of Justice.

  2. The European Union – Human Rights Commission.

  3. The United Nations Human Rights Commission

  4. Australia’s 7.4 million welfare recipients, who need to aware of the need to kill off Robo-Debt before it can kill even more of vulnerable people.

Stat dec Lisa B

Section 27 of the South Australian Oaths Act: 27—False declaration

    (1)     Any person who willfully makes any declaration by virtue of this Part, knowing that declaration to be untrue in any material particular, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable, upon conviction thereof, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding four years.

IF THE ABOVE STATUTORY DECLARATION WAS FALSE – I WOULD BE PROSECUTED AND IMPRISONED FOR UP TO  AT 4-YEARS . THE OTHER STATUTORY DECLARATIONS IN THE PART 52 SERIES OF POSTINGS WOULD ADD FURTHER  OFFENSES FOR WHICH I COULD BE PROSECUTED IF THEY WERE FALSE.

P.s. Note that whilst Toys-R-Us may be going out of busines, when I get near a keyboard, Typos-R-Me is opeen for business, i.e. the “in by myself” blooper in the 2nd to last paragraph. (Mentally delete the word “in”.)

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

Basic Instructions into How to kill-off Robo-Debt Before it can Kill You.

STEP 1: Watch this video of the Robo Debt Massacre,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLMYv4EXDD4

I have prepared the video to support a complaint that have  I just filed with Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.

The audio reading of the Hellicar and Bhardwaj High Court decisions may be mega- boring, but they are the LEGAL RIGHTS that are being murderously raped by Australian politicians. It is the lack of knowledge of these CASE LAW RIGHTS that has made very vulnerable people FAIR GAME for the longest and deadliest running, brutally vicious fraud and serial murder spree in Australia’s history.

The Massacres image

STEP 2: Once you have seen it, click on my name under the video (Ronald Medlicott), which will bring up a list of videos.

YouTube postsWatch as many of the videos as you need to, until you understand just how ruthlessly you have been DEFRAUDED. (Professional investigators will have to watch each of the videos to pick up fine details, e.g. the 3-Part “Waivergate” series identifies people like the SA DPP, Adam Kimber, who knew about the brutal persecution and slaughter of welfare recipients and did nothing to halt these crimes

STEP 3: NOT NOW, but in Step 4, go to each of the case law web URLS listed below download the RTF or PDF file that is listed the right hand column. You are about to compile a “library” of case law precedents, and other evidence, that reveal the matter of fact that Robo-Debt is a Federal parliament run fraud. These cases are but ‘the tip of the iceberg’, but they should be enough to get across the message that the Australian Federal parliament is murderously corrupt and has been for decades.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA/2014/904.html  LOCKE

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

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

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

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/34.html  SPAUTZ

NOTE: NO DOWNLOAD – PLEASE USE YOUR MOUSE TO HIGHLIGHT THE RECOMMENDED TEXT, THEN COPY AND PASTE THIS TEXT TO A [WORD] FILE THAT YOU NAME: Spautz.doc

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

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1938/34.html  BRIGINSHAW

note: THIS ONLY HAS A PDF FILE DOWNLOAD

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/29.html   PATEL

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

TAKE NOTE: THESE CASES ALSO HAVE NO DOWNLOAD – YOU NEED COPY AND PASTE THE RECOMMENDED PARAGRAPHS:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1994/15.html  COCO

NO DOWNLOAD – USE YOUR MOUSE TO HIGHLIGHT THE TEXT  – COPY AND PASTE down to paragraph 15 TO A WORD FILE THAT YOU NAME AS: Coco.doc

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1935/1.html

COUNT THE ‘INDENTS’ FOR EACH PARAGRAPH- AT THE 7th Indent, i.e. the sentence that starts with: “If you accept his evidence…”

COPY AND PASTE THESE 5 LINES: ‘In every charge of murder, the fact of killing being first proved, [and ends with] “or was something which could be justified.”

FROM 7TH INDENT COUNT ON DOWN TO THE 27TH INDENT “This is the real result of the perplexing case of Rex

COPY AND PASTE “THE GOLDEN THREAD

Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, …. and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.

Robo-Debt is based the false assumption that welfare recipients are rorters who deliberately defraud the system. In the Hellicar Decision, (see 4c below), the Australian High Court extended this “GOLDEN THREAD, i.e. the Presumption of Innocence, to any person hit with a financial penalty by “regulators”, (as in Centrelink). The legal onus is on Centrelink to prove that it really is owed the money that it is claiming must be “repaid”. Given that up to 44.03% of claims may be “mistakes”, and Centrelink’s 35-year-old computer randomly outputs “wildcard” responses, that is the proverbial “Mission Impossible” for Centrelink’s lawyers in a court hearing.

Take Note: THE AAT IS NOT A COURT:

However, far too many AAT conference registrars, and government lawyers, will misleadingly pretend that the AAT is a court. Evidence of this can be read in the speech by Justice Kerr, or an 18-seconds of ‘sound bites’ of an AGS lawyer and an AAT conference registrar  discussing when“the matter will go to trial”can be heard in several of the videos that I have posted on YouTube, e.g. “See No Evil: The Grant Stevens Factor.”

AAT not a court==============================================================

STEP 4A: As per the following unbelievable example, use the Word search function (ctrl f) in each of the case law files to find the following phrases in the downloaded files:

LOCKE  http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/AATA/2014/904.html

LockeIN LOCKE AATA 904 SEARCH FOR THE PHRASE:  not so unusual

This will bring up this incredible AAT judgement:

“Ms Locke’s contention that she acted in reliance of incorrect advice provided by a Centrelink officer over the telephone is not an uncommon compliant or circumstance of socials security recipients. This circumstance is not so unusual, uncommon, exceptional, markedly different from the usual run of cases or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance” for the purpose of s 1237AAD(b) of the SSA.”

A Suggestion: Bullet-point the text for clarity:

  • This circumstance is not so unusual,

  • uncommon,

  • exceptional,

  • markedly different from the usual run of cases

  • or out of the ordinary so as to render it a “special circumstance” for the purpose of s 1237AAD(b) of the SSA.”

The bullet-points above explain why Centrelink may have made 2,030 fatal “mistakes in just 28 months with the Robo-Debt (Mark 2) Massacre. It is important remember that every other means that Centrelink unconstitutionally uses to defraud welfare recipients is equally  riddled with similar fatal “mistakes”

PONDER THIS; With 7,400,000 clients, a fatal “mistakes” rate of ‘just’ 0.21% represents a huge number of fatalities, i.e. 155,400 potential fatalities.

The question of law for investigators, is what is the precise number?

The Locke Decision is not simply an appalling case of Systemic Injustice; Paragraph 42 provides insight into to understanding the psychopathic, ideology-driven mindset that has driven Australia’s murderous, politically motivated, “Appropriate Compliance Measures Holocaust” for decades.

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

MORE RELEVANT CASE LAW PRECEDENTS

Butcher 1 [4B] BUTCHER http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/sa/SASC/2016/130.html

DOWNLOAD THE RTF FILE AND PRINT OUT THE COVER PAGE WITH THE  “RELIABLE EVIDENCE”, CATCHWORDS THAT JUST UNDER THE DATE 17 JULY 2016

Butcher 2WHAT IS IN LOCKE AT 42 IS AT ODDS WITH WHAT THE COURTS REQUIRE – RELIABLE EVIDENCE OF WHO IS AT FAULT.

Now you know one reason why Robo Debt unlawfully ‘skips-the-courts’.

[4C] HELLICAR  http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/17.html

Hellicar 1PARAGRAPHS 141 TO 143 COPY FROM And insofar as the duty was said” [DOWN TO]  Deciding the facts of the case is a court’s task, not a task for the regulatory authority.”

Hellicar 143[ONCE YOU DISAGREE WITH CENTRELINK’S DECISION,  A COURT DECIDES THE FACTS OF MATTER, NOT CENTRELINK.]

[4D] BHARDWAJ http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/11.html

Bhardwaj HCA 11 cropPARAGRAPHS 51 TO 53 COPY FROMDecisions involving jurisdictional error: the general law

TO THE END OF PARAGRAPH 53  And that is so, regardless of s 33(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act.”

Bhardwaj 53ONCE YOU DISPUTE A CENTRELINK DECISION, as in “I DON’T AGREE’ or “YOU HAVE MADE A MISTAKE ONLY A COURT DECISION IS VALID – CENTELINK’S arbitrary DECISIONS ARE, “IN LAW, NO DECISION AT ALL, i.e. THEY FRAUDULENT DECISIONS BECAUSE CENTRELINK’s MANAGEMENT TEAM KNOW THESE COURT IMPOSED RULES.

[4E] SPAUTZ  http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1992/34.html

Spautz 1NO DOWNLOAD – USE YOUR MOUSE TO HIGHLIGHT THE TEXT – COPY AND PASTE TO A WORD FILE THAT YOU NAME AS: Spautz.doc

WORD SEARCH THE FILE FOR JUSTICE GAUDRON’S STATEMENT:  “It is convenient to adopt the expression…” Copy paragraphs 2, 6 and 9;

IN 6, NOTE THE WORDS  “extorsion, “blackmail” “coercion” AND THE STATEMENT “These terms signify a claim or demand made without right and without claim of right”  [No audit means no “Claim of Right”, ROBO DEBT is just mega-“coercion” without legal right since there has not been any audit.

Spautz 2

ANY CLAIM THAT HAS NOT BEEN SUBJECTED TO A FORENSIC AUDIT BY AN INDEPENDENT, CURRENTLY CERTIFIED AUDIT, IS NO CLAIM AT ALL, i.e. CENTRELINK’S CLAIM IS WITHOUT RIGHT AND CLAIM OF RIGHT.”

ORDINARY PEOPLE, AND THE POLICE, USUALLY CALL THAT FRAUD, BUT THE COURTS CALL THESE FRAUDULENT RIP-OFFS “AN ABUSE OF PROCESS“.

[4F] KIOA   http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1985/81.html

KioaWORD SEARCH JUSTICE BRENNAN AT PARAGRAPH 38 OF HIS DECISION: START FROM: Never the less [DOWN TO]  “NON-OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.

Kioa at 38CENTRELINK CANNOT HIDE credible, relevant and significant INFORMATION, e.g. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE CENTRELINK SKIPPED THE COURTS AND TRIGGERED FATAL CONSEQUENCES?

Certified LinacreA very credible, relevant and significant question that no Centrelink official will want to be asked: 6 months BEFORE  ROBO DEBT (mark 2) was introduced, Centrelink’s Acting Chief legal Cousel, ALICE LINACRE, knew that once a welfare recipient challenged a ROBO-DEBT claim,

“IT WAS A MATTER FOR THE COURTS”.

WHEN THEN, DID CENTRELINK OFFICIALS IGNORE BINDING HIGH COURT DECISIONS AND TRIGGER THE DEATHS OF 2,030 PEOPLE!

WHY DID THIS HAPPEN?

THE HOME IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REPORT

HIP Report

14.7.3.2: RISK CANNOT BE ABROGATED BY GOVERNMENTS BECAUSE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT WAS TO CARE FOR PEOPLE, NOT KILL THEM.

HIP Risk

HOW WELL DOES “PHONE LIFELINE” AND AN AVERAGE OF AN “APPROPRIATE COMPLIANCE MEASURES”  DEATH EVERY 10 HOURS FOR 753 DAYS MATCH UP WITH HOME IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM’S FINDINGS CONCERNING THE KNOWN LIFE-THREATENING RISK TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS?

Pedestrian 2000 dead

On the 20th February 2017, when George Brandis made his “millions of transaction – off course there will be mistake – terrible human consequences – appropriate compliance measures’ comments, there may have been some 630 fatalities. Because Centrelink “kept on trucking”, vulnerable people kept on dying until the toll reached 2,030 on 31st October 2018.

George Brandis’ comments made it abundantly clear that saving money was far more important than saving the lives of welfare recipients.

garrett

https://www.smh.com.au/national/garrett-accused-of-industrial-manslaughter-by-abbott-20100211-nv7a.html
  1. On the 12 February 2010,the four Home Insulation program deaths was a big issue for the Liberal Party. Tony Abbott and George Brandis promptly set up an Environment, Communication & Arts Senate Committee of Inquiry to look into the 4 deaths.

  2. When the Liberal party won government in Queensland, there was a Coroner’s Inquest into the 3 deaths that had occurred in Queensland.QLD Inquest

  3. In 2014, there was the  previously mentioned Home Improvement Royal Commission into 4 deaths.

  4. Any welfare recipient who receives an unaudited Robo-Debt claim can therfore demand to know just how many deaths have been caused by “skipping due process of law over the last 30 years.

[4F] BRIGINSHAW  http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1938/34.html

BRIGINSHAW HAS A PDF FILE DOWNLOAD THAT ACROBAT READER CAN SEARCH AND YOU CAN COPY AND PASTE IN A TEXT FILE. WORD SEARCH FORBut reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind s

YOU NEED TO COPY  INTO A WORD PROCESSOR, BOLD HIGHLIGHT & BULLET-POINT LIKE THIS:

But reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind that is attained or established independently of the nature and consequence of

the fact or facts to be proved.

The seriousness of an allegation made,

the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description,

or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer [OOOPS, WE KILLED THOUSAND OF INNOCENT PEOPLE BY MISTAKE, BUT THAT IS OKAY BECAUSE “WE NEED APPROPRIATE COMPLAINCE MEASURES.”

to the question whether the issue has been PROVED to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal.

[NOTE: ANY CENTRELINK CLAIM MUST BE PROVED TO A COURT BY CENTRELINK. ]

In such matters “reasonable satisfaction” should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences.

[ROBO DEBT IS ALL ABOUT “INDIRECT INFERENCES” – THERE IS A DATA MATCH BETWEEN OUR 35-YEAR-OLD COMPUTER AND THE NEW ATO COMPUTER, SO  IT MUST BE YOU FAULT. IF YOU CAN’T PROVE IT IS OUR FAULT, THEN WE ARE TAKING YOUR MONEY.]

ROBO DEBT IS AN ABUSE OF POWER FRAUD BASED ON “inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences” THAT CENTRELINK IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO PROVE IN COURT [Where they also have to tell the court how many people they have killed if you decide to ask that question! Care to ask????]

DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND WHY LOCKE AT 42 IS A CENTRELINK MEGA-CLAIM KILLER?

[5] THE BRANDIS CONFESSION   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT_E7kefSew

Brandis web capture

WATCH THIS 3 MINUTE VIDEO –  “THERE WILL BE MISTAKES – TERRIBLE HUMAN CONSEQUENCES’ STATEMENT, 2,030 DEAD!

NOTE HOW LONG THE DEADLY ROBO DEBT FRAUD HAS BEEN RUNNING, GEOEGE BRANDIS STATED THAT IT WAS “INTRODUCED BY HAWKE WE INHERITED IT FROM YOU”

[6] PATEL  http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/29.html

COPY PARAGRAPHS 11 – 15 [NOTE; S. 293 means Section 293 of the QLD Criminal Code]

[At 11] Under the Criminal Code, a person who causes the death of another is deemed to have killed that other person (s 293). A person who unlawfully kills another in circumstances which do not constitute murder is guilty of manslaughter (s 303). A person who kills another does so unlawfully unless the killing is authorised, justified or excused by law (s 291).

[7] BOUGHEY  http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1986/29.html

DO YOU REMEMBER “CALL LIFELINE”?

UntitledPRINT OUT THE COVER PAGE OF BOUGHEY AND THEN READ THE CATCHWORDS IN THIS CASE; Murder – Reckless indifference to consequences – Knowledge of possibility of death – Action “likely to cause death” – Whether accused “ought to have known” – Whether hostile intent required – Criminal Code (Tas.), s. 157. 

NOTE THE PHRASE “OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN” APPEARS 23 TIMES IN THE high FINDINGS, e.,g. this reference to the Tasmanian Crimes Act. Take special note of the phrases that I have underlined: 

“157 – (1) Subject to the provisions of section 160, culpable homicide is murder if it is committed

(a) with an intention to cause the death of any person,

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

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

 [8] IN A GOOGLE SEARCH ENGINE, SEARCH FOR (Your State/Territory) work health safety act

SA WHS Act 2011[8a] DOWNLOAD AND WORD SEARCH FOR:  reckless conduct (It is in Section 31 in SA, NSW, QLD, TAS Acts –SMART: they all use the same wording for this Act.)

SA PH ACT 2011 31[9] REPEAT 8 ABOVE AND SEARCH FOR (Your State/Territory) public health act

SA PH ACT 2011[9a] WORD SEARCH FOR material risk to public health

SA PH ACT 2011 57 1[9b] Download your State/Territory Crimes Act:

[9c]SA Crimes Act

[9c] WORD SEARCH FOR  suicide   BELOW IS SECTION 13 (7) AND 13 (8) OF THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CRIMINAL CODE. If you commit a crime and someone is so traumatized that they commit suicide, THAT DEATH IS A MURDER. Note that every State and territory has similar laws.Suiicde

FEDERAL CRIMES aCT

WELFARE RECIPIENTS SHOULD COPY SECTIONS 80 (2), 130 (3), AND SECTION 142.2  OF THESE FEDERAL LAWS INTO THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS FILE.

[10] I HOPE THAT BY NOW, READERS OF THIS POSTING ARE CONNECTING THE DOTS ON DECADES OF MASS FRAUD AND SERIAL MURDER?

THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL PARLIAMENT REALLY HAS BEEN MURDERING VULNERABLE PEOPLE FOR LITERALLY DECADES SIMPLY BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE DO NOT THE LAW. UNREAL!

SADLY, STATISTICS INDICATE POSSIBLY OVER 100,000 DEATHS SINCE THE 1980s.

CALL THE COPS

IT IS THE REPEATED FAILURE OF EVERY POLICE SERVICE IN AUSTRALIA TO INVESTIGATE THESE GENOCIDAL CRIMES THAT MAKES AN INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION A HIGH PRIORITY:

7-07-2004 Denley page 1

The “gravity/sensitivity” of the murder of welfare recipients was insufficient to justify a Federal Police investigation.

ACC letter

26-2-2019 Tim Curtis 2 cert

THE  LETTERS ABOVE ARE JUST 3 EXAMPLES OF 15-YEARS OF AUSTRALIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT’S UNOFFICIAL ‘SEE NO EVIL’ POLICY WHEN DEALING WITH COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE DEFRAUDING AND MURDER OF WELFARE RECIPIENTS.

OCO 2017

Issues raised in AAT 2016/5334, Havaunes and the Secretary of the Department of Social Services, (2nd Appeal), such as a death toll that may exceed 100,000 and the need to comply with the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions were simply ignored in the Ombudsman’s Report.

This was essentially a politically biased justification of a murderously lethal fraud. hence the need for an international investigation into the authors of this pro-genocide document.

CARC March 2017

CARC 14 p3

CARC 14 p8

The above comments are contained found on page 14 of the Hansard Minutes for the Senate hearing held on 8th March 2017, i.e. 2-weeks after the Havaunes Appeal was not contested. Note the following points:

[A] “Customary oversight has been removed from the system”, i.e. public interest due diligence monitoring was deliberately removed from thr Robo-Debt system. This allowed the Centrelink system to automatically defraud welfare recipients.

[B] “…mangers instructing frontline staff not to correct errors that they find.” That statement indicates “mens rea”, i.e. a deliberate intention to defraud, which means that any fatalities caused by this fraud are culpable homicides. It also means that in any murder inquiry, it is the frontline managers that are left “holding the bag”, i.e. responsibility for these deaths.

[C]  “… an increased risk of depression, decreased motivation, self-harm and even suicide.”

HIP Risk[d] It is manifestly evident that Commissioner Ian Hanger’s findings in the Home Improvement Program that risk cannot be abrogated  and that citizens not be placed in danger did not apply to Australia’s welfare recipients, i.e. they are people who’s right to life does not exist.

On 18 May 2010, in the 2nd paragraph of the above letter, Assitant Secretary Neil Skill made it abundantly clear that counting the deaths caused by the unconstitutional deprivation of the sole mans to survive was an administrative inconvenience, i.e. Centrelink did not collect the data and therefore could not provide it to me.

CARC MAY 2017

Fast forward in time exactly 7 years from Assistant Secretary Neil Skill’s letter to a Senate hearing on Robo Debt that was conducted on the 18 May 2017:

CARC MAY P48

Ms. Kathryn Campbell, the Secretary of the Department of Human Services, a.k.a Centrelink made it quite clear that counting the dead was still an administrative inconvenience.

“It is quite difficult if we are not informed that a person has died.”

HIP Risk

It is again manifestly evident that Secretary Campbell either did not know about the above findings from the Homer Improvement Program, or, alternatively, she did not support Commissioner Hanger’s views.

Either way, at the time of posting this civil rights teaching blog, which is really a MAYDAY appeal to the international law enforcement and human rights agencies, Robo-Debt (Mark 2) has massacred perhaps as many as 2,030 vulnerable victims, all of whom are entitled to the same justice as the victims of the Bosnian Holocaust

[11] READERS OF THIS APPEAL TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY:

If you are an international law enforcement ot huma rights agency – UPHOLD THE LAW

IF YOU ARE AN ORDINARY AUSTRALIAN – PLEASE,YOU CAN BE A LIFE-SAVER:

“TELL 10” – can you TELL 10 people EACH DA, the URL for this BLOG POSTING via email, et cetera, for 10 days?

INSIST that they MUST WATCH THE VIDEOS, and read my instructions carefully.

The short link URL     https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1h5

or

https://wordpress.com/post/yadnarie48.wordpress.com/4903

 Thank you,

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

 

 
Continue reading

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

Christchurch: 50 massacred. The Robo Debt Fraud (mark 2 version), 2,030 massacred.

Christchurch: 50 massacred. The Robo Debt Fraud (mark 2 version),

2,030 massacred.

 

As the latest response from the South Australian Police (SAPOL) to the on-going defrauding and massacre of welfare recipients reveals, SAPOL’s the official approach to dealing with the worst cases of mass fraud and serial murder since Federation still remains unchanged. Dated 26th February 2019, SAPOL’s latest letter, written by Chief Inspector Tim Curtis, is yet another example of a truly bizarre response to murder reports:

26-2-2019 Tim Curtis 2 certUnbelievable! If anyone reports a murder, SAPOL rush to the scene or virtually ‘rubber-hose’ the people reporting the crime, because they are the chief suspects. HOWEVER, IF THE VICTIM IS A WELFARE RECIPIENT, THEN THE “We’ll call you later” response kicks in!

Unfortunately SAPOL’S response to the defrauding and murder of welfare recipients follows the standard line of the Australian Crime Commission, and every other police force in Australia:ACC

Note the date of the Australian Crime Commission’s refusal to investigate what I now would regard as the ROBO DEBT FRAUD (Mark 1 version), which ripped off 20,000 unsuspecting welfare recipients per year.

ROBO DEBT (Mark 2) targeted 20,000 per week!

As George Brandis confessed in this YouTube video, the Liberal-National coalition “inherited” the (randomly lethal) ROBO DEBT (mark 1) fraud from none other that good ol’e BOB HAWKE, i.e. listen for the statement by Senator Brandis that “We inherited  from you” in the original “Brandis confession” posting on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-kIy-09qeI

[Fast forward to the 10 minute: 30 second mark and discover who created the original (Mark 1) Robo Debt Fraud.]

NOTE: The YouTube video below has a shortened version of The Brandis Confession so as to get other information into the 15 minute free upload time limit.

Once a welfare recipient challenges a Centrelink decision, only a court can make a legally valid decision about the facts. Knowing this, Malcolm Turnbull and a bus load of Coalition Ministers, just ignored the High Court’s binding decisions and ripped off welfare recipients.

The result: 2,030 dead in 753 days!

TELL 10

Below is the URL link for this posting:

https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1gT

 

PLEASE, if you want to help to end a politically driven humanitarian disaster, copy the URL above and email to 10 of your friends.

Do that every day for 10 days, and ask your friends to do the same.

 

This is what will happen if you share this URL:

(A) 10 people for 10 days = 100 people.

(B) if those 100 people tell 10 people a day for another 10 days, that is 10,000 who will know the truth in just 20 days.

(C) 10,000 x 100 = 1,000,000 in just 30 days, i.e. in just 1 month, if you start with just one “TELL TEN” and 100 email friends in 10 days, in 30 days, one million people will know about the Centrelink Robo Debt Massacres.

Yes, the Christchurch Massacre was truly horrific, but when you compare the 50 deaths in Christchurch with the 2,030 Robo Debt (Mark 2) Massacre, you have a death toll that is 40 TIMES LARGER.

Please, TELL TEN,

Ron Medlicott. Registered teacher and a  volunteer Christian 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, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Australia’s Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders – 2,030 possible victims identified by Shalialah Medora, a Triple J Hack journalist

Australia’s Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders are again being exposed by the ABC.

 

Ms. Medora is a Triple J hack Internet journalist.

The following text exposed a shocking 2,030 Robo Debt fatalities, which are murders under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute of the International Court, was posted on the Internet at 1.32 PM on 19th February 2019 by a Triple J Hack journalist, Shaliah Medora.

The 0.21% Robo Debt Death Toll

That appalling statistic conceals the massive scale of Australia’s brutal, viciously deadly, unconstitutional and human rights violating policies and practices which are putting the Australian Parliament on a collision course with the international criminal justice system.

Prompt action is required to prevent more of these murders from occurring.

Please share this short link: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1gz

Since the Morrison Government, which may not want to explain genocide and crimes against humanity to the International Court, can order that the ABC’s Triple J posting shown below be deleted, in the national interest, especially the interest of the many relatives of murdered welfare recipients, the text initially posted by Ms. Medora is also posted below as an alternate backup.

THE TRIPLE J HACK SOURCE URL IS:

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

More than 2030 people died after receiving a Centrelink debt notice, also known as robo-debt, according to new data released by the Department of Human Services.

Of those, 429 – roughly one-fifth – were aged under 35.

The figures cover a period from July 2016 to October 2018. To give you a comparison, there were 3139 deaths of people aged between 15 and 35 in 2016 overall, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

While the department does not collect data on the cause for death in these cases, nearly a third – 663 people – were classified as “vulnerable”, which means they had complex needs like mental illness, drug use or were victims of domestic violence. Greens Senator Rachel Siewert, who asked the Department for the information, told Hack that there could be more people with vulnerabilities than what is reflected in the official stats.

“Because of the way the system works at the moment, people don’t feel confident or don’t feel safe or trust the person that they’re reporting to to flag that they feel vulnerable, or flag that they might have poor mental health at the time,” she said. Senator Siewert also said evidence from a Senate inquiry into the system found that getting a debt notice when you’ve done nothing wrong can bring on depression or anxiety.

“People talk about feeling stressed and anxious through the system, feeling humiliated and they get depressed.”

“That sets alarm bells for me, the high proportion of people with vulnerabilities,” she said.

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

MY COMMENT: SENATOR SIEWERT HAS BEEN AWARE OF THE MOUNTING DEATH TOLL FOR ALMOST A DECADE. IT MAY WELL BE THAT NOW THAT SHE COMPREHENDS  THE VAST SCALE OF THE ROBO DEBT MURDERS,  IT IS NOW POSSIBLE THAT SHE HAS FINALLY RE-DISCOVERED THE FACT THAT SHE HAS  LEGAL OBLIGATIONS TO WELFARE RECIPIENTS.

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

The vast majority of people who died were still receiving Centrelink payments at the time of their deaths. Responsibility for Centrelink lies with the Department of Human Services. More than 500 people who died were receiving Newstart payments, and a further 520 were on the Disability Support Pension. Men were twice as likely to die than women.

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

MY COMMENT: SENATOR SIEWERT WAS DEPUTY CHAIRPERSON FOR THE SENATE’S COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE AND THEN CHAIRPERSON FOR THE COMMUNITY AFFAIRS REFERENCE COMMITTEE.

IN BOTH POSITIONS, SHE HAD SENATE OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES AND HAD DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF THE HUMAN IMPACT OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL, HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATING POLICIES AND PRACTICES. AS THE LETTER BELOW REVEALS, THE GREENS KNEW ABOUT CENTRELINK DRIVEN SUICIDES A DECADE AGO IN 2006 BUT IGNORED THE RISING DEATH TOLL.

THE GREENS knew about the Centrelink  triggered suicides in 2006 but complied with a Senate suppression order and kept the rising death toll a secret.

AS THE FOLLOWING LETTERS REVEAL, SENATOR SIEWERT HAD PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE RISING, (secret classified and offcially “irrelevant”) DEATH TOLL CAUSED BY UNCONSTITUTIONAL WELFARE POLICIES AND PRACTICES.

Senator Siewert was well aware of another randomly lethal, unconstitutional killer, Breaching Penalties. Tghe term implied a breach of contract, which is a matter for the courts. As a result, this randomly lethal killer is now known as “No Show – No Dole” Penalties, despite the fact that an unemployment benefit is both a constitutional right and a basic human right. Please note that this letter reveals Senator Hanson-Young’s knowledge of Breaching triggered murders.

Senator Siewert knew about the random murder of welfare recipients because I was one of the people who told her about the ongoing murdering of welfare recipients

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

Minister says there’s no link

A spokesperson for Human Services Minister, Michael Keenan, told Hack the automatic debt notice process is “reasonable, lawful and fair”.

They said the department had sent out 900,000 discrepancy notices – that is, a letter asking the welfare recipient to explain why the info they’ve given doesn’t match what the department has. That doesn’t always lead to a formal debt notice because the recipients of the letter can provide additional information that clears the discrepancy.

“Any suggestion that the Department of Human Services’ debt recovery efforts have contributed to customer deaths is simply not supported by the facts or statistics,” the spokesperson said.

“The department sent more than 900,000 debt letters to individuals during the period 1 July 2016 to 31 October 2018. A total of 2030 of those individuals died during the same period, which represents 0.21 per cent.”

CENTRELINK’S FRAUDULENT ROBO DEBT SCAM HAS A ‘NOBLE CAUSE‘ FATALITY RATE OF ‘just’ 0.21%

REMEMBER – 2,753 PEOPLE DIED IN THE 9/11 TWIN TOWERS ATTACK: 

SURELY 2,030 DEATHS IN 753 DAYS IS ALSO A MAJOR ACT OF TERRORISM?

MY COMMENT; THERE IS NOTHING REASONABLE OR FAIR ABOUT ROBO DEBT – IT IS A VICIOUSLY BRUTAL, RANDOMLY LETHAL FRAUD THAT DELIBERATELY IGNORES SEVERAL CRUCIAL HIGH COURT DECISIONS CONCERNING COMPLIANCE WITH ESTABLISHING A LEGITIMATE RIGHT OF CLAIM THAT, WHEN CHALLENGED, BECOMES A MATTER FOR THE COURTS TO DETERMINE THE FACTS UPON WHICH A FAIR DECISION MUST BE BASED.

ROBO DEBT VIOLATES BOTH SECTION 130 (3) AND SECTION 142(2) OF THE COMMONWEALTH CRIMINAL CODE ACT AND THE DEATHS ARE MURDERS UNDER INTERNATIONAL, STATE AND TERRITORY LAWS, e.g. ARTICLE 7(1)(A) OF THE ROME STATUTE, and SECTION 13.7 OF THE SOUTH AUSTRALIAN CRIMINAL LAW CONSOLIDATION ACT WHICH DEFINES DURESS TRIGGERED SUICIDES AS MURDER.

IT IS A BLATANT LIE BY THOSE SEEKING TO AVOID LEGAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE ROBO DEBT MURDERS.

ROBO DEBT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH “GOOD GOVERNMENT” THAT IS  FAIR AND LAWFUL.

ROBO DEBT IS A RANDOMLY KILLING FRAUD THAT IS A MAJOR SYSTEMIC CRIME UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

WELFARE RECIPIENTS HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY MISLEAD AND DEFRAUDED AT THE RATE OF UP TO 20,000 VICTIMS PER WEEK AND THE DEATHS OF 2,030 PEOPLE IN 28 MONTHS REPRESENTS A POSSIBLE SERIAL MURDER RATE THAT MAY HAVE AVERAGED 1 MURDER EVERY 10 HOURS OVER 753 DAYS.

CALL THE COPS?

The statement that Robo Debt is “reasonable, lawful and fair” is a self-protecting statement made by people whose acts of “Reckless Disregard” for the safety of the public and welfare clients  have apparently managed to kill 2,030 innocent people in 28 months.

RE “LAWFUL and FAIR”: That statement reveals that the Robo Debt murders are quite literally State-Sanctioned-Murders in which fraudulent, randomly fatal efforts to recover what may be no-existent debts, have resulted in random fatalities.

As I know from personal experience, calling the cops is an exercise in futility, as the most likely response is likely to be a ‘Noble Cause – Process Corruption’ cover-up of these crimes.

The “gravity/sensitivity” of the murder of welfare recipients was insufficient to justify a Federal Police investigation.

Note: The “inquiry” mentioned above by Federal Agent Denley was conducted by people who had no legal jurisdiction to conduct a serial murder investigation, i.e. the people responsible for the commission of these crimes.

“No response will be provided.”

Note the “no response will be provided” statement. no matter how many times politicians rort the public purse or defraud and murder welfare recipients, the Federal Police are going to abide by government protocols, despite the fact that THE CONSTITUTION states that “The laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and the people.”

Given the choice between the Constitution and sucking up to politicians who grant draconian police powers in exchange for no prosecution for fraud, menace, intimidation, exploitation and murder.

The only benefit in filing a complaint is a long term benefit, i.e. when these crimes are finally investigated , the people who complained will be on-the-record and will (eventually) be able to file a claim for Victims-of-Crime compensation.

Last week I filed a complaint with the South Australian Independent Commissioner Against Corruption.

In addition, on Sunday, 24th February 2019, presented a 5 minute mini-preview of the following video to the congregation of Playford Baptist Church. 

In July 2008, the Commonwealth, states and territories agreed to harmonize work health and safety (WHS) laws across Australia, because the legislation developed over the previous century in the various jurisdictions was full of inconsistencies, creating problems for business.

The following extract from the New South Wales Work Health & Safety Act 2011, is common in all states and territories except Western Australia and Victoria:

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, or

(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, or

(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.

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC HEALTH ACT 2011

This Act is in addition to the above-mentioned Work health & Safety Act. Section 57 and 58 are detailed below:

Part 7—General public health offences
57—Material risk to public health
(1) A person who causes a material risk to public health intentionally or recklessly and
with the knowledge that harm to public health will result is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: $250 000 or imprisonment for 5 years or both.
(2) A person who causes a material risk to public health in circumstances where the
person ought reasonably be expected to know that harm to public health will result is
guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: $120 000 or imprisonment for 2 years or both.A person who causes a material risk to public health is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: $25 000.
Expiation fee: $750.
(4) For the purposes of this section, a material risk to public health occurs if the health
of 1 or more persons has been, or might reasonably be expected to be, harmed by an
act or omission of another, but does not include a case where the harm, or risk of
harm, is trivial or negligible.
58—Serious risk to public health
(1) A person who causes a serious risk to public health intentionally or recklessly and
with the knowledge that harm to public health will result is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: $1 000 000 or imprisonment for 10 years or both.
(2) A person who causes a serious risk to public health in circumstances where the person
ought reasonably be expected to know that harm to public health will result is guilty of
an offence.
Maximum penalty: $500 000 or imprisonment for 7 years or both.
(3) A person who causes a serious risk to public health is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: $120 000.
(4) For the purposes of this section, a serious risk to public health occurs if there is a
material risk that substantial injury or harm to the health of 1 or more persons has
occurred, or might reasonably be expected to have occurred, taking into account—
(a) the nature, scale and effects of the harm, and any associated illness, injury or
disability, that may arise; and
(b) the location, immediacy and seriousness of the threat to human health; and
(c) whether the harm extends to 2 or more persons and, if so, the total number of
persons affected or likely to be affected; and
(d) the availability and effectiveness of any precaution, safeguard, treatment or
other measure that may be used to eliminate or reduce the harm.

59—Defence of due diligence
(1) In any proceedings against a person for an offence under this Part, it is a defence to
prove that the person took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to
prevent the commission of the offence.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), it is not proved that a person took all reasonable
precautions and exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence
under this Part unless it is proved that the person—
(a) had taken reasonable steps to prevent or avoid the circumstances that gave
rise to the risk to public health, including by putting in place any systems or
safeguards that might reasonably be expected to be provided; and
(b) complied with the requirements of any notice or order under this Act that
related to the risk to public health; and
(c) as soon as becoming aware of the circumstances that gave rise to the risk to
public health—(i) reported those circumstances to the Chief Public Health Officer, the
Department or a council; and
(ii) took all reasonable steps necessary to prevent or reduce the risk to public health.

MY COMMENT:

Both politicians and public servants can be held accountable for Reckless conduct breaches of these State and territory laws. With 2,030 Robo Debt deaths over a period of just 28 months to be explained, and the deaths justified by the former federal Attorney-General, George Brandis, on the basis of “appropriate compliance measures” these are plenty of fatalities for every State and Territory coroner and Crime & Corruption Commission to investigate. 

WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP TO FINALLY END 30 YEARS OF BRUTALITY THAT INCLUDES GENOCIDE AND CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY UNDER BOTH LIBERAL-NATIONAL COALITION AND ALP GOVERNMENTS?

Heaps – Share this posting’s shortlink with as many people as you can:

https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1gz

 

Watch some of these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZi9KwfYqtY

Australia’s Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders [HD720]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ0gXlDiGwQ

See No Evil – The Grant Stevens Factor

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHY0vu7mM50

YouTube Dole Bludger Murders Part 1

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68re0UdoGX0

YouTube Dole Bludger Murders Part 2

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv5aBmQaAao

YouTube Dole Bludger Murders Part 3

 

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

YouTube Dole Bludger Murders Part 4

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m52RPOEeW10

YouTube Dole Bludger Murders Part 5

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSbD5yTDvY8

“See No Evil?” – The Jacqui Lambie Factor: Part 1

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZ6x2zFLv0s

“See No Evil?” – The Jacqui Lambie Factor: Part 2

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIRBX86jO8E

See no Evil: The Pauline Hanson factor

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8FtKGModmE

See no Evil: The Pauline Hanson factor: Part 2

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lneK5NxXUrE

The Emcott Report: The Kingsford Legal Centre Email

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO_Gxr8BMCA

An email to Financial Services Royal Commission

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT_E7kefSew

The Brandis Confession (The 3 minute clip)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg5ojbAKZ-0

See No Evil: The SAPOL Factor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwRwWoXz15o

Williams v Spautz: Glimpses of Genocide

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_tmrjjs6CY

Glimpses of genocide in Australia

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

Robo Debt: The Brandis Confession

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3oKEsNZ-X4        The Emcott report – Robo Debt Part 1

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

The Tudge Fudge Fraud Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po6Zkgcq-FA        The Tudge Fudge Fraud Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf5RPOQkTFM

Evidence for the ICC to consider

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RctoEN-ZuE8         Genocide Part 3 – The Culleton Factor

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbj-YqB9dTs         Genocide Part 1: the Section 42C Law

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o7ARFnHE9A      Genocide Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JC0hpUJ9wTk

The Cosgrove Memo: (Slaughtergate Law)

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

The Chilcot Report: (600,000 now dead)

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

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGVeRSFKsI0

The Others DVD Update Edition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRhshgrncg0

Case Study: Centrelink rips off welfare recipients

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTvqeFJC1pg

Centrelink hassles – fight back and win

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oncpVb6anAg

Centrelink prosecutions – bunging a spanner in the works.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH3TEMiSNgM

Are Centrelink penalties constitutional?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCBonJY5Z-k

Centrelink and the 6 week Rule

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0WEN5ix0Fc

Murder by Federal Legislation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lKfSsGBn2Q

Centrelink and Job Network complaints

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuTmc2nA8Kc

Billabong Ghosts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QSdj5gXsx8

Centrelink’s secret breaching death toll.

Ronald Medlicott. registered teacher and a volunteer Christian 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

Part 52j: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. How the South Australian Police missed the boat when Centrelink admitted that 2,030 of its Robo-Debt victims were dead

Australia’s Appropriate Compliance Measures are very real, as  a Triple J’s Hack posting about 2,030 Robo-Debt deaths has just revealed.

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

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

Finally, after 15 years of lobbying and hunting for the truth, including 9 years writing this blog, Centrelink’s murderous secret is out.

This link reveals a small slice of a 30-year-long secret, 2,030 of Centrelink’s undisclosed “Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders.” These deaths were secretly classified as “confidential in November 2005 by the Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee. In January 2006 and again in March 2006, the Employment & Workplace Relations committee (EWRE), dismissed the deaths as “irrelevant’.

2 years ago today, on 20th February 2017, Senator George Brandis said “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.”

The very next day, the 2nd appeal for AAT 2016/5334, which was based on the HELLICAR and BHARDAWJ High Court decisions, contained the following statement, which it should be noted was not disputed by Elizabeth Ulrick, the lawyer representing the Department of Social Security: “If I am correct, over a time frame measured in decades, the Australian Federal Parliament has deliberately raped the civil rights of 4 – 5 million vulnerable Australians and as a direct consequence of this systematic rape of rights, the unreported, secretly classified, officially “irrelevant” death toll caused by this ravaging of civil rights may be close to, or even exceed, 100,000 in number. Theoretically, it could even be the unthinkable, i.e. close to 1,000,000 dead.”

 For more details, check out this YouTube link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ0gXlDiGwQ

Next check out this link and then work backwards:  https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1g9

To say that the South Australian Police ‘missed the boat’ on these homicides is a massively gross understatement:

Note the date on the letter, i.e. 3 December 2019.

The SAPOL letter’s envelop was date stamped 18 December 2018 

The above letter from Detective Chief Inspector Tim Curtis has been the only contact since i raised the issue of the Robo-Debt murders with Commissioner Stevens in October 2018 – see part 58(a) of this series for details.

Noble Cause Process Corruption

In the 1995 – 1997 Royal Commission into the New South Wales Police Service that was conducted by Justice James Wood. In Volume 1 of the Report, ‘Corruption, at 2.3 on page 20, Commissioner Wood wrote:

[At 2.3] “In addition to these activities which directly hinder the suppression and prosecution of crime, the good order of the Service and the creation of an environment of honesty, integrity and impartiality, the approach taken by the Commission embraces those forms of conduct sometimes referred to as ‘noble cause corruption’, but which are better categorised as ‘process corruption’. This is the kind of corruption whereby unnecessary physical force is applied, police powers are abused, evidence is fabricated or tampered with, or confessions are obtained by improper means. It is often directed at those members of the community who are least likely or least able to complain…”

In his conclusions about corruption in the New South Wales Police service, Commissioner Wood made reference to Judge Mollen’s investigation a few years earlier into corruption in the New York police Department:

Mollen’s observation that the NYPD had a ‘multifaceted problem’, that flourished:
… not only because of opportunity and greed, but because of a police culture that exalts loyalty over integrity;
because of the silence of officers who fear the consequences of ‘ratting’ on another cop, … because of wilfully
blind supervisors who fear the consequences of a corruption scandal more than corruption itself; because of
the demise of the principle of accountability that makes all commanders responsible for fighting corruption in
their commands; because of hostility and alienation between police and community … [and the abandonment
of] responsibility to ensure the integrity of its members.

is equally applicable to the NSW Police Service.

The message of each post in Part 58 of Ronald Space is that in the face of overwhelming evidence that Centrelink was menacing, intimidating, defrauding and randomly killing innocent, vulnerable welfare recipients, Commissioner Grant Stevens did nothing about this criminal activity. the role of Chief inspector Curtis appears to have been to protect SAPOL from an embarrassment of mega-proportions, i.e. the 2011 cover-up of the Appropriate compliance Measures Murders by Detective Superintendent Grant Moyle:

When it comes to the Appropriate  Compliance Measures Murders, not interviewing the plaintiff and then finding no evidence to support the allegations made by the plaintiff appears to Standard operating procedure.

With the deaths of 2,030 welfare recipients in the public domain, the reaction of law enforcement agencies across the nation needs to closely monitored. Despite there being clear evidence, such as the following case decisions, that Centrelink was defrauding clients, with sometimes fatal consequences, SAPOL and other law enforcement agencies may still do nothing abouty these State-Sanctioned crimes against Humanity.

austlii

BINDING HIGH COURT DECISIONS: got to austlii.edu.au and click Commonwealth -> High Court -> Select year then the month:

HELLICAR, (HCA 17) May 2012, Read  paragraphs 141 – 143 – Once a welfare recipient challenges a regulator’s decision, it is a matter for the courts.

Immigration Minister versus BHARDWAJ (HCA 11) on 14 March 2002 – If a regulator has no jurisdiction for a decision, then any decision by the regulator, e.g. Centrelink, “…a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all.” This means that once a person challenges a centrelink decision, no legally valid decision can be made until a court decides the facts of the matter. needless to say, no Human Services Minister or Social Services Minister, e.g. Scott Morrison, has ever made these court decisions public in the mass media.

WILLIAMS versus SPAUTZ (HCA 34) on 27th july 1992 Justice Gaudron at paragraph 6 of his findings (Look for GAUDRON J near the end of the Court’s findings)RIGHT OF CLAIM “The cases in which abuse of process has been established have usually involved an act described in terms such as “extortion”(139) Gilding v. Eyre (1861) 10 CB(NS), at p 605 (142 ER, at p 590). See also Guilford Industries (1974) 40 DLR (3d), at p 405, where the act was described as obtaining “a settlement by means of legal ‘blackmail'”, “coercion”(140) Dishaw v. Wadleigh (1897) 44 NYS, at p 210 or “bring(ing) pressure to bear … to force (a result)”(141) QIW Retailers Limited v. Felview (1989) 2 Qd R, at p 258. These terms signify a claim or demand made without right and without claim of right.

Centrelink must undertake an audit using a certified auditor who produces a report, which the centrelink client is allowed to have a copy of BEFORE responding to a centrelink overpayment claim. NO AUDIT = NO RIGHT OF CLAIM BY CENTRELINK.

THE PATEL CASE – MURDER MOST FOUL (HCA 29) on 29th August 2012 at paragraph 11: “Under the Criminal Code, a person who causes the death of another is deemed to have killed that other person (s 293).  A person who unlawfully kills another in circumstances which do not constitute murder is guilty of manslaughter (s 303).  A person who kills another does so unlawfully unless the killing is authorised, justified or excused by law (s 291).  In the present case, for convictions on the counts of manslaughter to be returned it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the appellant caused the death of the three patients, thereby killing them (s 293).  For a conviction on the count of grievous bodily harm, it was necessary to prove that the appellant had done grievous bodily harm to another and that the doing of it was unlawful (s 320).”

WOOLMINGTON – HOUSE OF LORDS May 5th 1935: UNANIMOUS DECISION:- Lord Sankey quoting the trial judge in the case under appeal  said “The killing of a human being is homicide, however he may be killed, and all homicide is presumed to be malicious and murder, unless the contrary appears from circumstances of alleviation, excuse, or justification. ‘In every charge of murder, the fact of killing being first proved, all the circumstances of accident, necessity, or infirmity are to be satisfactorily proved by the prisoner, unless they arise out of the evidence produced against him: for the law will presume the fact to have been founded in malice until the contrary appeareth.’ That has been the law of this country for all time since we had law. Once it is shown to a jury that somebody has died through the act of another, that is presumed to be murder, unless the person who has been guilty of the act which causes the death can satisfy a jury that what happened was something less, something which might be alleviated, something which might be reduced to a charge of manslaughter, or was something which was accidental, or was something which could be justified.”

MURDER BY SUICIDE: SA Criminal code at paragraph 13, sub-paragraph 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.”

Centrelink has been fraudulently “skipping the courts” and avoiding court findings on its false claims. As a consequence, some very  vulnerable people have committed suicide and these deaths are murders in South Australia. All other states, except Victoria, have similar Felony Murder laws. In Victoria, the deaths are either manslaughter or murder. Given that they have been concealed for decades and are officially “irrelevant”, I believe that they are “Depraved Heart – Reckless Indifference murders.

APPROPRIATE COMPLIANCE MEASURES ARE NOT A VALID REASON FOR RANDOMLY KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE: Make no mistake, every one of  the Centrelink deaths is culpable homicide, e.g. either a Murder or Manslaughter, and the 2,030 admitted deaths are just the tip of a politically driven humanitarian disaster that is literally of holocaust proportions. Robo-debt is part of the worst case of mass fraud and serial murder since Federation, which is why Michael Keenan is downplaying these deaths. REMEMBER, the Liberal Party held a senate hearing, a coroner’s inquest and a Royal Commission into the 4 Home Improvement deaths. The Royal Commission into the 99 aboriginal deaths in custody (google RCIADIC) took almost 4 years to complete (1987 – 1991) Families of the estimated 100,000 people who have died should ‘CALL THE COPS’ and demand a murder investigation. They should also talk to lawyers about a class action at $1 Million per immediate family member, as per the Ian Ward payout by the WA government in July 2010, which was an $800,000 x 4 family members payout of $3.2 Million compensation.)

Ronald Medlicott

(SA 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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Part 52i Australia’s “Appropriate Compliance Measures Murders” – Does the landmark 1935 “Golden Thread” decision ‘hang’ the lethal Robo Debt fraud?

Does the landmark 1935 “Golden Thread” decision ‘hang’ the lethal Robo Debt fraud and leave the politicians, public servants and lawyers responsible for this randomly lethal fraud accountable for what may prove to be the worst serial murders since Federation in 1901?

Note the case law texts below were sourced from: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1935/1.html

© Source: British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) 

HOUSE OF LORDS. 1935] AC462  WOOLMINGTON APPELLANT; AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS RESPONDENT 5TH APIL 1935

The URL Short link for this posting is: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1g9

A quick overview of this Landmark decision, which any person with an Australian university law degree should know about, especially politicians, is available at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolmington_v_DPP

Please note that the paragraph numbers used in the following extracts from Woolmington were not used in the original published findings by the House of Lords:

POINTS OF LAW FROM WOOLMINGTON v. DPP;  HOUSE OF LORDS. AC462 on the 5th April 1935 that highlight the fact of law that the “terrible human consequences’ of Robo Debt are HOMICIDES and also that this “initiative” violates “The Golden Thread”, i.e. the BURDEN OF PROOF  upon the Crown to prove any claims made against a citizen.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1935/1.html

© British and Irish Legal Information Institute (BAILII) 

THE GOLDEN THREAD

“… if conviction there is to be, the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

 “Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception.”

“No matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained.”

“We were then asked to follow the Court of Criminal Appeal and to apply the proviso of s. 4 of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, which says: “the Court may,notwithstanding that they are of opinion that the point raised in the appeal might be decided in favour of the appellant, dismiss the appeal if they consider that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.”

Paragraph 24: The presumption of innocence in a criminal case is strong: see Taylor On Evidence 11th Ed (1920), ss 113, 114, Vol 1, pp 107, 108; 12th Ed (1931), Vol 1, pp 107, 108

 Paragraph 26: “… at the end of the evidence it is not for the prisoner to establish his innocence, but for the prosecution to establish his guilt. Just as there is evidence on behalf of the prosecution so there may be evidence on behalf of the prisoner which may cause a doubt as to his guilt. In either case, he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. But while the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner, there is no such burden laid on the prisoner to prove his innocence and it is sufficient for him to raise a doubt as to his guilt; he is not bound to satisfy the jury of his innocence.

Paragraph 28: “Juries are always told that, if conviction there is to be, the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. This statement cannot mean that in order to be acquitted the prisoner must “satisfy” the jury.”

Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law ONE GOLDEN THREAD IS ALWAYS TO BE SEEN,

  • that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception.

  • If, at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt, created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner, as to whether the prisoner killed the deceased with a malicious intention,

  •  the prosecution has not made out the case and the prisoner is entitled to an acquittal.

HELLICAR AND THE GOLDEN THREAD.

At paragraph 141 , 142 and 143 in the High Court’s decision the judges applied the Golden Thread Rule:

[141] “…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.”

“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.”

  • Centrelink is a Crown agency and IN ALL Robo Debt CLAIMS, once a Centrelink claim is challenged, “THE CROWN’, i.e. Centrelink, has to prove that ‘ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITY’ that the Crown’s tort claim is legally valid.

  • Welfare recipients do NOT have to prove that they are at fault, or even prove that Centrelink is a fault.

  • Once a welfare recipient says, “it is not my fault”, or “you have made a mistake”, consistent with Hellicar, the determination of the facts is a matter for the courts, not Centrelink, or even the AAT.

  • The court decides the facts and then Centrelink acts in accordance with whatever determination the court has made of Centrelink’s claim.

  • If Centrelink officials ignore the court decision, then a welfare recipient can appeal to the AAT for a review of the court’s decision.

  • This is a complex legal exercise that, 2014,  cost an average of $25,000 per court case, hence the financial advantage of ‘skipping the courts’ and requiring welfare recipients to prove the that Centrelink had made a mistake.

  • That has been virtually impossible to do; however, the findings in AATA 904 (2014), the public admission of Attorney-General Brandis that “Of course there will be mistakes”, and the listing of over 30 causes of these sometimes fatal mistakes in the Statement of Facts & Issues for AAT 2016/5334 (2nd appeal), add to the legal obligation upon the Crown, i.e. Centrelink, to prove the merits of its claim.

  • Because of the “terrible human consequences” referred to by Attorney-General Brandis, i.e. mistake triggered fatalities that the Secretary of the Department of Social Services has not disputed may exceed 100,000 in number, the Standard of Proof that the court should be required  should be “Beyond reasonable doubt” rather than “on the balance of probability” .

Woolmington at Paragraph 20:

‘Presumptions’ of guilt and ‘prima facie’ cases of guilt in the trial of a party charged with crime mean no more than that from the proof of certain facts the jury will be warranted in convicting the accused of the offence with which he is charged.”

Woolmington at 24: THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE CROWN (PROSECUTION or CENTRELINK)

“In Hawkins’ Pleas of the Crown 8th Ed (Curwood), 1824, Vol 1, p 88, s 25 : “It is also agreed, that no one can excuse the killing another, by setting forth in a special plea, that he did it by misadventure, or se defendendo, but that he must plead ‘not guilty,’ and give the special matter in evidence. 

“This points to the fact that the verdict must be given not on any special pleading given by the prisoner but upon and as the result of the whole of the case, and it nowhere suggests that the burden of proof either at the  beginning or at the end of a case is not on the prosecution.”

  • Justice Gaudron’s findings at 9 add weight to the need for “Beyond reasonable doubt” to be the appropriate Standard of Proof, i.e. “ In re a Judgment Summons; Ex parte Henleys Ltd. (1953) Ch 195, on my reading of the relevant cases there is no basis for characterising a purpose as improper unless it involves a demand made without right or claim of right, or unless IT ENTAILS SOME CONSEQUENCE which is unrelated to or is NOT PROPORTIONATE with the right, interest or wrong asserted in the proceedings or by the process which is said to have been abused.”

[B]  Note the last sentence above “IT ENTAILS SOME CONSEQUENCE which is unrelated to or is NOT PROPORTIONATE with the right, interest or wrong asserted…”

THE “APPROPRIATE COMPLIANCE MEASURES” MURDERS

The unreported death toll that Attorney-General Brandis tried to justify as being acceptable because of the need for so-called“APPROPRIATE COMPLIANCE MEASURES” are murders as is clearly indicated in the Woolmington decision:

6th paragraph: “The killing of a human being is homicide, however he may be killed, and all homicide is presumed to be malicious and murder, unless the contrary appears from circumstances of alleviation, excuse, or justification.”

“Once it is shown to a jury that somebody has died through the act of another, that is presumed to be murder, unless the person who has been guilty of the act which causes the death can satisfy a jury that what happened was something less, something which might be alleviated, something which might be reduced to a charge of manslaughter, or was something which was accidental, or was something which could be justified.”

“ At the end of his summing-up he added: “The Crown has got to satisfy you that this woman, Violet Woolmington, died at the prisoner’s hands. If they must satisfy you of that beyond any reasonable doubt. If they satisfy you of that, then he has to show that there are circumstances to be found in the evidence which has been given from the witness-box in this case which alleviate the crime so that it is only manslaughter or which excuse the homicide altogether by showing that it was a pure accident.”

9th paragraph: When it has been proved that one person’s death has been caused by another, there is a prima facie presumption of law that the act of the person causing the death is murder, unless the contrary appears from the evidence either for the prosecution or for the defence. The onus is upon such person when accused to show that his act did not amount to murder.”

[MY COMMENT:] The last sentence,  was not accepted by the House of Lords for in the next paragraph, which I have bullet-pointed for clarity, are these BURDEN OF PROOF statements:

  • The question arises, Is that statement correct law?

  • Is it correct to say, and does Sir Michael Foster mean to lay down, that there may arise in the course of a criminal trial a situation at which it is incumbent upon the accused to prove his innocence?

  • To begin with, if that is what Sir Michael Foster meant, there is no previous authority for his proposition, and I am confirmed in this opinion by the fact that in all the text-books no earlier authority is cited for it.

Paragraph 17 – ACTS OF MALICE: “The Courts were already considering cases of express or implied malice, and the passage in Coke appears simply to mean that if a man does acts calculated to kill, and actually does kill, that is evidence of malice or intent; in other words, evidence of one of the ingredients of murder…”

The House of Lords findings above are totally consistent with the Australian High Court’s decision in Patel v the Queen, HCA 29 on 24th August 2012:

At paragraph 11: “Under the Criminal Code, a person who causes the death of another is deemed to have killed that other person (s 293).  A person who unlawfully kills another in circumstances which do not constitute murder is guilty of manslaughter (s303).  A person who kills another does so unlawfully unless the killing is authorised, justified or excused by law (s291).  In the present case, for convictions on the counts of manslaughter to be returned it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the appellant caused the death of the three patients, thereby killing them (s 293). For a conviction on the count of grievous bodily harm, it was necessary to prove that the appellant had done grievous bodily harm to another and that the doing of it was unlawful (s 320).”

“OOPS! – I MADE A MISTAKE IS NOT A LEGALLY VALID EXCUSE FOR CENTRELINK’S ‘SKIP-THE-COURTS’ FATALITIES, WHICH MAY NOW NUMBER MORE THAN 100,000 OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS!

THESE DEATHS ARE, IN LAW  MURDERS, WHICH MEANS THAT THE
APPROPRIATE COMPLIANCE MEASURES ARE THE POINT OF VULNERABILITY IN ROBO DEBT. ANYONE  CAN DEMAND TO KNOWN HOW MANY FATAL MISTAKES CENTRELINK HAS MADE  SINCE THIS PARTICULAR DELIBERATE VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS  WAS INTRODUCED BY BOB HAWKE?

Ron 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 , , , | 1 Comment