Part 46D Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against Humanity. ‘Surfing’ isn’t just surfing and ‘Burking’ isn’t just burking.

Burt versus Titlow is a US Supreme Court case that provides some insight into Australia’s “Burking” policies and practices.

The short list URL is https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1cv

Over time words change or grown broader in meaning: ‘Surfing’ isn’t just surfing and ‘Burking’ isn’t just burking.

For example, the word “Surfing” originally meant the recreational sport of ‘surfing the waves’ but today people ‘surf’ the Internet or surf’ radio and television broadcasts. We may also ‘surf the shops’ when looking for a bargain whilst some people “crowd surf” for the purpose of making a casual acquaintance .

In a similar manner, “Burking originally meant the crime of murdering a person, ordinarily by smothering, for the purpose of selling the corpse. The term originally derived its name from the method William Burke and William Hare, the Scottish murder team of the 18th century, used to kill their victims during the West Port murders. They realized that they could provide fresher bodies to medical schools for research by taking people who were intoxicated and suffocating them because they could not resist.”

Source: USLegal: https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/burking/

On 24th December, 1828, the High Court of Justiciary, sitting at Edinburgh in Scotland, heard a case brought by the Crown Prosecutor against William Burke for the alleged murder of Margery Campbell. William Burke was found guilty of this murder charge and just 5 weeks later on 28th January 1829, he was executed by hanging. The text of the 1828 trial of William Burke can be found at this URL:

https://archive.org/stream/b20443791/b20443791_djvu.txt

Fast forward in time to November 5th 2013 and another burking murder trial, i.e. the United States Supreme Court sat in judgement in Burt v. Titlov:

 Supreme Court of the United States No. 12–414 [November 5, 2013] Sherry L. Burt, Warden Petitioner v. Vonlee Nicole Titlow. [An appeal of Titlow v. Burt, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111459 (D. Mich. 2010)]

 Basic facts of this case:

“A Michigan state court jury convicted Titlow of second degree murder for assisting his aunt, Billie Rogers, in killing his uncle, Donald Rogers, in August 2000. Titlow had been living with Billie and Donald Rogers at the time of Donald’s death.   On August 12, 2000, police officers arrived at Donald’s house and found him dead on his kitchen floor with a drinking glass in his hand.   The medical examiner never performed an autopsy the body, and the cause of death was initially determined to be a heart attack.”

“Shortly after Donald’s death, signs began to emerge that foul play may have been involved in the death.   Such signs included: (1) the unnatural position of Donald’s body at the crime scene; (2) small scrapes found on Donald’s nose consistent with impressions made by a pillow; (3) reports from Titlow’s boyfriend that Titlow admitted to killing Donald; and (4) shortly after Donald’s death, Titlow received $100,000 and a new car from Billie, the sole beneficiary of Donald’s estate.” Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-414

The key to understanding the core characteristics of burking fatalities is found in two of the above statements:

  1. “…they could not resist”

  2.  “The medical examiner never performed an autopsy [on] the body, and the cause of death was initially determined to be a heart attack.”

Core characteristic #1:

Burking victims of are people who are “unable to resist” what is being done to them, i.e. they lack to means to defend themselves, are overwhelmed and they die.

Core characteristic #2:

The initial, false assumption that the death was not unlawful as it appeared to be from natural causes, i.e. a heart attack. Since it was not considered to be a homicide and an autopsy to determine the MANNER OF DEATH is not initially required.

  1. Just as the word “surfing” has now evolved to include ‘surfing the net’ and ‘crowd surfing’, the crime of ‘burking’ has also evolved to encompass more than murders that just involve asphyxiating drunken victims who are physically unable to defend themselves against this lethal form of attack.

  2. It is my contention that Burking is an appropriate term to describe crimes that involve unlawful abuses of power that target vulnerable people who are unable to defend themselves against this criminal activity and as a consequence are so physically or emotionally overwhelmed that the victim(s) die of natural causes.

  3. Like the asphyxiation technique originally used by William Burke, and as was the case in the Titlov hearings, these deaths do not appear to be the consequences of a crime and are therefore not treated as a homicide by coroners or by law enforcement agencies.

  4. Burking homicides’ are therefore 19th century examples of ‘the perfect murder’, at least until the precipitating cause of the death was identified and the murders brought to justice

Australia’s Dangerous and Unconstitutional Burking Laws.

In Australia, there are a number of federal laws that collective constitute ‘Murder by federal legislation’, e.g. Section 42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act, an unconstitutional, recklessly dangerous death penalty laws that supposedly ‘legitimizes’ depriving impoverished welfare recipients of their constitutional right to a welfare payment that may be their sole means of meeting their most “basic costs of living.” Whilst it should be self-evident that deliberately depriving millions of people of what may be their sole means to survive is going to result in fatalities, this has not been an issue for the Australian federal politicians who have created these manifestly unconstitutional and recklessly dangerous federal laws.

On February 20th 2017, Senator Brandis made this statement,

”… 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.”

Note the following points in that statement:

There had been “mistakes” that have resulted in “terrible human consequences”, i.e. the deaths of welfare recipients.

Despite these fatalities, which at the very least are culpable homicides under state and territory occupational health & safety laws, Senator Brandis stated that the automated processing of debt recovery claims was “not a bad system.”

The rationale used by Senator Brandis to justify this lethal automated system of ALLEGED DEBT recovery was ,”… we do have to have appropriate compliance measures.”

The very clear message that Senator Brandis delivered to the national community was that “appropriate compliance measures” were of higher importance than the lives of vulnerable welfare recipients. These comments were made in the context of prior admissions by the Human Services Minister, Alan Tudge, and the Social Services Minister, Christian Porter, that some 20% of 170,000 claims made “since June” [2016] were “mistakes.”

Further insight into the extent of systemic mistakes by the Department of Human Services, a.k.a. Centrelink, is the following statement from a 2014 federal Administrative Tribunal finding:

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

[The case file details are withheld to protect the victim of this blatant miscarriage of justice.]

With Centrelink, Commonwealth error mistakes are so common that, although paragraph 1,237A of the Social Security Act requires that these alleged debts be waived, they were not deemed by the presiding AAT conference registrar to be worthy of being waived despite s 1237A requiring that this occur. What is manifestly evident is that an errors that can prove fatal are not uncommon and with the Commonwealth, through the Department of Social Services, seeking to recover alleged debts, that are either totally spurious or are debts that must be waived due to Commonwealth error, criminal abuses of power that result in fatalities are occurring.

The “terrible human consequences’ of these mistakes raises four critical questions of law:

  1. What is the specific legal status of the deaths, which are almost certainly burking fatalities, i.e. what criminal laws apply to these fatalities?

  2. How many deaths have occurred?

  3. Who is responsible for investigating ‘Robo-Debt’ triggered fatalities?

  4. Why have these investigations either not occurred or if undertaken, have failed to identify the underlying criminal abuses of power that are the reaction trigger for these fatalities?

QUESTION 1; THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE “TERRIBLE HUMAN CONSEQUENCES”, a.k.a. BURKING FATALITIES.

Australia’s 6 states and 2 territories do have homicide laws in which Burking is an implied crime rather than being an explicitly stated crime. The following statutes are from the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act and although they do not mention ‘Burking’ specifically, this crime is covered by these statutes:

13A—Criminal liability in relation to suicide

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

Division 1A—Criminal neglect

14—Criminal liability for neglect where death or serious harm results from unlawful act

                                (1)          A person (the defendant) is guilty of the offence of criminal neglect if—

                (a)          a child or a vulnerable adult (the victim) dies or suffers serious harm as a result of an unlawful act; and

                (b)          the defendant had, at the time of the act, a duty of care to the victim; and

                (c)           the defendant was, or ought to have been, aware that there was an  appreciable risk that serious harm would be caused to the victim by the unlawful act; and

                (d)          the defendant failed to take steps that he or she could reasonably be expected to have taken in the circumstances to protect the victim from harm and the defendant’s failure to do so was, in the circumstances, so serious that a criminal penalty is warranted.

 In 13 (7) above, killing a person by so emotionally traumatizing them that they commit suicide is a culpable homicide, i.e. murder. In section 14, a person who has a duty of care towards another person and violates that duty with fatal consequences is also guilty of a culpable homicide.

Burking is about deliberately causing harm with reckless indifference or deliberate disregard for the harmful consequences to the victim and that violates the following South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935) statutes:

Division 7A—Causing physical or mental harm

21—Interpretation: In this Division—

cause—a person causes harm if the person’s conduct is the sole cause of the harm or substantially contributes to the harm;

If a victim suffers serious harm as a result of multiple acts of harm and those acts occur in the course of the same incident, or together constitute a single course of conduct, a person who commits any of the acts causing harm is taken to cause serious harm even though the harm caused by the act might not, if considered in isolation, amount to serious harm.

harm means physical or mental harm (whether temporary or permanent);

lesser offence, in relation to an offence against this Division, means—

                (a)          in relation to an aggravated offence—the basic offence or another offence against this Division, Division 7AB or section 32A, for which a lesser maximum penalty is prescribed;

                (b)          in any other case—another offence against this Division, Division 7AB or section 32A for which a lesser maximum penalty is prescribed;

mental harm means psychological harm and does not include emotional reactions such as distress, grief, fear or anger unless they result in psychological harm;   [Causing such distress that people commit suicide qualifies un section 13 (7)]

physical harm includes—

                (a)          unconsciousness;

                (b)          pain;

                (c)           disfigurement;

                (d)          infection with a disease;

 recklessly—a person is reckless in causing harm or serious harm to another if the person—

                (a)          is aware of a substantial risk that his or her conduct could result in harm or serious harm (as the case requires); and

                (b)          engages in the conduct despite the risk and without adequate justification;

serious harm means—

                (a)          harm that endangers a person’s life; or

                (b)          harm that consists of, or results in, serious and protracted impairment of a physical or mental function; or

                (c)           harm that consists of, or results in, serious disfigurement.

Queensland’s criminal code contains the following statutes, which are also identically worded in the Western Australian criminal code under different statute numbers:

Queensland CRIMINAL CODE s295, 296, 297

(Western Australia sections have identical wording.)

295 Causing death by threats

A person who, by threats or intimidation of any kind, or by deceit, causes another person to do an act or make an omission which results in the death of that other person, is deemed to have killed the other person.

296 Acceleration of death

A person who does any act or makes any omission which hastens the death of another person who, when the act is done or the omission is made, is labouring under some disorder or disease arising from another cause, is deemed to have killed that other person.

297 When injury or death might be prevented by proper precaution

When a person causes a bodily injury to another from which death results, it is immaterial that the injury might have been avoided by proper precaution on the part of the person injured, or that the injured person’s death from that injury might have been prevented by proper care or treatment.

Section 302: The Definition of Murder    (Western Australia: Section 279)

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

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

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

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

No matter how ‘convenient’ the automated ‘Robo-Debt’ recovery measures may be, the use of recklessly dangerous, unconstitutional measures that skip Due Process of Law for the purpose of recovering ALLEGED DEBTS, that may or may not be real, in law, constitutes “… an act done in the prosecution of an unlawful purpose”  and the “terrible human consequences” mentioned by Senator Brandis are, in law, murders under this Queensland statute and similar state and territory laws.

 QUESTION 2: HOW MANY DEATHS HAVE OCCURRED?

The day after Senator Brandis made is “terrible human consequences” statement, via I submitted a Statement of Facts & Issues for federal Administrative Appeals tribunal case 2016/5334. This set of documents contained the following statement:

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

This Statement of Facts also contained the following “Awesome Foursome” questions that would have had to be answered by March 3rd 2017:

  1. What is the total number of [unconstitutional] Breaching penalties that have been issued to-date?

  2. How many [fraudulent] ‘Account payable’ demands have been made to welfare recipients?

  3. How many people with disabilities have been denied a pension?

  4. How many people never survived the above abuses of power, i.e. how many people has the Federal Parliament murdered?

On February 22nd 2017, i.e. the next day, an Australian Government Service lawyer representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services wrote a “Without prejudice” letter to the welfare recipient that I was representing that withdrew the Secretary’s claim, re-instated the withheld benefit and agreed to make restitution of all monies withheld. The welfare recipient accepted this offer not knowing that it relieved the Secretary of the obligation to disclose the answers to the “Awesome Foursome” questions.

QUESTION 3: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INVESTIGATING THESE BURKING FATALITIES?

The following federal, state or territory agencies or entities are responsible for investigating deaths precipitated by unconstitutional, unlawful abuses of power by the Australian Federal Parliament or agencies acting on behalf of the parliament under unconstitutional statute laws:

  1. Coroner’s Courts;

  2. Police – Federal, State and Territory;

  3. The Australian Human Rights Commission;

  4. State and Territory Human Rights Commissions;

  5. Federal, State and Territory Office of the Ombudsman;

  6. Federal, State and Territory Independent Commissioner against Corruption.

QUESTION #4: WHY HAVE THESE DEATHS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AS BURKING MURDERS?

The answer to this question is complex and may have as much to do with Milgram’s Syndrome, i.e. a sub-conscious willingness to recklessly endanger the lives of others, and possibly the evidence of  unlawful ‘Data Trimming’ by altering or not collecting data on the numbers of “terrible human consequences.” The non-collection of mission-critical data concerning the foreseeably adverse consequences  of unconstitutional, and therefore unlawful, actions by Department of Human Services officials may have been for the express purpose of concealing the real-world impact of government policies and practices. That this could occur for decades despite senate oversight committee questions and questions raised by members of the public, e.g. myself, is beyond inexcusable.

I am not authorized to conduct an investigation; however as a member of the community I do have the right to seek transparency regarding the human impact of unconstitutional laws, policies and practices and the failure of government officials, including Governor-generals, politicians, public servants, police officers, coroners, judges AAT conference registrars and even High Court registrars, to address the issue of publicly acknowledged but unnumbered fatalities is a question that every person in the nation needs to consider.

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

 

Advertisements
Posted in 2016 Federal Election, abuse of power, burking, crimes against humanity, Human Rights violations, murder, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Part 46C. Australia’s ‘irrelevant” crimes against humanity. Malcolm Turnbull’s “storm in a teacup” was to conceal the fact the the 2016 election results are not legally valid.

Was Malcolm Turnbull’s “storm in a teacup” over Josh Freydenberg  a very clever distraction that concealed the frightening fact the the 2016 election results are not legally valid?

Note:- The short link URL for this page is;  https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-1ca

On Friday 3rd November 2017, Malcolm Turnbull held a press conference and let fly with a very clever load of emotion-charged stuff about Josh Freydenberg and his mother that I believe was probably intended to distract listeners from the real issue, i.e. the 2016 federal election results are not legally valid.  A short video of Malcolm Turnbull making a huge fuss over almost nothing, other than not mentioning Australia’s current politically driven holocaust, can be seen at:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-03/malcolm-turnbull-rules-out-cizitenship-audit-national-witch-hunt/9116728

Check out the facts, not the emotionally charged self-interest hype that Mr. Turnbull churned out:

Mr 58 point 22 percentJosh Freydenberg was a constitutionally valid candidate who received 58.22% of the crucial 1st Preference vote, i.e. he won the Kooyong seat by a clear margin of almost 25% of the vote more than the ALP candidate and there was no real question as to the validity of his election to the federal seat of Kooyong. So why the big fuss by Malcolm Turnbull?

Check this out

3-11-17 Turnbull deflection

There were (theoretically) more than 24 billion preference voting options that could have been cast in the 2016 federal election and literally billions of preference votes may actually be invalid.

Check this out:2016 Election voters

ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE BUT ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

Approximately 14,890,000 voters cast votes for 1,625 candidates. Since Australia uses a preference voting system, that represents potentially 24 BILLION votes that had to counted, not once, but hundreds of times.

Check this out:

Wakefield 2016

This is a huge amount of preference votes, i.e. over 606,000 2nd to 7th preference  votes compared to the 101,043 1st preference votes. This pattern hold good for AL of the 150 House of Representatives seats, i.e. if there were 10 candidates in a seat with 100,000 voters, there would have been 100,000 1st preference votes and 900,000 2nd to 10th preference votes. the potential for invalid votes and the downstream flow-on starts with the 1st candidate who was not eligible to stand in the election, e.g. Barnaby Joyce in Windsor. This is why a By-election is necessary instead of just electing the runner-up. In the Senate, this is an absolute nightmare!

Check this out:

Senate SA 2016

In South Australia, the votes for 64 Senate candidates had to be counted 465 times to determine the 12 winners, one of whom was not eligible to stand, i.e. Robert Day!

If you think that was a huge count, check this out:

Senate NSW 2016

4,492,197 voters, 151 Senate candidates and 1,065 counts required to determine the 12 winners from a potential Preference Votes Pool of 687,321,747 votes ranging from 1st preference to 151st preference.

It is an unfunny joke on voters for the High Court to order a re-count when the pool of invalid candidates and their preference votes have not been identified by the Australian Electoral commission or the High Court.

The mission critical question in all of this is just how many people in the pool of 1,625 candidates were not eligible to stand as candidates?

Here are the time bomb facts about how the Australian Electoral Commission stuffed the nomination process  and thereby stuffed up the July 2nd 2016 federal election:

  1. Nominations closed at 12 noon on 9th June 2016.

  2. The Australian Electoral Commission published a list of candidates on 10th June 2016.

  3. There was no audit checking by Australian Electoral Commission officials to determine if people named on the nominations list were eligible to be nominated and as a direct consequence, an unknown number of people who were not eligible to be elected to the parliament were able to  contest the federal election on 2nd July 2016.

  4. On July 2nd 2016, after the close of polls at 6.00PM, Australian Electoral Commission officials supervised the tallying of votes, including the tallying and distribution of preference votes that had been given by unsuspecting voters to ineligible candidates.

  5. In the period from 14th July to the 5th August 2016, Australian Electoral Commission issued official election results based upon both valid and invalid  preference votes.

THE HIGH COURT DECISIONS

Since the the official declarations of results by the Australian Electoral Commission, the Australian High Court has made 3 rulings that have seen 7 senator declarations and 1 House of Representative declaration declared “Void ab initio”, i.e. legally invalid.

  1. Re Culleton [No 2] [2017] HCA 4 (3 February 2017)

  2. Re Day [No 2] [2017] HCA 14 (5 April

  3. Re Canavan; Re Ludlam; Re Waters; Re Roberts [No 2]; Re Joyce; Re Nash; Re Xenophon [2017] HCA 45 (27 October 2017)

  4. So far this year, the High Court has ruled in 7 of 9 challenges to the validity of the 2016 federal election results that the election results were invalid.

Senator Parry.

Malcolm Turnbull’s speech occurred on the same day that Senator Parry, the President of the Australian Senate, resigned because it was confirmed that, like myself, he holds both Australian and British citizenship and was therefore not eligible to stand for election in the 2016 federal election.

RUN THE NUMBERS

7 out of 9 High Court challenges have seen 2016 election declared-results over-turned. Add in the resignation of Stephen Parry and that is 8 out 10 people who were not eligible for election, i.e. an 80% rate for invalid elections! At that rate of error, 170 – 171 of the remaining 216 members of the Federal parliament may have been ineligible to stand in the 2016 federal election!

In reality, the precise number of ineligible candidates who were nominated is still unknown as is the precise number who were elected.

The only certainty about the 2016 federal election is that constitutionally people who are not eligible to stand for election to the Federal Parliament are also not eligible to vote on legislation before the parliament.

  1. Since the election results are based upon an unknown number of constitutionally invalid preferences, the election result is constitutionally invalid and therefore;

  2. All votes on legislation made by this parliament are constitutionally invalid, i.e. this parliament has not passed any constitutionally valid laws.

  3. The problem with that constitutional reality is that it applies backwards to all previous votes by people who were not eligible to be in the Federal Parliament, e.g. Senator Parry and Barnaby Joyce.

  4. This also applies to any legislation that was voted into law on the votes of people who had no constitutional right to be in parliament.

OOPS! THE AWKWARD PROBLEM OF AUSTRALIA’S HOLOCAUST.

In seeking to stir up an emotional response rather than a rational, logical response to the constitutional crisis, Malcolm Turnbull stated:

“I wish that those who made these allegations about Josh Frydenberg think a little deeper about the history of the Holocaust,”

“Has this witch hunt become so absurd that people are seriously claiming that Josh Frydenberg is a citizen of a country which stripped his mother and family of their citizenship and would’ve put them into the gas chambers?”

The first problem with the “witch hunt” statement is that any person in the Federal parliament who has no constitutional right to be in the Parliament has to be identified and expelled in order to have a constitutionally valid parliament that can create constitutionally valid laws. What is required is not a “witch hunt” but the upholding of section 44 of the constitution.

The 2nd problem is that comment is the following February 20 2017 statement by Senator George Brandis and my statement in an AAT appeal submission on 21st February 2017. Senator 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.”

Senator George Brandis: ABC – QandA program, 20th February 2017.

The next day, in a Statement of Facts & Issues for AAT case 2016/5334, I wrote:

“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.

AAT Case file 2016/5334: Statement of Facts & Issues, 21st February 2017.

  1. The flow-on problem with that estimated death toll was the official response by the Australian Government Service lawyer(s) representing the Secretary of the Department of Social Services. It was a ‘Nolle contendere’ [No contest] response in the form of a  “Without prejudice” proffer to withdraw the DSS tort action and reinstate a welfare benefit and to pay benefits that had been withdrawn. The offer was accepted and “perfected”, i.e. finalized, on 6th March 2017.

  2. AAT2016/5334 has exposed a horrific truth that the mass media and the police choose not to see. people who live in Australia’s “Ghetto of Poverty” are the victims of a politically driven humanitarian disaster that is literally of holocaust proportions. It is not just the Hungarian Fascists and Nazis who have denied people their citizenship rights; as Senator Brandis made quite clear, it has been happening in Australia since Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister!

  3. If media reports are true and the Turnbull Government has been hitting unsuspecting welfare recipients with [brazenly fraudulent] ‘Robo-Debt’ claims at the rate of up to 20,000 people per week , then Malcolm Turnbull has “put the pedal to the metal” on the worst cases of mass fraud and serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia.

  4. If I am correct the Australian Federal Parliament and a number of federal government agencies have beengetting away with ‘Bilking and Burking’ welfare recipients for decades, i.e. defrauding and murdering unsuspecting victims, for decades.

CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS SUMMARY

  1. Over a period of decades, the Australian Electoral Commission has allowed people who were not eligible to do so to stand for election to the Australian Federal Parliament.

  2. Over a period of decades,  people who were not eligible to do so to serve as members of the House of representatives or serve as Senators have done so.

  3. When legislation has been brought before the  Australian Federal Parliament, people who had no right to do so,have voted on legislation.

  4. Some of this legislation, e.g. Work for the Dole and No Show, No pay laws, is unconstitutional and represents a criminal act of recklessness.

  5. The death toll from these dangerous, unconstitutional laws is unknown because because those responsible for these deaths have classified them as both “irrelevant” and “confidential”.

  6. The solution to the constitutional crisis caused by the invalid 2016 election is simple,, i.e. a new election must be held in which the leigibility of candidates is confirmed BEFORE nominations are announced.

  7. The solution to the problem of unconstitutional, legally in valid legislation is also simple, i.e. it must be rescinded by the next parliament.

  8. The solution to the defrauding and murder of welfare recipients is also simple, i.e. across the nation, police must investigate these crimes and where appropriate, charge and prosecute the offenders.

Please, put all things to the test and check out the claims made in this posting for accuracy before spreading the news.

For details of “Burking” check this out:

https://definitions.uslegal.com/b/burking/

“Burking means the crime of murdering a person, ordinarily by smothering, for the purpose of selling the corpse. The term derives its name from the method William Burke and William Hare, the Scottish murder team of the 18th century, used to kill their victims during the West Port murders. They realized that they could provide fresher bodies to medical schools for research by taking people who were intoxicated and suffocating them because they could not resist. That became known as burking. [Titlow v. Burt, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111459 (D. Mich. 2010)].”

Please note that I use “burking” in the sense that helpless, hapless welfare recipients, i.e. people who are unable to resist, are murdered by using ‘natural causes’ such as heart attacks, strokes, suicides and misadventure. A welfare recipient may have Hypertension, Myocardia and Depression and a recklessly dangerous, fraudulent Robo-Debt claim or an unconstitutional “No show, no pay” penalty may trigger, a stroke, a heart attack or a suicide. Since heart attacks and strokes are natural causes, many doctors and/or coroners sign off on the ‘Manner of Death’ not realizing that the death is a culpable negligence homicide.

Ronald Medlicott. Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.

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

Part 46B. Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against Humanity: The Australian High Court’s response removes another barrier to an appeal to the International criminal Court.

In my last posting, I provided details of a submission to the High Court concerning the “Citizenship 7” case. The following response may constitute one more reason why the International criminal Court at the Hague in Holland may have jurisdiction to investigate Australia’s lethal welfare laws.

NOTE: The short-link URL for this posting is: https://wp.me/p1n8TZ-18M

6-10-17 Reg C15 posting

Posted on 6th October, note the date the registered letter was received by the High Court, i.e. 13th October.

25-10-17 hi-res Hi Court letter

Why did this registered letter take a week to get to Canberra?

Article 17.2 of  the Rome Statute – Jurisdiction for the  International Criminal Court

2. In order to determine unwillingness in a particular case, the Court shall consider, having regard to the principles of due process recognized by international law, whether one or more of the following exist, as applicable:

(a) The proceedings were or are being undertaken or the national decision was made for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court referred to in article 5;

(b) There has been an unjustified delay in the proceedings which in the circumstances is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice;

(c) The proceedings were not or are not being conducted independently or impartially, and they were or are being conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, is inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.

The Alleged Crime

“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.

AAT Case file 2016/5334: Statement of Facts & Issues, 21st February 2017.

The Brandis Confession

“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 George Brandis: ABC – #QandA program on the 20th February 2017.

Statute Laws – “terrible human consequences”

Western Australia: Occupational Health & Safety Act 1984, Section 21 – Duties of employers and self‑employed persons

      (1)     A self‑employed person shall take reasonable care to ensure his or her own safety and health at work.

      (2)     An employer or self‑employed person shall, so far as is practicable, ensure that the safety or health of a person, not being (in the case of an employer) an employee of the employer, is not adversely affected wholly or in part as a result of —

                  (a)     work that has been or is being undertaken by —

                               (i)     the employer or any employee of the employer; or

                              (ii)     the self‑employed person;

                           or

                  (b)     any hazard that arises from or is increased by —

                               (i)     the work referred to in paragraph (a); or

            (ii)        the system of work that has been or is being operated by the employer or the self‑employed person.

South Australian Occupation Health, Safety & Welfare Act: 31—Reckless conduct—Category 1

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

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

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

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

Maximum penalty: $300 000 or 5 years imprisonment or both;

Section 152 – Part V of the Tasmanian Criminal Code: 152. Omission of duty

A person who without lawful excuse omits to perform any of the duties mentioned in this chapter shall be criminally responsible for such omission if the same causes the death of or grievous bodily harm to any person to whom such duty is owed, or endangers his life, or permanently injures his health.

Western Australian Coroner’s Annual Report 2008-09 re the death in custody of Ian ward on 28th January 2008.

“The State Coroner observed that in the present case for the reasons outlined for determining that the quality of the supervision, treatment and care of the deceased in the hours before his death was disgracefully bad, The State Coroner was satisfied that the deceased was subjected to degrading treatment and he was not treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person. There has been, therefore, a breach of the ICCPR.”

MY COMMENT

The “terrible human consequences” alluded to by Senator Brandis during the #QandA program broadcast by the ABC on 20th February 2017 are, cumulatively, a team effort that involves the Federal Parliament, government departments and contracted service providers. What is also important in the statement by Senator Brandis is the comment that revealed that “ROBO-DEBT” had been introduced by the Hawke Government decades ago. A volunteer lay-advocate, I was unaware of the comments made by Senator Brandis as I was reviewing a Statement of Facts & Issues for AAT case file 2016/5334 at the time of the broadcast. This was submitted the next day and contained the statement:

 “If I am correct, …deliberately raped the civil rights of 4 – 5 million vulnerable Australians …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.”

Whatever the unreported death toll is, every death has been a foreseeable, preventable homicide that violates, federal, state, territory and international laws, e.g. Genocide provisions in Article 6 (a – c) of the Rome Statute.

Buck-Passing 101

Australian politicians can neither exempt themselves from accountability before the law nor buck-pass the issue of fraud and fatalities around as they have been doing for decades. Note the dates of these 2 letters and ask yourself if there is really any difference in the intention of the letters?

The Brough Letter – 23 December 2003

Mal Brough

The Porter Letter – 5th October 2017

5-7-17 Christian Porter letter

This buck-passing tactic when ignoring the defrauding and murder of welfare recipients may have worked for decades, but the Internet and the Social Media represent a paradigm change because the lethal consequences of their sometimes deadly abuses of power can be, and are being, exposed to the whole world.

One of the ironies of the Robo-Debt fraud is that it is too dumb to stay away from people who have the both “the smarts” and the resources needed to hit back hard once they realize that Robo-Debt is a ruthless, decades long fraud. Check this out:

20,000 letters per week! Even doctors are being defrauded by Centrelink. the next time you see your doctor, give the link to this website or  the URL for the YouTube video above.

NOTE: No matter how inconvenient and costly it may be, Centrelink must do an manual audit of their records and have an appropriately QUALIFIED and CERTIFIED auditor  confirm that a Commonwealth error has not occurred before they have REASONABLE GROUNDS that provide PROBABLE CAUSE for issuing a letter requesting information.

In Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ case”) HCA 54; on 31 August 1920, in the 4th paragraph of the majority decision the High Court ruled:

  • “…the Commonwealth and State Parliaments and Executives are themselves bound by the declarations of this Court as to their powers inter se.”

TRANSLATION: the Federal parliament is bound by High Court rulings and must obey them, a fact evidenced last Friday when the High Court dumped Barnaby Joyce and 4 more senators.

In Coco v R [1994] HCA 15; on 13 April 1994 at paragraph 8 the High Court produced another binding rule for the Federal Parliament that invalidates the 20,000 letters of Demand per week:

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

TRANSLATION: It may be hugely expensive and time consuming to audit data-mismatches to see if a commonwealth error has occurred, but “Inconvenience…is not a ground for eroding fundamental common law rights”, i.e. “Skipping the audit may be convenient but it is an abuse of power that, in law, totally invalidates Centrelink’s claims.

In Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34; on 27 July 1992), the High Court made it quite clear that unacceptable conduct justifies a stay in any legal proceedings. In paragraph 9 of his findings, Justice Guadron made this ruling that the Federal Parliament is stuck with:

  • “…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. And, in my view, one or other of those features must be present or the purpose must itself be wrongful if a purpose is to be held an improper purpose justifying a stay.”

TRANSLATION; Any demand that “involves a demand made without right or claim of right” is improper, e.g. skipping the audit process to see if a Commonwealth error has occurred. the audit is not an “optional extra”; it is the key to validating Centrelink’s demand for information.

Justice Guadron’s statement that ‘…the purpose must itself be wrongful if a purpose is to be held an improper purpose justifying a stay” further underscores the fact that “skipping the audit process’ for the sake of convenience, as per the Coco decision above, is an improper process that justifies a stay of proceedings, i.e. any subsequent demand by Centrelink is legally invalid. Any improper conduct or denial of rights in an administrative or legal action, then that is an “improper purpose” or an improper action kills off any Centrelink demand. This why asking for the mane and qualifications of the auditor who authorized the sending of the letter is the 1st step in stopping this criminal abuse of power in its tracks.

Twice in Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj, HCA 11, on 14th March 2002, in paragraphs 51 and 53 the High Court ruled:

“As already pointed out, a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all. Once that is accepted, it follows that, if the duty of the decision-maker is to make a decision with respect to a person’s rights but, because of jurisdictional error, he or she proceeds to make what is, in law, no decision at all, then, in law, the duty to make a decision remains unperformed.”

TRANSLATION: If Centrelink commits a breach of Due process, the, in law, no legally valid decision has been made and a valid decision stil lremains to be made.

The deliberate withholding of these legal points of law is know in law as being  “Dishonest”, e.g. the SA Criminal Law consolidation Act (1935) statutes below:

Section 139—Deception

A person who deceives another and, by doing so—

            (a)       dishonestly benefits him/herself or a third person; or

(b)       dishonestly causes a detriment to the person subjected to the deception or a third person,

   Section 140 (4) Dishonest dealings with documents

A person is guilty of an offence if the person dishonestly engages in conduct to which this section applies intending— 

  • (i) to deceive another, or people generally, or to facilitate deception of another, or people generally, by someone else;

      (ii)             to exploit the ignorance of another, or the ignorance of people generally, about the true state of affairs;

172—Blackmail

            (1)       A person who menaces another intending to get the other to submit to a demand is guilty of blackmail.

Maximum penalty:

            (a)       for a basic offence—imprisonment for 15 years;

            (b)       for an aggravated offence—imprisonment for 20 years.

            (2)       The object of the demand is irrelevant. [

Examples—

1          The person who makes the demand may be demanding marriage or access to children.

2          The person who makes the demand may be seeking to influence the performance of a public duty.

For decades, what the Federal Government-of-the-Day under Hawke, Keating, Howard, Rudd, Gillard, Abbott and Turnbull (and Centrelink) has been doing has been an illegal abuse of power.

These crimes explain why Centrelink does not collect the data on fatalities, i.e. they are deaths caused by criminal activity and in many states are felony murders, e.g. Queensland, Tasmania and South Australia.

"Centrelink' does not collect..." l

In just one simple statement, Assistant Secretary Neil Skill explains how post-breaching fatalities have been kept from the public for decades, i.e. they did not bother to “collect” this data and so they did not have to report the deaths that were occurring..

Dishonesty:

“…to exploit the ignorance of another, or the ignorance of people generally, about the true state of affairs.”

How do you stop politicians, public servants and lawyers working for the government from exploiting public ignorance?

The key is to end the “public ignorance” is in your hands, i.e. SPREAD THE WORD TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN (including your doctor.)

By holding politicians and public servants accountable for decades of abuses of power in the courts, instead of at the ballot box, the endemic corruption that festers and ruins our nation can be halted.

I intend to once again refer these matters to the SA Police and the Federal Police. However, based on past efforts over the last 13 years, I am not hopeful. If again referring these crimes to the police is unsuccessful, it then becomes a matter for the International criminal Court to investigate and resolve.

Ronald Medlicott – Australian citizen, registered teacher and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.

P.S. ” Put all things to the test and only keep what is good.”     [St Paul.]

 

Posted in abuse of power, Case law, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Part 46. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. A submission to the High Court in Case 15, i.e. the Citizenship 7 hearing.

I have filed a public interest submission in the Citizenship 7 case that will determine if 7 more people who were elected in the 2016 federal election will have to their election results ruled invalid and be dismissed from the Federal Parliament. Note the 2 extracts:

Emcott IP26

The above submission was submitted via the Registrar of the Federal Court in Adelaide on 6th October 2017.

6-10-17 Reg C15 posting

 [NOTE: The short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-183

In addition 3 emails were sent per a Senior Registrar of the High Court, Ms Carolyn Rogers. Below is a 4th email that will not be part of the official submissions; this email is notification that I am in the process of filing a complaint under the South Australian Police Complaints & Discipline Act and that the previous submissions will be part of the evidence submitted.

NOTE: This email will be submitted to Ms. Rogers on 24th October 2017.

I have posted a video on YouTube titled “The SAPOL Factor: See No Evil.” The URL for this video is:

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

Dear Ms. Rogers,

The Justices of the High Court presiding in Case 15 of 2017 may be in serious legal strife, a situation that may also apply yourself and any other Officer of the Court who may have processed my Case 15 submissions to the High Court. I know that as a Senior Registrar you have absolutely no legal jurisdiction to rule on the merit of the following points of law. However, as both an Officer of the Court and as a resident within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia you have an obligation to uphold the law. That means giving consideration to the following points and then taking appropriate action to bring these issues to the attention of either law enforcement authorities and/or the Chief Justice, the Honourable Sussan Feisal.

2 days the South Australian Police, a.k.a. SAPOL, shot and killed Mr. Matthew Morgan in circumstances that I am concerned may have been contrived for the express purpose of provoking a response from Mr. Morgan that may be used to now ‘legitimize’ SAPOL’s actions in shooting and killing him. My personal concerns about the short time-frame of the ‘siege’ before launching a heavily armed attack that was certain to provoke a seemingly hostile reaction from Mr Morgan is a matter of concern that I shall take up with the South Australian Coroner, Mr. Mark Johns.

That homicide, whether justified or not, is not the issue of concern for the High Court; it is events that took place 4 days earlier at the SAPOL police station in Hindley Street, Adelaide, when a SAPOL officer repeatedly refused to consider video and documentary information, a.k.a. ‘Evidence’, that the Australian Federal Parliament was engaging in abuses of power that had had substantial fatal consequences. The SAPOL officer actually turned around and walked away whilst another police officer watched the incident unfold. Since much of SA government infrastructure is equipped with video cameras, it is highly probably that one or more cameras recorded this incident, which is the basis for a complaint that I intend to file under section 41 of the South Australian Police Complaints & Discipline Act (2016).

SAPOL Hindley Street

One of the documents that I took to the police station for forensic evaluation was a printed compilation of the Emcott Report, IP 26 submission and my previous emails to you. This document will be part of the evidence file that will be submitted when I file that complaint later this week or early next week. A digital copy of that document is appended for your personal consideration.

Whatever determinations the High Court may make in Case 15 of 2017, one of the issues implicit in my submission to Case 15 is that the presiding Justices “ought to have known” that unconstitutional policies and practices of successive governments since the time of Hawke Government have resulted in what Senator Brandis has described as “mistakes” that have had “terrible human consequences”, a.k.a. FATALITIES. Because of the video provided with my written submission, the presiding justices in C15 “ought to have known” that these fatalities were deemed to be of less importance than the need for “appropriate compliance measures”, an official attitude that effectively is a reckless indifference to fatalities that have occurred because the federal parliament has not abided by either the constitution or a number of binding High Court decisions, and statutes in the Commonwealth criminal code.

In addition to violating federal laws, the Federal parliament has violated State and Territory laws, e.g. section 5 (2) of the South Australian Criminal law consolidation Act (1935), which states:

A person is taken to know a particular fact if the person, knowing of the possibility that it is true, is reckless as to whether it is true or not.

Section 140 (4) “Dishonest dealings with documents”  further states:

A person is guilty of an offence if the person dishonestly engages in conduct to which this section applies intending— 

  • (i) to deceive another, or people generally, or to facilitate deception of another, or people generally, by someone else;

      (ii)             to exploit the ignorance of another, or the ignorance of people generally, about the true state of affairs; 

Section 140 applies to the fraudulent claims by Centrelink that conceal internal issues that cause data mismatch errors and the false statements to welfare recipients telling them that if they cannot prove a Centrelink error within 21 days, that Centrelink has the right to arbitrarily assign fault and “collect” the alleged overpayments by withholding welfare payments. Quarterly “public accountability” reports that omit details of post-breaching fatalities are also deceptive documents.

In the same manner, not forwarding my submissions to the High Court for consideration may also constitute ‘dishonest conduct’. When that person is a High Court judge, or a Senior Registrar of the High Court, the excuses “I did not know” and “I did not understand” are unlikely to withstand impartial scrutiny when it comes to Section 5 (2) above and similar laws that apply in other States and territories of the Commonwealth of Australia.

At paragraph 9 in his findings in Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ case”) HCA 54; 31 August 1920, Justice Higgins stated:

I take section 51 of the Constitution as defining subject matters for legislation, and covering sec. V. as defining the persons who are to obey the legislation… Organized bodies of persons, such as incorporated companies or municipal corporations or States, are not mentioned: for they always act through “people”—human beings: and these human beings have to obey the valid Federal Act…”.

The High Court itself is an “organized body” that is bound by the Constitution, i.e. Section 5 of the Constitution, which states that “the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, Judges and the people.” That provision places an obligation upon High Court judges and other Officers of the High Court to uphold Commonwealth laws, e.g. sections 3 and 4 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), which defines voluntary physical acts of omission and commission and section 142.2, a provision that addresses the “detriment” caused by abuses of power by public officials.

On 26th  October 2011, in Poniatowska, (HCA 43) by a voluntary physical act of commission, the High Court unintentionally endorsed genocide and crimes against humanity by focusing upon the wording of a law instead of focusing upon the unconstitutional human impact of the legislation being considered. Any law that can foreseeably seriously harm or kill vulnerable people is not “good government” as is required in paragraph 51 of the Constitution and is therefore unconstitutional. By ignoring my submission, the High Court is itself engaging in a voluntary physical act of omission by ignoring evidence that the Federal Parliament has been, and still is, persecuting, exploiting and killing welfare recipients, i.e. the High Court is endorsing on-going fraud and murder.

At this point in time, if asked to so by the Court, I could provide lines of inquiry into 5 fatalities and hundreds of “skip the courts” abuses of power that have caused significant economic and emotional harm.

I respectfully suggest that that is totally inappropriate conduct for High Court judges and/or Officers of the High Court.

In order to circumvent possible legal actions by parties that have knowledge of the on-going menacing, intimidation, exploiting, defrauding endangering and killing of welfare recipients that may be used maintain the current censorship of these abuses of power I have posted a video on YouTube titled “The SAPOL Factor: See No Evil.” The URL for this video is:

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

This video should be viewed as part of an on-going series with its most recent prequel,

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

“Williams re Glimpses of Genocide.”

In July 2009, Francis Neale, co-chair of the International Bar Association’s Rule of Law Action Group stated:

“All countries, even those governed by the crudest dictatorship, need or have laws, although they disregard the individual or collective rights of all or parts of the population. Indeed, apartheid was enforced with meticulous attention to form and detail.”

Just as was the case in South Africa where the Courts supported Apartheid laws for a century, an action that paralleled in some southern States in the United States of America with the racist “Jim Crow” laws, in Australia the High Court supported the disastrous “Stolen Generations” laws that were on the statute books for 60 years. In the same manner, the Australian High Court has tacitly supported and endorsed laws that result in genocide, crimes against humanity, fraud and murder by not ruling against the validity of laws that are unconstitutionally and manifestly dangerous.

In 2013 when the High Court ruled on the validity of section 65 in Poniatowska, the statement by Senator Brandis “the idea of data matching, introduced by Hawke… is the same methodology that we inherited from you” post-dated the High Court’s Hellicar Decision by 18 months and is also evidence that the practice of unconstitutionally skipping the courts had been in place for almost a quarter of a century when the Poniatowska decision was made in 2011. The Bhardwaj, “no jurisdiction – no decision” determination had been made 9 years earlier in March 2002.

The High Court’s Coco Decision was made 17 years before Bhardwaj, in April 1994 where, at paragraph 8 the Court ruled:

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

At 9 in Coco, the Court cited Lord Bridge of Harwich in Raymond v. Honey:

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

Since the constitution places an obligation on the Commonwealth to resolve disputed torts in the court, this is a right that cannot be either over-ruled or abolished by the Federal Parliament and yet this has been happening for decades, sometimes with fatal consequences that have been dismissed as “irrelevant”.

At 12 in Coco, the High Court came up with this “too little, too late” finding:

 In Bropho v. Western Australia ((10) [1990] HCA 24(1990) 171 CLR 1 at 18.), Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ pointed out that
the rationale against the presumption against the modification or
abrogation of fundamental rights is to be found in the assumption that
it is:

“‘in the last degree improbable that the legislature would overthrow fundamental principles, infringe rights, or depart from the general system of law, without expressing its intention with irresistible clearness; and to give any such effect to general words, simply because they have that meaning in their widest, or usual, or natural sense, would be to give them a meaning in which they were not really used’ ((11) Potter v. Minahan [1908] HCA 63(1908) 7 CLR 277 at 304.) “.

The appalling irony of the above statement is that when it was made the Federal Government was at that time already ‘pedal to the metal’ engaged in these activities with fatalities, i.e. the “terrible human consequences’ of these violations of rights not being reported for the very-obvious reason that no-one involved in causing these foreseeable “consequences” wished to be held accountable for these fatalities.

The High Court was way out of touch with reality and apparently labouring under the false perception that the commonwealth is a “model Litigant” as per the 1912 Melbourne Steamship decision. I believe that the Poniatowska case was itself empirical evidence that the Federal government was totally amoral in pursuing that case, a fact also evidenced by the “statutory fiction” findings in the May 8th 2013 DPP (Cth) v. Keating decision where the High Court quite correctly dismissed retrospective laws intended to valid 15,000 prosecutions for alleged violations of non-existent laws were extinguished.

These criminal abuses of power have been systemic for decades with not one member of the Federal Parliament doing anything to stop these crimes, possibly because welfare bashing in Australia is as popular as Apartheid was in South Africa.

The abuses of power that are intended to intimidate welfare recipients are potentially lethal as many welfare recipients suffer from potentially lethal health problems such as Hypertension and cardiac diseases such as Myocardia. The deaths of George Michael, Carrie Fischer and Debbie Reynolds in 2016 were all from natural causes. These three deaths underscore the fact of law that when unlawful activities trigger a fatal heart attack or stroke, whilst the cause may be due to ‘natural causes’, the Manner of Death is a Culpable Homicide, a fact of law that can be seen in the following Queensland statutes:

Queensland Criminal Code (1899) – 296 Acceleration of death

A person who does any act or makes any omission which hastens the death of another person who, when the act is done or the omission is made, is labouring under some disorder or disease arising from another cause, is deemed to have killed that other person.

302 Definition of murder

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

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

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

(c) if the offender intends to do grievous bodily harm to some person for the purpose of facilitating the commission of a crime which is such that the offender may be arrested without warrant, or for the purpose of facilitating the flight of an offender who has committed or attempted to commit any such crime;

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

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

is guilty of murder.

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

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

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

The following extract comes from the South Australian occupational health & Safety Act

31—Reckless conduct—Category 1

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

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

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

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

Maximum penalty:

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

In the 9-minute video that I presented to the High Court in the Emcott Report, Issues Paper #26, Senator Brandis made a tacit murder confession. The unknown factor in that confession is just how terrible are the “terrible human consequences” of decades of criminal abuses of power in which unreported fatalities have been casually disregarded, concealed with Senate suppression orders, and callously dismissed as “irrelevant”, i.e. how many people has the Federal Parliament murdered in the last 30 or 40 years?

It was also manifestly evident from the “appropriate compliance measures” comment that these were deemed by senator Brandis to be far more important than “mistakes’ that had resulted in “terrible human consequences.” I respectfully suggest that in placing unconstitutional, manifestly dangerous, “appropriate compliance measures” ahead of the safety and welfare of welfare recipients, Senator Brandis was demonstrating a reckless disregard for the lives of people that he is supposed to protect.

Politics is supposed to be about accountability and Due Process of Law should be even more transparent. Launched in 2006, the key elements of the social media, Facebook, YouTube  and Twitter, represent a relatively new paradigm that has dramatically changed the way people communicate.  Whilst this email is addressed to you, the role of the High Court in failing to deal with genocide, crimes against humanity, fraud, exploitation and even serial murder, is a matter of grave public interest.

Just as the video sent to the High Court was first placed on YouTube, the video “The SAPOL Factor” has been placed on YouTube prior to filing a complaint under section 41 of the South Australian Police Complaints & Discipline Act. In the same manner, this email will be posted so that the public, especially the victims, can be made aware of the role played the High Court in an on-going humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions.

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

 

Posted in abuse of power, Case law, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Part 45: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity. High Court case 15/2017: Barnaby Joyce.

Below is the text of an emailed public submission to the High Court “In the matter of questions referred to the Court of Disputed Returns pursuant to section 376 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth) concerning The Hon. Barnaby Joyce MP”

NOTE: The short link URL for this posting is:  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-17D

Case No. C15/2017

 [My email to the High Court – to be re-submitted as a formal document, with appropriate evidence, for consideration by the High Court.]

Re: MP dual citizenship hearings before the High Court as a Court of Disputed Returns.

A naturalized Australian citizen born in the United Kingdom of 17th May 1948, I am not eligible to stand for Parliament as I am officially a British Overseas Citizen under British nationality laws, policies and principles. On 20th May 1992, I married a 3rd generation Australian citizen, Leonie Jean Whitford. On 25th February 1997, our son Daniel Thane Medlicott was born in Adelaide. Approximately 6 years ago, my son Daniel used a certified copy of my birth certificate and applied for a British passport. Once the appropriate fees and security checks were completed, Daniel was issued with a British passport and subsequently toured Europe and Britain using that passport.

At this point in time, neither Daniel nor myself are eligible to stand for the Federal Parliament. The fact that the Australian Electorate Commission failed to verify the eligibility of candidates for previous federal elections, including the last election, which was held on 2nd July 2017, does not validate candidates who, by birth and right of heritage, do not qualify for election to the Federal Parliament. It would be Manifest Ostensible Bias for the High Court to validate the election of sitting Members, e.g. Barnaby Joyce, whilst people of British heritage, e.g. my son Daniel and myself, across Australia cannot stand as a candidate for the Federal Parliament until such time as we decide to formally revoke our British citizenship, pay the appropriate fees and due process of law occurs in Britain and the British Government achieves ‘Functus Officio” on the application to have British citizenship cancelled.

 Williams & Ors v Spautz is a July 1992 High Court decision that made it quite clear that when an abuse of process occurs, the Court has both a responsibility to protect its powers and to ensure justice is done by issuing a stay of proceedings. At paragraph 15 of the majority decision the High Court stated:  “As Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest observed in Connelly v. D.P.P. (7) (1964) AC, at p 1301. “(A) court which is endowed with a particular jurisdiction has powers which are necessary to enable it to act effectively within such jurisdiction. … A court must enjoy such powers in order to enforce its rules of practice and to suppress any abuses of its process and to defeat any attempted thwarting of its process.”

 Due process in a person surrendering citizenship requires that Functus Officio be performed in accordance with Crown Law, whether that be in Great Britain or in Australia, and until that happens, regardless of the actions of individuals who wish to stand for the Australian Federal Parliament, until the Australian Electoral Commission has empirical evidence in the form of Functus Officio documents that prove that a person has renounced their citizenship rights to another nation, any applications received by the Australian Electoral Commission are, in law, void ab initio.

 It would be unconstitutional for the High Court, acting as a Court of Disputed Returns, to hand down a politically expedient finding for the purpose of maintaining the status quo in the Federal Parliament.

 On 31st August 1920, the High handed down its findings in Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’ case”) [1920] HCA 54. At paragraph 4 the Majority ruling included the statement, ” It is therefore, in the circumstances, the manifest duty of this Court to turn its earnest attention to the provisions of the Constitution itself. That instrument is the political compact of the whole of the people of Australia, enacted into binding law by the Imperial Parliament, and it is the chief and special duty of this Court faithfully to expound and give effect to it according to its own terms, finding the intention from the words of the compact, and upholding it throughout precisely as framed.” As their Honours would be fully aware, paragraph 5 of the Constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth are binding on the Courts, Judges, and the people. Consequently, the High Court has no option but to uphold the Constitution and the Law. To do otherwise would be render a Broad Ultra Vires decisions that brings the Australian Justice System into disrepute, a scenario that Justice Rares was not prepared to tolerate in Ashby v Commonwealth & Slipper (no. 4) [2012] FCA 1411.

 The issue of manifest Ostensible Bias also applied in relation to the Void ab initio decisions handed down by the High Court in the following 2017 Court of Disputed Returns decisions:

 Re Culleton [No 2] [2017] HCA 4 (3 February 2017)

 Re Day [No 2] [2017] HCA 14 (5 April 2017)

 As the High Court made quite clear in the previously mentioned Engineers’ case, expediency from the Bench is not acceptable. To take the politically expedient route and prop up the Turnbull Government, or any other government, by handing down findings that are unconstitutional and politically biased is not acceptable.

 Ronald Medlicott – Naturalized Australian Citizen

 NOTE TO ADVERTISER EDITOR: In 1920, the High Court handed down its findings in The Amalgamated engineers Society v Adelaide Steamship Pty Ltd; HCA 54 – 31st August 1920.

 The High Court’s findings included the following:

 “It is therefore, in the circumstances, the manifest duty of this Court to turn its earnest attention to the provisions of the Constitution itself. That instrument is the political compact of the whole of the people of Australia, enacted into binding law by the Imperial Parliament, and it is the chief and special duty of this Court faithfully to expound and give effect to it according to its own terms, finding the intention from the words of the compact, and upholding it throughout precisely as framed.”

“The grounds upon which the Privy Council came to that conclusion we refer to, but need not repeat, adding, however, that as the Commonwealth and State Parliaments and Executives are themselves bound by the declarations of this Court as to their powers inter se, our responsibility is so much the greater to give the true effect to the relevant constitutional provisions.”

 Justice Higgins added this finding:

 “Moreover, it is evident, as I have stated, from the form of the placita in sec. 51 of the Federal Constitution, that the Federal Parliament was to have power to bind the State Crown except so far as the power to bind it is expressly negatived, as in pl. XIII. and pl. XIV. The power to legislate is plenary, for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth, within the limits of the subjects mentioned in sec. 51. The Federal Parliament, “when acting within those limits … is not in any sense an agent or delegate of the Imperial Parliament, but has, and was intended to have, plenary powers of legislation, as large, and of the same nature, as those of Parliament” (i.e., the Imperial Parliament) “itself.”

 “In connection with this subject, much argument has been addressed to sec. V. of the Constitution Act—what we call the “covering sections” of the Constitution. It provides that that Act and all laws made under the Constitution “shall be binding on the Courts, Judges, and people of every State … notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State.” I take sec. 51 of the Constitution as defining subject matters for legislation, and covering sec. V. as defining the persons who are to obey the legislation. Once we find a valid Federal law—say, a law as to trade and commerce with other countries—the Courts and Judges and people of every State must obey it, whatever the State laws may say to the contrary.”

 MY COMMENT: If the High Court upholds both the Australian constitution and its own rulings dating back to 1920, then those people who applied to the Australian Electoral commission before their citizenship status was formally determined, or before FUNCTUS OFFICIO  on the rescinding of citizenship rights in another country had occurred, then it is likely that the July 2016 election results will be declared “VOID AB INITIO as happened to Rod culleton in February and Bob Day in April.

Ron Medlicott – Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.

 

 

 

 

Posted in abuse of power, Case law, Human Rights violations, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Part 44F. Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. The 5th letter to justice Macaulay concerning the ongoing abuses of welfare rights.

Dated 17th July 2017, this is a 4-page covering letter to Justice Macaulay who was provided with a bound copy of the 4 previous postings.

Macaulay 4B

Note: the short link URL for this posting is:  http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-17n

NOTE: The Brandis Confession:

After years of concealing the mounting death toll caused by the enforcement of unconstitutional, recklessly dangerous welfare policies, on 20th February 2017, Senator Branis, Australia’s federal Attorney-General, was forced to admit on an ABC QandA program that “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 of course that’s a tragedy..”

These deaths are not just a “mistake”; they are the result of decades of criminal abuses of power and a reckless indifference to human life that that date back to the days when Bob Hawke was the Prime Minister of Australia. if you have not yet seen “The Brandis Confession”, I recommend that you watch it right now.

Your Honour,

Re: Work for the Dole, the ‘No show, no pay’ penalties in Section 42C of the Social Security (Administration) Act, Robo-Debt policies and practices, and the 20 Point Assessment to determine eligibility for a disability pension, which are, collectively, the worst case of systemic mass fraud in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. Regardless of the actual cause of death, the manner of death for all fatalities caused by this systemic fraud are murder under international, State and Territory laws. Therefore, in law, the deaths caused by these crimes constitute the worst case of systemic serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia. This raises a crucially important question of law, i.e. when are you going to officially acknowledge these crimes?

The above statement concerning the scale of these crimes is not hypothetical; as I pointed out in the Statement of Facts & Issues for AAT 2016/5334, the cumulative all-causes death toll caused by our nation’s unconstitutional, recklessly dangerous welfare policies and practices is probably close to, or even in excess of 100,000. The total number of people murdered may, in theory, even be close to one million. Functus officio on AAT 2016/5334 on 6th March 2017 means that any person accused of a crime can cite the uncontested statements contained in AAT 2016/5334 in their defence. The court, or a jury, will have to then consider the relevance and significance of the statement when deliberating on the facts of the matter in the case before they can decide what constitutes an unbiased, fair and just determination.

As you are well-aware, in criminal trials it is no longer necessary to adduce motive. However, I would point out that between 21st March 2000 and 4th August 2011, some 15,000 people were prosecuted and convicted of a non-existent crime that the Federal Parliament tried to rectify with retrospective “statutory fiction” that the High Court ruled was invalid on 8th May 2013. I further put to you the following point as a reason why, over a period of decades, 100,000 people may have been murdered, but not one policeman or judge in Australia has so far done anything to stop the persecution, exploitation and slaughter of welfare recipients:

“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 Hon Michael Kirby quoted the above statement during a speech at a judicial conference in Malaysia in 2010 when making the point that the law serves Justice, which is about serving people, a view expressed by Justice Dixon in Briginshaw way back in 1938. Substitute the word “Breaching”, aka ‘no show, no dole’ penalties, for Apartheid and switch the location from South Africa to Australia and you have the current scenario in Australia, i.e. Murder by Socio-economic Apartheid.

Thanks to the crass insensitivity of Australia’s broader community, especially the criminal justice system, to the appalling plight of our nation’s most vulnerable welfare recipients, the mass media has played a vital role in supporting this deadly form of Apartheid, e.g. the News Ltd newspaper, The Advertiser, which has a long-term track record of referring to unemployed people as “cheats’ or “dole bludgers”, published an article titled “Cheats stripped of dole benefits”, a defamatory  statement that disregarded the fact of law that the determination of whether or not a person is legally a “Cheat” is a matter for the courts, not politicians, public servants or News Ltd journalists and their editors. As for the penalty imposed, “…stripped of dole benefits”, I would point out that when you deliberately deprive impoverished people of their sole assured means to subsist, i.e. the sole means to survive, it is a criminal act of reckless endangerment that is intended to place lives in peril, aka Justice Brookings findings at [29] in R v Faure. Consequently, no-one should be surprised when the victims of this recklessly dangerous act of deprivation die from a diverse range of causes, e.g. heart attack, stroke, suicide, et cetera.

The “Cheats stripped of dole benefits” article was written by a News Ltd journalist, Ken McGregor, and contained a malicious ‘survey question’, i.e. “When should job-seekers have their dole payments slashed?”  A recent article in The Advertiser reported that the Turnbull Government would introduce legislation to further facilitate the perpetration of this unconstitutional, genocidal practice.

Expressio unius exclusio alterius.

The legal inappropriateness of the question, as to when should job-seekers have their dole payments slashed was evidenced in the findings handed down by Justice Isaacs in ’The ‘Engineers Case’ [HCA 54; 31st August 1920], i.e. “…the legislative powers given to the Commonwealth Parliament are all prefaced with one general express limitation, namely, “subject to this Constitution.”   Justice Higgins findings in this case also reinforce the matter of fact that the powers of the Federal parliament are constrained by the constitution; Justice Higgins stated; I take sec. 51 of the Constitution as defining subject matters for legislation, and covering sec. V. as defining the persons who are to obey the legislation. Once we find a valid Federal law—say, a law as to trade and commerce with other countries—the Courts and Judges and people of every State must obey it, whatever the State laws may say to the contrary. Organized bodies of persons, such as incorporated companies or municipal corporations or States, are not mentioned: for they always act through “people”—human beings: and these human beings have to obey the valid Federal Act, whatever the State law says.” 

Members of the Federal Parliament, being “people” are as bound by the Constitution as the States and Territories and as Justice Higgins stated, the Parliament is bound by limitations imposed by the Australian constitution. Paragraph 51 (xxiii) (A) of the Australian constitution clearly states that the Federal Parliament shall make laws for the provision of welfare benefits that cannot be linked to “civil conscription”, i.e. Work for the Dole.

Conversely, there is no constitutional statute that provides the Federal Parliament with the jurisdiction to deprive or withhold welfare benefits; to do so exceeds the jurisdiction of the Federal Parliament and any such legislation is, in law, “no law at all.”  As Justice Higgins stated in the 5thth paragraph of his comments;The express exception in one case prevents the implication of the exception in the other case: Expressio unius exclusio alterius.”  It is therefore a fortiori that since Work for the Dole is unconstitutional, so also are the recklessly dangerous Section 42C ‘no show, no pay’ penalties that both violates the constitution’s s. 51 “good government’ provision and at the same time deliberately places lives in peril by leaving impoverished people, who may be almost totally destitute and with no means of meeting “their basic costs of living”.  When vulnerable, at-risk people are deliberately placed in circumstances where they are unable to survive, is it any surprise that there are fatalities?

Looking beyond the Australian constitution to the international obligations that the Federal Parliament owes to all people within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia, depriving people of their sole means of subsistence is also a genocidal crime against humanity and therefore the  officially “irrelevant” Section 42C triggered deaths are murders under Article 7 (1) (a) of the Rome Statute.  Since you are a Supreme Court judge, I will not presume to lecture you on the various Victorian criminal law statutes dealing with the fatalities caused by unconstitutional federal legislation that deliberately deprives impoverished people of their sole means to subsist. However, I would remind you of one of the “Mindset of Murder” definitions in section 7.2.1 of the Judicial College of Victoria charges book; if dismissing ‘no show, no pay’ fatalities as “irrelevant” does not constitute being “reckless” to the sometimes lethal consequences of these penalties, then what does?

I would also point out Justice Brooking’s comment at 29 in R v Faure re “It is the placing of life in peril that constitutes the crime.” With an officially uncontested estimate of approximately 100,000 people having been murdered in the last 40-years, I believe that it is fair comment that during your time on the Bench you do not appear have once spoken out against these murders. To be fair to you, for decades, every member of the Judiciary across the entire nation “ought to have known” that by deliberately depriving impoverished people of the means to survive, there was/is a very high real-world probability that some people could die, especially when you do it 600,000 times in just 2 years, or do it to 4 million people over a period of 40 years! The abysmal failure of Australia’s legal system to protect welfare recipients is having lethal consequences on an almost daily basis and yet the common link unpinning these deaths is studiously ignored. For example, in July 2014, a young couple living in a car at Ballarat died from Carbon Monoxide poisoning. If they were living in that car because they were deliberately deprived of their constitutional right to a welfare allowance, then those directly responsible for that action need to be held accountable for two Culpable Negligence homicides. In 2012, George Rodriguez sued the City of Houston for “Constitutional Deprivation” [Case 11-20763 US Federal Court, 5th Circuit; filed on 29th February 2012] and was awarded US$4 Million in compensation, a precedent that may well be a fore-runner to legal liabilities that Australian taxpayers may have to foot-the-bill for as a direct consequence of some 5 million acts of constitutional deprivation that the justice system failed to respond to in a timely manner.

Uncollected and unreported by Centrelink, in November 2005 the Senate’s Legal & Constitutional Affairs Committee classified the death toll as “confidential.” In January and March 2006, the Employment, Workplace Relations & Education Committee dismissed these fatalities as “irrelevant” whilst in March 2010, the Environment, Communications & Arts Committee simply ignored these murders during the Home Improvement Program Inquiry. Check out the Hansard Minutes for the Community Affairs Legislation Committee and you will find that although some of the senators on this oversight committee are aware that the human impact of welfare penalties had not been publicly reported by Department of Human Services administrators, these senators have failed to ask about these unreported human impacts, e.g. the “irrelevant” fatalities.

Edward De Bono and “The Macaulay Letters.”.

One of Commissioner Hanger’s recommendations in the HIP report was reading some of the “think outside the box” ideas of Edward De Bono, so as to be aware the big picture. Desperate circumstances can give rise to desperate measures and  ‘The Emcott Report’ and ‘The Macaulay Letters’ are responses to the decades of persecution, exploitation and murder of welfare recipients that are  being distributed via email in PDF format and will soon be available on-line in a free Epub format. Apart from welfare recipients, the primary target group is people facing serious criminal charges, especially homicide cases.

Consider the consequences if just one accused person asks the presiding judge the same question that I am asking you, i.e. “Your Honour, when are you going to do something about Australia’s worst cases of mass fraud and serial murder?” Until the people responsible for the senseless slaughter of welfare recipients, sometimes simply for what I refer to as ‘vocational sport[1], are held accountable for their actions in a court of law, Australia’s Rolls Royce Justice System will remain massively biased. The exempting of those responsible for crimes against humanity from accountability because the victims, like the Jews in Nazi Germany, and coloured people in South Africa, are “fair game”, is not about justice; it is about power and privilege. The judiciary needs to ‘get with the program’ and make sure that welfare recipients cease continuing to be ‘fair game’ or ‘dead meat.’ The best way to do that is to compel the Department of Human Services to [finally] “collect” the data on the dead and make it public. I recommend that you ‘call the cops’ and, in the interest of justice, issue a Duces tecum search order that requires the DHS to finally disclose the numbers of people who have died during, or as a result of, tortious conduct that has deliberately involved “skipping the courts”. In making those recommendations I would remind you of the  “binding and the Courts and Judges” provision in  paragraph 5 of the constitution and the fact that the 24 “ought to know/ought to have known” statements in Boughey, [HCA 29: 1986] are as applicable to members of the Judiciary as they were to Dr. Boughey.

If the judiciary do not stop the Parliament from defrauding and murdering welfare recipients, then Australia’s justice system faces the very real risk of being forced to an ‘unscheduled stop’ for judges cannot continue to condone genocide and crimes against humanity.

Yours truly,

Ronald Medlicott – Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.

FOOTNOTES;

[1] See the DVD folder: ‘Absence of Justice’ for details of administrative convenience breaching and breaching competitions. The SAPOL non-investigation into the sexual abuse of children at “St Ann’s” (Report #9 of the Royal Commission into the Sexual Abuse of Children) is closely paralleled by the pseudo investigation into the crimes that I reported to SAPOL in 2011. Since when does a murder investigation include not interviewing the plaintiff? To read SAPOL’s record of interview, just study the nearest blank sheet of paper! At the moment, no matter how many welfare recipients are murdered, no-one responsible for investigating these crimes does so; they are ‘irrelevant’ homicides, an officially stated viewpoint I intend to raise with ICC investigators.+

 

Posted in abuse of power, Case law, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Part 44E. Australia’s “irrelevant Crimes against Humanity. The 4th letter to Justice Macaulay re The Brandis Confession.

6,200 words]

On 20th February 2017, Senator George Brandis made the fist admission ever made by a government minister that welfare policies were killing welfare recipients.

NOTE: the short link URL for this posting is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-16v

Recommendation: Watch this video:

 

Now read this letter, the 4th of 6 letters to Justice Macaulay.

Be aware that it is very long [6,200 words] and technical, i.e. incredibly boring, unless you are being ripped off by Centrelink, have had a relative die because of a Centrelink abuse of power rip-off. Alternately, you want a legal loophole that will either avoid a criminal conviction or have a conviction over-turned so that you can get out of jail.)

Note: the short link URL for this posting is:

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

From: Ronald Medlicott [mailto:ronald48@optusnet.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2017 7:35 PM
To: ‘info@supremecourt.vic.gov.au’ <info@supremecourt.vic.gov.au>
Subject: Attention Justice Macaulay – Re: Beyond SC1497 and AAT 2016/5334: What, if anything, are you going to do about stopping the, still on-going, worst cases of systemic mass fraud and systemic serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia?

 

Your Honour,

Re: Beyond SC1497 and AAT 2016/5334: What are you going to do about stopping the worst cases of systemic mass fraud and systemic serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia?

The 3 previous public interest submissions that I have provided to you have been forwarded to the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Andrew Colvin, with each of the letters carrying a request that the communication be forwarded to Cardinal Pell and/or his legal representatives. In addition, consistent with my stated belief there is substantial public in both the Manus Island ‘Nolle contendere’ settlement and the February 2017 AAT2016/5334 ‘Nolle contendere’ settlement, the 1st public interest submission to you has been published on my Ronald’s space web site. The other 2 submissions will also be published on that website along with the text of this submission.

On 2nd March 2011, the Honourable Thomas A. Cromwell, a Justice of the Canadian Supreme Court, presented the Scottish Council of Law Reporting Macfayden Lecture.  Justice Cromwell’s  lecture was titled “The Challenges of Scientific Evidence,” a most timely topic given the very publicly expressed support of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and other senior members of his Cabinet for the shamelessly fraudulent Robo-Debt policies and practices of his government.

This speech can be read at:

http://www.scottishlawreports.org.uk/publications/macfadyen-2011.html

 At [50] and [51] in his speech, Justice Cromwell made the following comments, which I believe underscore the current shameless practice of the Turnbull Government, and previous governments, in deliberately ignoring both the Constitution and a number of High Court decisions, e.g. Associated Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co, Briginshaw, Kioa, Veal, Hellicar, Bhardwaj and Coco for the express purpose of avoiding having courts adducing the primary facts of the when seeking to recover ALLEGED overpayments from welfare recipients. If senior Information Technology experts employed by the Department of Human Services, e.g. Gary Sterrenberg, Chief Information Officer, CIO Group, or Grant Tidswell, Deputy Secretary, Service Delivery Operations Group, were to testify in a court about the “integrity” issues with the 35-year-old IBN 204 software driven Integrated Social Infrastructure System [ISIS] computer network, it would be virtually impossible for either the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions or the secretary of the Department of Social Services to win criminal or civil tort actions brought against Centrelink clients.

The issues identified by Justice Cromwell in the statements below are all credible, relevant and significant statements concerning the systemic issues that are linked to the Turnbull government’s current illegal efforts to recover a reported $4.7 Billion in overpayments from a staggering 1,400,000 people.

“One area of concern has been the lack of objectivity and independence of experts.  For example, the Goudge Report noted that Dr. Smith failed to understand this duty of impartiality.  He testified that he had received no training or instruction in this regard.  Indeed, he thought his role was to advocate for the Crown and to “make a case look good.” This problem is not uniquely a Canadian one.  In a study of problems with experts perceived by federal judges in the United States, the authors identified a lack of objectivity as one of the four most important issues from the judges’ perspective.  A distinct, but related problem, concerns the independence of the facilities and institutions carrying out forensic testing, one of the areas addressed by the NAS report.”

“The expert witness’s obligation of impartiality has been addressed by judge-made law and Rules of Court.  In Canada, England & Wales and Scotland, there is a duty of independence imposed on expert witnesses.  An often cited statement of the expert’s obligations may be found in National Justice Compania Naviera S.A. v Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd (“The Ikarian Reefer”).91  As Cresswell J. put it at page 81:

‘The duties and responsibilities of expert witnesses in civil cases include the following:

  1. Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to be, the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content by the exigencies of litigation …

  2. An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the Court by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise … An expert witness in the High Court should never assume the role of an advocate.

  3. An expert witness should state the facts or assumption upon which his opinion is based. He should not omit to consider material facts which could detract from his concluded opinion …

  4. An expert witness should make it clear when a particular question or issue falls outside his expertise.

  5. If an expert’s opinion is not properly researched because he considers that insufficient data is available, then this must be stated with an indication that the opinion is no more than a provisional one … In cases where an expert witness who has prepared a report could not assert that the report contained the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth without some qualification, that qualification should be stated in the report …’ (References to other cases have been omitted).

 When it comes to the issue of “make a case look good”, the fraudulent Robo-Debt solution is to avoid the courts, withhold or destroy evidence and make the welfare recipient “prove” the impossible, i.e. that Centrelink has made an error. Heightening the ruthless perfidy of this criminal abuse of power is the outrageous requirement that this proof must be provided within 21 days. Adding even further to this criminal abuse of power, welfare recipients who try to fight this fraud are steered into the Administrative Appeals Tribunal process where, as the Applicant in the appeal process, they again must ‘prove’ a Commonwealth error.

 A distinct, but related problem, concerns the independence of the facilities and institutions carrying out forensic testing, one of the areas addressed by the NAS report.”

RECAP: AAT 2014/<Redacted>: A micro-case study with macro-implications:

It is not just the lack of impartiality of Australian Public Servants or Australian Government Services lawyers that welfare recipients must contend with.  The following feedback information concerning AAT 2014/<Redacted>, is provided not for the purpose of a judicial decision, for I know that you have no jurisdiction in this matter; it is provided as feedback to underscore the need for transparency in government tort actions and to underscore the paradigm changes occurring in response to our nation’s unconstitutional and recklessly dangerous welfare policies and practices.

In September 2014, I was appointed by the applicant in AAT case 2014/<Redacted> as their representative and, via telephone hook-up, participated in an AAT Directions Hearing.

  1. If you listen to the first 20 seconds of the Waivergate Part 2 video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23bBEfN_H8I  you will hear concatenated sound bites of a senior AGS lawyer and the presiding AAT member conspiring to hold a trial “on that date.”

  2. I was so disgusted with the Presiding Member‘s conduct of this hearing that, via email, I requested that the Presiding Member recues from the hearing.

  3. The Presiding Member declined to do so.

  4. When I requested a copy of an audio-recording made by Centrelink that was the only empirical evidence of ‘who said what’ in the phone call that was central to this tort act. However, the AGS lawyer representing the Secretary of the DSS responded with an email stating that it was not available.

  5. I then requested the presiding AAT Member exercise their authority under the AAT Act and compel the Respondent, i.e. the Secretary of the DSS, to make this recording available.

  6. This lawful discovery request was not complied with; a response that did not surprise me as the recording was mission critical to any fair and just decision and it was manifestly apparent that Justice was decidedly absent from this appeal process. [Note: I did not know about Hellicar at this time.]

  7. On 24th November 2014, a DVD with a digital copy of the audio-recording of the Directions Hearing and a print-out of the AGS lawyer’s email claiming that Centrelink did not have the a copy of the phone call that Centrelink arbitrarily  records “for your security”, was sent via certified mail to the Human Services Minister, Kevin Andrews.

  8. Minister Andrews, a former barrister, appears to have opted to ignore the conspiracy to hold a “trial” and the unlawful withholding of evidence.

  9. At the [Kangaroo Court] “trial”, when I pointed out that the Applicant had “human rights that must be respected”, as in the right to a fair hearing, the AGS Lawyer representing the Secretary of the DSS rebutted my comment with the remark, “let’s leave the issue of human rights for ‘other courts’ to decide.”

  10.  At 4 in the Engineers Case [HCA 54 on 31st August 1920, Justice Isaacs stated: “…is therefore, in the circumstances, the manifest duty of this Court to turn its earnest attention to the provisions of the Constitution itself. That instrument is the political compact of the whole of the people of Australia, enacted into binding law by the Imperial Parliament, and it is the chief and special duty of this Court faithfully to expound and give effect to it according to its own terms, finding the intention from the words of the compact, and upholding it throughout precisely as framed.

  11.  As you are fully aware, Section 5 of the constitution states that the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, Judges and the people.

  12.  In the Engineers Case, the High Court held that its ruling were also binding on the Parliaments and the Executives of the Federal and State Parliaments.

  13.  As mentioned in a previous email, the Presiding Member ignored the findings in the Engineers Case and the express wording in Section 1,237A of the Social Security Action, opting instead for a Dickensian Bleak House judgement, sans any adducing of the primary facts of the matter by a court.

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

  15.  Since Section 1,237A would have meant acknowledging a Commonwealth error and waiving the debt, it was simply ignored and Sub-section 1,237AAD(b) given precedence over Section 1,237A.

  16.  In February 2015, consistent with Bhardwaj and the Solicitor-General’s views in Legal Briefing Paper #67 that a decision that is in law, no decision at all, can be disregarded and a new decision made if both parties agree, I wrote to the Minister for Social Services, Scott Morrison.

  17.  In this communication I gain included the audio-recording of the Directions Hearing and a printed copy of the email stating that Centrelink did not have the audio-recording at has always been the central piece of evidence in the government’s claim that the applicant had been overpaid as a result of an error by the applicant.

  18.  Minister Morrison, who has a law degree, opted to ignore both the facts of the matter and case law determinations such as Justice Brennan’s findings at 38 in Kioa concern the inappropriateness of withholding of credible, relevant information of significance simply because it was detrimental to one of the parties in the tort action.

  19.  On 16th November 2015, a detailed appeal submission was lodged with the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, which included the Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions and the recording of the Directions Hearing. Later that day the applicant was informed that since no new information had been received, the applicant’s appeal had been rejected!

  20.  Go figure that one.

  21.  On 25th November 2015, a public relations officer informed me that the appeal submission had been received in Canberra on 23rd November but it would not be actioned, i.e. it would be disregarded.

  22.  Go figure that one as well!

  23.  In December 2015 I wrote to both Justice Duncan Kerr, the President of the AAT, and to the Chief Legal Counsel for the Department of Human Services.

  24.  In both communications, I provided the details submitted to the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman, e.g. the audio-recording of the Directions Hearing, a copy of the email concerning the withheld audio-recording, and the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions.

  25.  Neither Justice Kerr nor any other person representing the AAT responded to that communication.

  26.  In a letter dated 7th January 2016, the Acting Chief Counsel for the Department of Human Services, Ms. Alice Linacre responded with the statement “Your letter requests that the information provide be considered and I confirm that it has been considered. I do not consider that any further action by the department of Human Services is necessary.”

 Summing up AAT 2014/<Redacted>, we have the following:

  1. A Directions Hearing during which the Presiding AAT Member and an AGS lawyer are recorded conspiring to hold a trial “on that date” even though the AAT has no statutory or constitutional right to hold a trial.

  2. Evidence that is credible, relevant and extremely significant is withheld and the Presiding Member does not order that it presented in a timely manner for review by the Applicant and myself.

  3. The Minister for Human Services, a former barrister who “ought to have known’ that serious procedural fairness “irregularities, possibly of a criminal nature, were in play in this appeal and yet the Minister, by a voluntary physical act of omission, failed to intervene and ensure that the procedural rights of the applicant were protected.

  4. A [Kangaroo Court] trial held “on that date” during which another AGS lawyers requests that the applicant’s right to a fair hearing be set aside “for other courts to decide.”

  5. The Minister for Social Services, Scott Morrison, emulated the actions of his ministerial colleague, Kevin Andrews, and also failed to intervene and ensure that the procedural rights of the applicant were protected.

  6. The Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman ‘misplaced’ and then ignored a valid appeal that cited Kioa, Hellicar and Bhardwaj and which also pointed out the possibly of criminal abuses of power that were the hallmarks of a Dickensian Bleak House travesty of Justice.

  7. Justice Kerr also ignored all of the above procedural fairness points, including actions that may have been of a criminal nature.

  8.  The Acting Chief Legal Counsel for the DHS, Ms. Alice Linacre, placed her views and the apparently perceived needs of the DHS, ahead of the Constitution, High Court decisions and criminal statute laws.

When it comes to a possible criminal conspiracy to defraud, the Commonwealth officials involved includes at least 4 AGS lawyers, a Dun & Bradstreet lawyer, who “ought to have known” about Briginshaw, Kioa, Coco, Bhardwaj and Hellicar, who seriously harassed the applicant during the AAT appeal process, a senior AAT member, a Federal Court judge, and 2 senior Government Ministers. That is an impressive list of very high profile people that the Federal Police decided not to investigate when asked to do so.

All of that input, just to defraud a welfare recipient of $13,660.33, seem to be a lot of people putting their careers on the line for a relatively small gain. However, Ms. Kathryn Campbell pointed out similar issues to Senator Xenophon on 26th February 2015 when justifying the withholding of evidence and the expenditure of $565,000 to recover an amount of approximately $5,700. The following statements are extracts copied from page 25 – 29 of the Hansard minutes for the Community Affairs Legislation Committee hearing held on 26th February 2015.

Senator XENOPHON: “…Yesterday’s report in The Canberra Times revealed that the department has spent $565,000 of taxpayers’ money litigating against a father over, effectively, a $6,000 difference of opinion. I presume the journalist is correct with respect to the $565,000 figure?

Ms Campbell: The $565,000 is correct in the total amount involved in this case but it is incorrect in the other amount.

Senator XENOPHON: Incorrect in which matter?

Mr Hutson: The total amount of expenditure of $565,000 is not about a single matter in front of the courts. It is about a series of matters in front of both the Family Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal running over the period of August 2011—

Senator XENOPHON: But the genesis of it was still about the way the department handled this and the amount involved.

CHAIR: Senator Xenophon, if you could just allow Mr Hutson finish before you interject.

Ms Campbell: I reject the fact that the entire amount that has been spent is about a $6,000 debt.

[From page 26 of the Hansard Minutes]

Senator XENOPHON: It has cost well over half a million dollars, and it could well cost hundreds of thousands of dollars more before this is concluded; is that right?

Ms Campbell: They are important pieces of law to how we administer the entire child support system to determine whether some pieces of evidence are admissible in determining child support.

Senator XENOPHON: But you are aware that the father did contact the department direct to say, ‘I am prepared to participate in alternative dispute resolution to try and resolve this without recourse to costly litigation’? Can you acknowledge that?

Ms Campbell: I am aware of that, but there is also an issue about precedent, how we go forward with not just this case but other cases. The reason so much money has been spent on this case has been the need to test at law certain objectives. That is why the Commonwealth, as the model litigant, has paid the expenses of the other two parties involved—so we could test that at law.

Senator XENOPHON: Let us talk about the issue of model litigant. I note that when the agency fronted the Family Court two weeks ago it had a barrister, two AGS lawyers and a departmental lawyer to oppose an untrained, self-representing father asking that his matter be re-opened to lay out documents that he says—and that I say—were erroneously withheld from him and he wanted the judge to consider. It concerns me that there is now an argument about not allowing documents. You are supposed to be a model litigant and you are saying you are fighting—you are spending tens of thousands of dollars with each court hearing—about not allowing documents to be reconsidered in respect of this matter, attempting to refuse that these documents be considered.

Ms Campbell: To do that I would need to call the legal practitioners so that we could go through that level of detail. As you can imagine, we do provide the actual operation of these legal cases to the lawyers to construct those. I do not have the information about that exact point with me.

Senator XENOPHON: Again, I ask that you take this on notice. A fortune is now being spent, with up to four lawyers turning up against an unrepresented father about documents that he says—and I say—were erroneously withheld from him.

Can I go to the AAT? Let us move to the FOI documents that the Information Commissioner has decided are not FOI-exempt. So the Information Commissioner has been involved in this. You have engaged Clayton Utz to represent you in the AAT and I believe you have special counsel and a partner working on the matter, along with an instructing solicitor from Human Services; is that right?

Mr Hutson: That would probably be right.

Senator XENOPHON: So you are there fighting an Information Commissioner’s ruling.

Mr Hutson: That is again a very, very important point of law. We believe that the Information Commissioner’s decision was not correct. Those documents go to legal professional privilege. In terms of the way we administer the child support legislation, the Social Security Act and all the other legislation we administer, legal professional privilege is an important part of the way we obtain legal advice and consider it. There is some information there which the Information Commissioner believes should have been released. But in our view that should not have been released, and the matter goes to legal professional privilege. That is why we have taken the matter up in front of the AAT.

Senator XENOPHON: I have just got a message from the father, who is looking at this, saying that costs were paid in the first matter only, that you are seeking costs against him in the appeal of the SSAT decision.

Ms Campbell: The first case, which was about what evidence was required and whether or not it could be used, was the matter of law that we were very focused on. I think that is where most of this started and that is where the costs are. These subsequent areas have come from the applicant. So we are, as is our normal practice, working through the legislative—

Senator XENOPHON: But you are seeking costs against him, so you will probably wipe him out.

 Your Honour, As Senator Xenophon’s questions revealed, $565,000 in legal costs and rising, with 4 government lawyers and a private law firm stacked up against a self-representing citizen. In AAT 2014/<Redacted> there were 3 AGS lawyers and the law firm, Dun & Bradstreet up against a senior citizen with a part-time job that paid an income below the poverty line. Note also the common factor of withholding evidence that is detrimental to the Department of Human Services.

So, Your Honour, just how well does this Dickensian Bleak House nightmare stack up with your concept of how Australia’s justice system works in Australia?

Points of Law: Justice Cromwell’s footnotes – The Ontario Rules.

Footnotes 94, 95, and 96 of Justice Cromwell’s speech set out the ‘Ontario rules’, i.e. the rules that apply in Canada, and the rules that apply in England and Wales when ‘expert evidence’ is presented in civil and criminal procedures.

94 Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 4.1 [Ontario Rules].

4.1.01(1) It is the duty of every expert engaged by or on behalf of a party to provide evidence in relation to a proceeding under these rules,
(a) to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan;
(b) to provide opinion evidence that is related only to matters that are within the expert’s area of expertise; and
(c) to provide such additional assistance as the court may reasonably require to determine a matter in issue.
(2) The duty in subrule (1) prevails over any obligation owed by the expert to the party by whom or on whose behalf he or she is engaged.

95 Civil Procedure Rules 1998 No. 3132 (L. 17), r. 35.3 [England and Wales Civil Procedure Rules].

  1. 3(1) It is the duty of an expert to help the court on the matters within his expertise.
    (2) This duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom he has received instructions or by whom he is paid.

96 Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 No. 60 (L.2), r. 33.2 [England and Wales Criminal Procedure Rules]. 

33.2(1) An expert must help the court to achieve the overriding objective by giving objective, unbiased opinion on matters within his expertise.
(2) This duty overrides any obligation to the person from whom he receives instructions or by whom he is paid.
(3) This duty includes an obligation to inform all parties and the court if the expert’s opinion changes from that contained in a report served as evidence or given in a statement.

Experts are supposed to serve by aiding the courts to be fair and impartial in assessing the technical merits of a case. What impact would the following ‘expert testimony’ have upon a Court in a Robo-Debt case, or upon a fair-minded jury in a criminal prosecution of a welfare recipient accused of ‘rorting the system’?

EXTRACTS: HANSARD: COMMUNITY AFFAIRS LEGISLATION COMMITTEE

Wednesday, 3 June 2015 Senate Page 17 -19

Please note that the ANAO Report referred to is ANAO Report #37, which was tabled in May 2015.

 Senator CAMERON: Minister and Secretary, I want to go to the ANOA report. I suppose I could ask the question that is asked in the publication: what kind of government service puts the public on hold for 811 years?

Ms Deininger: I am not sure where the 811-year number comes from. So I cannot answer that. It could be made up, for all I know. If we go to the substance of the ANAO audit, I think there is a waiting time, which of course has been quite transparent in the last number of PBSs and annual reports.

Senator CAMERON: I have heard other adjectives used as well as ‘transparent’.

 Senator CAMERON: We will do that sample. I might come back outside estimates or later today and say, ‘Can you have a look at these specific ones?’ That is okay. You have got 12.9 million abandoned calls and 13.7 million blocked calls; that is, about 31.7 per cent of total calls are blocked. I have not been out there. Have you got a control room?

Mr Tidswell: Yes, Senator.

[Skipping some of the text]

 Mr Tidswell: One of the things we have done over some years is attempt to restrict the amount of call blocking, which effectively means the customer will receive an engaged signal over some time. We have reduced that by about 66 per cent over the last few years deliberately so that people can get the choice to enter into that IVR and get information about the service they might need. In that sense what happens is that at certain points—say, at the end of the day—we have to clear the queues out. It is no different, in a sense, from running a club or a bouncer letting people come in to that environment. You can only let a certain number of people in to that environment to protect the telephone infrastructure and to make sure that you handle the workload in a suitable fashion; otherwise we would be working every day of the week 24/7. So we try to restrict it very much to a demand situation where we do it, or to protect our infrastructure. The easiest way to fix wait times is to introduce more engaged signals. Previously, that is what we did. With respect to the level of blocking previously, there were far more blocked calls than we ever answered in any given year.

This is just one example of the way in which welfare recipients are treated; they are required by law to report income and face criminal prosecution if they do not accurately report earning. However, if the 35-year-old ISIS driven phone system cannot cope with call load, in just one year there were “12.9 million abandoned calls and 13.7 million blocked calls; that is, about 31.7 per cent of total calls are blocked.”

This is happening on a computer system that takes a team of expert programmers 3-months just to change the date format on a form letter!  Expert testimony would not be required to totally discredit Robo-Debt claims in a court of law;  every rip-off claim is already discredited!

When it comes to the Rules of Evidence and the published dysfunctional operating problems that the ISIS computer network has, an interesting issue is the question as to why Federal Police I-Tech surveillance experts and I-Tech forensic experts have not raised the issue of systemic fraud by Centrelink on behalf of the government-of-the-day.

Robo-Debt is brazen fraud and it is totally unbelievable that not one Federal Police I-Tech expert has pointed this out to Cyber-crimes investigators. If the I-Tech experts are both competent and honest, then it is highly probable that Animal Welfare Rule CYA-1-0-1 applies and this fraud has been raised in emails, memos, official minutes of I-Tech meetings, and in privately held minutes of meetings. This logic is equally applicable within every police department in Australia, and also within the I-Tech units within the Departments of Human Services, Social Services, Employment, Finance, Treasury, the Office of the Coordinator-General, Auditor-General and the Solicitor-General’s Department.

Most welfare recipients would not know what a Duces tecum order was, let alone afford the cost of such a subpoena. Any person accused of a crime who wishes to mount an Ostensible Bias appeal should give serious consideration to following the lead of Commissioner Ian hanger in the HIP Inquiry and using a confetti box shower of Duces tecum subpoenas, as part of the Discovery process, obtain as much evidence as is possible of the extent to which I-Tech experts, especially those in police and federal government watchdog agencies, have been aware that Robo-Debt is a criminal abuse of power, i.e. a dangerous fraud, but have chosen to do nothing about it.

Report of the Kaufman Commission on Proceedings Involving Guy Paul Morin

Executive Summary [Canada – 1997]

In February 1997, the Kaufman Inquiry was established to inquire into a miscarriage of justice to determine what systemic factors had led to the wrongful conviction of Guy Morin for the alleged murder of Christine Jessop. In 1995, the Ontario Supreme Court overturned the conviction when a review of DNA evidence cast reasonable doubt about the validity of the conviction.

After a 146 day hearing the Kaufman Report contained a number of recommendations that addressed the issue of systemic bias within the Durham Police force.

 The Commissioner commended the direction taken by the Durham Regional Police Services Board to address some of the failings identified at the Inquiry and, indeed, the Board’s approach to the Inquiry itself. He cautioned, however, that many of the failings identified go to the heart of the police culture:

  1. An investigation can be perfectly structured, but flounder due to tunnel vision or “noble cause corruption” or loss of objectivity or bad judgment.

  2. Older techniques and thought processes are, at times, deeply ingrained and difficult to change.

  3. Police culture is not easy to modify. The failings which I identified were systemic and were not confined to several officers only.

  4. The challenge for Durham will be to enhance policing through an introspective examination of the culture. I am convinced that such an examination has commenced.

 The systemic issues identified in the Kaufman Report have been replicated in the Bromwich Report, a review of the City of Houston Crime Laboratories, and are echoed in some of the reports of the recently concluded interim reports of the Australian Royal Commission into the Sexual Abuses of Children in Institutionalized Care, e.g. Report #9 – St Ann’s, which highlighted the 12-year-long failure of the South Australian Police to deal with the sexual abuse of children by an employee of St Ann’s.

In theory, Bigotry and Prejudice have no place in any fair and just society and yet, Work for the dole is unconstitutional and the ‘No show, no pay’ laws are also unconstitutional and a criminal act of deprivation that derives its terrifying power from the very real menace caused by depriving impoverished people of the means to survive. Not once or twice in the 2-year period 1st July 2000 to 30th June 2002, but over 600,000 times, John Howard’s social welfare ministry team deliberately deprived impoverished people of the means to survive. Whatever the actual cause of each death triggered by this unconstitutional, recklessly dangerous Act of Destitution, the manner of death is identical, i.e. murder.

The number of murders is unknown because those responsible have no intention of being held accountable. As Section 2.11 of the Report #12 to the 44th Parliament made quite clear, if the vulnerable can be slaughtered by Federal legislation, then there are those who will try to do it:

 “However, the response does not provide any further information as to how young people are to sustain themselves during a six-month period without social security.”

 As you are well aware, in a court of law, that statement opens the door to the question as to just how many did not survive under the Howard government’s 13-week penalty system or under the supposedly more humane 8-week-penalty system. One clue to the impact of these penalties is that in the 10-year period from 1st January 1997 to the 31st December 2006, i.e. ‘The Howard Years’, 23,254 people committed suicide and the leading cause of 1 in 3 of these penalties was Unemployment.

It is possible that just from suicides alone, John Howard may have murdered around 7,700 unemployed people. Toss in the other top suicide categories and during the 11 ½ years that John Howard was the Prime Minister of Australia, it is possible that perhaps as many as 25,000 died as a direct consequence of his welfare policies.

In November 2014, I came close to finding out the precise number with the Discovery questions in AAT 2014/<Redacted> but the AGS lawyer and the presiding AAT Member slammed that door shut. I came even closer with AAT 2016/5334 because the AAT Case Registrar, Athena Ingall, had issued a Discovery Notice that required disclosure of facts by 3rd March 2017.

Close, but again, not close enough; Elizabeth Ulrick slammed the door shut with a ‘Nolle contendere’ proffer that was put to the applicant without my knowledge.

However, I believe that time is fast running out and that soon, perhaps very soon, the appalling number of victims of Australia’s brutal welfare policies with be disclosed. Once that happens, the closing words of Justice Steven Rares speech to the 2013 AGS Law Administrators conference will have practical meaning:

When, particularly, the High Court makes a decision of that character, the Court can become involved in political controversy. But, that is simply a proper and necessary outcome of the third arm of government performing its role of determining the boundaries in which the other two arms of government may or may not operate, or the limits of judicial power. That use of judicial power is itself an essential governmental function in a society operating under the rule of law. And, when the Courts exercise their powers under Ch III of the Constitution, they must justify that exercise in proceedings that occur transparently in open court and in reasons for the judgment in which the Court decides and pronounces the law.If citizens are to have rights worth having, they can only be guaranteed either by constitutional entrenchment through a democratic referendum, or by the Parliament scrutinising legislation and the Courts continuing to apply the principle of legality. 

  1. Robo-Debt and the 20 Point Assessment are a crime, i.e. in-ya-face-fraud.

  2. The ‘no show, no pay’ breaching penalties are simply a variation on Hitler’s “Final Solution”, for it is ideology-driven ‘murder by federal legislation’.

Take care note of what Steven Rares said, “That use of judicial power is itself an essential governmental function in a society operating under the rule of law. And, when the Courts exercise their powers… they must justify that exercise in proceedings that occur transparently in open court…”  If the door still remains open to the Manus Island case being “proceedings that occur transparently in open court,” then you must make it happen. It is totally inappropriate that those who rule our nation can use taxpayers’ monies to hide their crimes from those they serve, deceive, persecute, defraud and murder.

Transparency is not an essential function for any government; judicial power that ensures transparency in an open court is. You have been set before you a serious human rights violation case in which there is at least one death caused by illegal activity, i.e. a felony murder. Surely, transparency demands that you make no judgment until you know about every other human rights violations triggered death that the Commonwealth of Australia is directly responsible for?

I would remind you that if you check out the various videos on the Internet of the ABC’s Q & A broadcast  of 20th February 2017, you will see and  hear Senator George Brandis and Tanya Slibersek quibbling over the issue as to whether the Gillard Government or the Turnbull Government was the most efficient at defrauding and murdering welfare recipients.

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

I therefore loop back to my opening question to you; What are you going to do about stopping the worst cases of systemic mass fraud and systemic serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia?

As Chief Justice Barwick pointed out in Ratten in 1974,  “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;”

Ratten v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 510 at 517 per Barwick CJ;[1974] HCA 35

You may not like the views expressed in my email letters, aka ‘The Macaulay Letters”, but they are based upon facts that can be proven in any court.  Ignoring them is not an option as any person accused of crime can ask you to stand down if you fail to act on the information provided.

Please LISTEN for 20 seconds:

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

Please WATCH for 15 minutes:         https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3oKEsNZ-X4&t=0s

In closing, my advice as a citizen, and as a lay-advocate, is very simple; I think that you should call the cops.

Yours truly

Ronald Medlicott – Australian citizen and a Christian volunteer lay-advocate.

 

 

 

 

From: Ronald Medlicott [mailto:ronald48@optusnet.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, July 9, 2017 7:35 PM
To: ‘info@supremecourt.vic.gov.au’ <info@supremecourt.vic.gov.au>
Subject: Attention Justice Macaulay – Re: Beyond SC1497 and AAT 2016/5334: What, if anything, are you going to do about stopping the, still on-going, worst cases of systemic mass fraud and systemic serial murder in the history of the Commonwealth of Australia?

 

Posted in abuse of power, Case law, crimes against humanity, genocide, Human Rights violations, murder, News and politics, Political, Uncategorized, Welfare rights, White Collar Crime | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments