Part 17: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. Is the Linacre letter proof that on New Year’s Day 2016, Centrelink tried to defraud 73,000 unsuspecting people?

In the December 7th, 2015 Ronald’s space posting, I wrote that 1.1 million welfare recipients were at risk of being victims of Centrelink’s “Waivergate” scam. Is the Linacre letter below proof that just 3 weeks later, on New Year’s Day 2016, Centrelink deliberately tried to defraud 73,000 unsuspecting people?

[Note: the short link URL for this posting is:   http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-sb   ]

For a brief but very informative 7 News video article about this possibly fraudulent scam, click on this link: https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/30512118/centrelink-system-errors-leave-73-000-families-thinking-they-are-in-debt/

Below is a slightly redacted copy of the Linacre Letter in which the information that would disclose the identity of a welfare recipient has been removed. When you read this letter, there are several questions to consider:

  1. What information did I provide to Centrelink;
  2. Why did the Acting Chief Legal Counsel decide to ignore the constitution, statute laws, High Court decisions, international conventions and laws, and common law rights?
  3. Most importantly, did Alice Linacre or her predecessor, Vicky Parker, have the legal right to ignore the constitution, statute laws, High Court decisions, international treaties and international law? [Hint: the answer to that question is the opposite of “yes”.]
7-1-16 Redacted Centrelink response

IS THIS LETTER PROOF OF THE RAPE OF CIVIL RIGHTS BY CENTRELINK?                                 This letter was written just hours before the 7 Network blew the whistle on Centrelink’s attempt to by-pass due process of law by electronically billing 73,000 people for ‘small claims’ that collectively amount to tens of millions of dollars.

The Linacre letter clearly states that information was received from me on 9th December 2015 and again on 17th December 2015. The 1st letter was received just after my Ronald’s space postings on the 7th and 8th December 2015. The obvious question concerning the Linacre Letter is what information was received that may demonstrate that what happened on 1st January 2016 was not, as claimed by Centrelink, a “computer glitch”, but was possibly a deliberate attempt to defraud 73,000 people.

Rather than repeat what I have already posted in December, I recommend that readers check out these 2 postings which provide insight into the information provided to Centrelink’s Chief Legal Counsel:

December 7th 2015 – Part 12: How HELLICAR could prevent 1.1 million welfare recipients from becoming victims of the Waivergate” scam.   http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-qW 

December 8th 2015 – Part 13: Bastardizing the Briginshaw Principle: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-r4  

In order to get back some $5 Billion in over-payments to welfare recipients, Centrelink officials arbitrarily decide that it is the fault of all of 1.1 million “rorter.”  As the attempted rip-off on New year’s day 2016 highlighted, Centrelink uses its computer system to fraudulently demand that over-payments be paid back. However, a couple of High Court decisions have the potential to ‘bung a spanner in the works.’  People who read this posting will have some insight into their civil rights. 2 crucial  High Court decisions that make quite clear the fact that Centrelink officials have no legal right to arbitrarily demand that over-payments be repaid are:

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA17  which was handed down on May 3rd 2012.

Download from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/17.html

In paragraph 141, the High Court ruled that:

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

At paragraph 141 in the Hellicar Decision, the High Court judges rule:

 “…that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred.”

What these 2 High Court statements mean is that any decision as to who was responsible for any alleged over-payments must be determined by impartially considering the “primary facts” of the issue and the responsibility for doing this is a matter for the courts, not public servants, e.g. Centrelink officials.

The 2nd High Court decision is: Minister for Immigration & Cultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] 209 CLR 597,

Download this decision from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/11.html

At paragraph 53 of Bhardwaj. the High Court ruled that:

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

The key phrase in the above statement is “a decision involving jurisdictional error has no legal foundation and is properly to be regarded, in law, as no decision at all.”

  1. Centrelink bureaucrats who may be responsible for the errors that caused over-payments have no jurisdiction, i.e. no legal right to decide that welfare recipients are responsible for the over-payments occurring.
  2. Centrelink officials deciding that welfare recipients are responsible for being overpaid is a “jurisdictional error” and such vested interest determinations are not legally valid, i.e. Centrelink has no legal right to send welfare recipients “Account payable” bills that demand repayment of alleged over-payments.AAA Web Carolyn
  3. That is the potentially incriminating legal significance of the Linacre Letter; in December 2015, these High Court decisions were made available to the Chief Legal Council for the Department of Human Services, i.e. the federal government department that runs Centrelink.
  4. Senior legal bureaucrats, i.e. either Vicky Parker or Alice Linacre, or both, are the people responsible for advising the Secretary of the Department of Human Services on legal matters.
  5. One, or both, of these lawyers turned bureaucrats  therefore KNEW that Centrelink had no legal right to send out either electronic or hard copy (snail mail) letters of demand for the repayment of alleged over-payments.
  6. Centrelink’s computer system should have been de-programmed so that the so-called “glitch” which billed 73,000 people for amounts up to $800 could never be sent out either electronically or via mail.
  7. Make no mistake, Centrelink’s computer system is a 30 ye4ar-old clapped out system, but at the end of the day, this computer system was programmed to send out the electronic and hard copy letters of demand and that programming was not deactivated.
  8. Someone had programmed the computer to make the legally invalid claims and despite my best efforts over a period of years (See http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-5E ), Centrelink has continued to violate the civil rights of welfare recipients rather than obey the constitution and state, federal and international statute laws and conventions.

There are 73,000 victims of a possible “Waivergate” fraud by Centrelink on January 1st 2016 who should check out these High Court decisions for yourself: Centrelink has had any legal right to decide who is responsible for alleged over-payments to individual welfare recipients.

If you are reading my Ronald’s space postings for the 1st time, you may wonder why these High Court decisions apply to Centrelink’s letters of demand and why I claim that 73,000 people may have been the victims of a deliberate attempt to defraud them. The answer to that is found in “The  6-week Rule” contained in paragraph 1,237 (a) of the Social Security Act. As you can see from the text below, this law gives Centrelink bureaucrats just 6 weeks to identify and rectify “commonwealth error” over-payments to welfare recipients:

1237A   Waiver of debt arising from error. (© Crown)

 Administrative error

 (1) Subject to subsection (1A), the Secretary must waive the right to recover the proportion of a debt that is attributable solely to an administrative error made by the Commonwealth if the debtor received in good faith the payment or payments that gave rise to that proportion of the debt.

Note: Subsection (1) does not allow waiver of a part of a debt that was caused partly by administrative error and partly by one or more other factors (such as error by the debtor).

(1A) Subsection (1) only applies if:

(a) the debt is not raised within a period of 6 weeks from the first payment that caused the debt; or

(b) if the debt arose because a person has complied with a notification obligation, the debt is not raised within a period of 6 weeks from the end of the notification period;

whichever is the later.

Underestimating value of property

(2) If:

(a) a debt arose because the debtor or the debtor’s partner underestimated the value of particular property of the debtor or partner; and

(b) the estimate was made in good faith; and

(c) the value of the property was not able to be easily determined when the estimate was made;

the Secretary must waive the right to recover the proportion of the debt attributable to the underestimate. (NOTE: The source text is neither in italics or underlined. Ron M.)

Proportion of a debt

(3) For the purposes of this section, a proportion of a debt may be 100% of the debt.

  1.  TRANSLATION: if Centrelink makes a mistake and over-pays a welfare recipient, i.e. a “Commonwealth error”, then Centrelink has 6 weeks to discover and rectify the error.
  2. Once that period is up, “The Secretary” MUST WAIVE 100% of the debt.
  3. The problem is, having over-paid some $5 Billion, DHS/Centrelink bureaucrats have no desire to own up to such a blunder.
  4. The solution is to arbitrarily, and unlawfully, accuse welfare recipients of being rorters. i.e the people who are responsible for these over-payments.
  5. Please, read this news article very carefully to gain insight into hopw DHS/Centrelink officials and federal governments work the “Waivergate” scam.

26-11-15 welfare cheaters page 9

 Make no mistake, this news article violates South Australia’s criminal defamation laws. However, both the SA Police and the Federal Police turn a blind eye to violations of criminals laws if politicians rort, or when evidence reveals that government departments are defrauding welfare recipients. if you doubt that statement, check out the letter below from the Federal Police.July 04 denley letter page 1

 

R Stacie Mitchell, the brave young mum who blew the whistle on Centrelink’s latest Waivergate scam, had it 100% right when she said “They need to stop stuffing people over.” For the sake of 7.3 million people who are at risk of being hit with the Waivergate scam, we need an independent commission of inquiry, i.e. a Royal Commission of Inquiry, to determine just how many people have been “stuffed over” and to also determine just how many people did not survive being stuffed over.

Regular readers are familiar with Neil Skill’s letter, which was written 103 days after the 4th Home Improvement Program fatality, Mitchell Sweeney,  which occurred on 4th February. 2010. The following statement from the report of the Royal Commission into the Home Improvement Disaster contained the following statements:

“The government “conceived of, devised, designed and implemented a program that enabled very large numbers of inexperienced workers – often engaged by unscrupulous and avaricious employers or head contractors, who were themselves inexperienced in insulation installation – to undertake potentially dangerous work.

“It should have done more to protect them,” the report said. The men who died were Matthew Fuller (October 14, 2009), Rueben Barnes (November 18, 2009), Marcus Wilson (November 21, 2009) and Mitchell Sweeney (February 4, 2010).

“In my view each death would, and should, not have occurred had the HIP been properly designed and implemented,”

[Source: http://theconversation.com/royal-commission-says-insulation-deaths-were-fault-of-the-governments-program-31113   ]

It is my contention that a Royal Commission is required to investigate the far larger death toll caused by breaching, especially the deaths that may have been triggered by the Howard Government’s alleged enforcement of illegal “performance Indicator targets”, i.e. Breaching Quotas; a humanitarian disaster that I refer to as “Quotagate”.

27-06--2000 Kernot

Skill certified

 When it comes to “giving you options”, the point to be learnt from Quotagate, Waivergate and Neil Skill’s infamous “Centrelink does not collect post breaching terminal outcomes statistics” statement, Centrelink’s  “options’ are very simple, i.e. “Do as we say or else you may die!”

  1. That viewpoint is not nut-case hype: Speaking on behalf of a welfare recipient at an Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing in 2014, I made the following statement:
  • In the 10-year period from 1st January 1997 until the 31st December 2006, there were 20,914 suicides; a significant percentage of which were unemployed people.It is not possible to state precisely how many were post breaching fatalities because Centrelink does not collect the data, the Federal Parliament has secretly classified the death toll as “confidential” and “irrelevant”… the Australian Federal Police has refused to investigate [these deaths] because of the “gravity/sensitivity”.
  • Please note that due to a calculation error, this statement incorrectly under-stated the true death toll which was 23,254.   
  • Approximately 1 in 3 suicides, i.e. about 7,700 of these people were unemployed at the time.
  • In all, the on-going death toll triggered by both unconstitutional, human rights violating breaching legislation and Centrelink’s  Waivergate scam may be in the range of 15,000 – 60,000 since welfare penalties were introduced decades ago.

As Stacie Mitchell said, “They need to stop stuffing people over” both with the fraudulent “Waivergate” scam and with the ‘king hit’ that is the ultimate in coward’s punches, i.e. the all to frequently lethal legislated breaching penalties.

BREACHING – THE ULTIMATE COWARD’S PUNCH.

Breaching is a lethal “Coward’s Punch” that violates not only Australia’s homicide laws,; this legislation violates international laws as set out in Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Court of Justice which is stated below:

Article 7 – Crimes against humanity.        

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

(a)     Murder;

(b)     Extermination;

(c)     Enslavement;

(d)     Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

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

(f)     Torture;

(g)     Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

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

(i)     Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j)     The crime of apartheid;

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

Note Article 7 (1) (k) above: “Other inhumane acts”.

  • Breaching is the targeted, legislated,  removal of the only means of subsistence, i.e. the dole, so that victims are unable to meet even the most basic costs of living.
  • No matter what justifications politicians, bureaucrats and members of the public may use to justify breaching penalties, they are, like apartheid, a crime against Humanity and when breached welfare recipients fail to survive this penalties, under Article 7 (1) (a), these fatalities are murders.

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

 Article 7 (2) (e) “Torture” means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions

THE MINDSET OF MURDER: Breaching takes the legal concept of murder to new heights of murderous intention. in murder cases, courts look at “the mindset of murder and consider 2 legal concepts, i.e. Reckless Disregard and Willful Intention. Both principles are in play when it comes to both breaching and disregarding the potentially lethal consequences of fraudulent, unconstitutional letters of demand.

Anyone who knows  Stacie Mitchell should ask how she felt when she first read Centrelink’s demand for the repayment of almost $800. Was she traumatized? Yes, she was.

  1. So what happens when the recipient is a person with severe depression who may be contemplating suicide?
  2. What happens when a person with acute hypertension or heart disease re4ceives such a letter?
  3. The risk of fatal; stroke or heart attack is very high and so a valid question to now consider is just how many of the 73,000 people who received that fraudulent notification from Centrelink are now prematurely deceased.
  4. It is not a case of “No harm, no foul”.
  5. What Centrelink did to 73,000 on January 1st 2016 may have been a very serious, deliberate violation of statute 142 of Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995), a federal law that deals with the criminal misuse and abuse of power by federal public servants. This law states:

‘Abuse of Power’ – s142 (1)(b)(i) & (ii) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.

 

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

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

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years

  1.  Even though they may have perceived their personal motives as ‘valid’, or even ‘noble’, any Australian Public Servants and/or Crown Law lawyers, and also any other persons who may have been involved in a fraudulent attempt to recover ‘Commonwealth error’ over-payments that should have been waived under s1,237 A of the Social Services Act, are persons involved in the commission of a crime.
  2. The question for 73,000 people to therefore give very serious consideration to is the question as to whether or not the bureaucrats who run Centrelink deliberately tried to defraud them.
  3. If it was a scam, then any fatalities triggered by this activity are homicides under state and territory laws, e.g s 279 (4) of the WA Crimes Act, s 302 (4) of the Queensland crimes act, and s 18 (1) of the New South Wales Crimes act.
  4. PLEASE NOTE: There is no Statute of Limitations in fraud cases that involve a homicide.

Readers of my Ronald’s space postings may want to dismiss what I write about as nut-case conspiracy theory hype. However, every document included in my postings is genuine, as are the case law and statute law references. I am quite sure that if people like Stacie Mitchell read these postings, they will understand from 1st hand experience that what I write about is very real and very traumatic.

The Linacre Letter is a letter of national significance for it provides insight into the mindset of senior public services who have the power to rape the civil rights of unsuspecting people. However, like the crime of sexual rape, having the power to rape people’s rights is not legal and those who engage such abuses of power need to held fully accountable for their actions and the consequences of their criminal misconduct.

As is clearly evident in the Federal Police document above, they will not touch these crimes with the proverbial “10 foot pole”. Regrettably, neither will the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman!

25-11-15 Redacted OCO

THE OMBUDSMAN – WELFARE RECIPIENTS NEED NOT APPLY.

The court decisions and statute laws, and many of the statements made in this series of “irrelevant” Crimes against  Humanity postings were clearly expressed in a detailed appeal to the Ombudsman’s Office. Readers should note that my submission, dated 12th November 2015, was received at the Adelaide office of the Ombudsman on 16th November 2016. The welfare recipient that I was assisting was immediately informed that because no new information had been received, the appeal was rejected.

What the officials at the Ombudsman’s Office did was to also ignore the High Court’s Hellicar and Bhardwaj decisions and runner-stamp a a legally invalid decision. Does the Ombudsman or his staff have the power to over-rule the constitution, statute laws, High Court and federal Courts and international conventions?

NO WAY!

But that is exactly what happened.

Read the newspapers or listen to TV news broadcasts and politicians constantly complain about the COST OF WELFARE. However, what they never do is talk about the core purpose of welfare, i.e. it is A SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE THAT ENABLES PEOPLE TO SURVIVE.

In 2014 tony Abbott tried to rush exceedingly dangerous legislation through the parliament that would have placed at risk the lives of tens of thousands of young Australians. When a senate committee rejected the legislation on human rights grounds, tony Abbott reported responded with the statement, “I am all in favour of rights. I am also in favour of the rights of taxpayers not to have their money abused”. 

If the report of Tony Abbott making that statement is true, then it would indicate that he apparently values money ahead of the lives of welfare recipients. If this is so, a report earlier this week that Tony Abbott still wants to become Prime Minister again should serve as a warning that ignoring the issues raised in the Ronald’s space postings could prove to be most unwise.

  1. 7-6-15 destituteAs John Howard’s Employment Minister, in the period 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001, Tony Abbott was responsible for unemployed people having their dole cut of 346,078 times.
  2. Each and every one of those breaches was a serious violation of civil rights. On 1st July 2009, Kevin Rudd introduced pre-breaching impact assessments and the number of breaches in FY 2009-10 dropped to 518.
  3. Tony Abbott responded to that massive reduction by accusing Kevin Rudd of being “soft” on dole bludgers.
  4. As I pointed out in my previous posting at http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-rM Centrelink violates South Australia’s Blackmail laws in statute 172 of the SA Criminal Law Consolidation Act with its ‘Do as we say or else’ threats to welfare recipients. 
  5. Accusing people of being rorters also violates South Australia’s criminal defamation laws in statutes 257 and 270 of the SA Criminal Law Consolidation Act.
  6. Does Australia really want a second dose of a politician who, apart from destroying out 100 year-old car manufacturing industry, may have violated the civil rights of a million or so welfare recipients and, thanks to both Centrelink and the Federal Police, may have successfully gotten away with being one of the primary factors in causing a substantial number of suicides that could be in the range of 2000,  to 3,500.
  7. If breaching triggered fatalities are homicides, shouldn’t we have an impartial investigation into those fatalities BEFORE the next federal election which is due in September 2016?

In closing, I leave you to consider this article about the response of a Federal Court judge to an attempt by the Federal Government to deport an 11-year girl who faced genital mutilation if deported. Note that the judge emphasized the court’s right to make the final decision about decisions made by the Minister of Immigration.

JUDGE Brown

“It would be deeply contemptuous of the systems of this country which has separations of powers”, said Justice Stuart Brown. That constitutional logic applies just as much to Acting Chief Legal Counsel, Alice Linacre and the Department of Human Services as it does to the Minister for Immigration and his legal counsel.

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.”

Whether it is breaching welfare recipients by turning off welfare payments, i.e. ‘breaching”, or sending out “Account payable” bills, Centrelink has never had the constitutional right to do so. However, like the bureaucrats in South Africa who enforced inhumane, human-rights violating apartheid laws with diligent or even enthusiastic zeal, Department of Human Services (Centrelink) bureaucrats do the same thing with the same degree of diligence and zeal. the fact that their actions make cause extreme hardship, suffering, and even death is not considered to be an issue as is the fact that what they are doing is unlawful.

You have been warned; take heed or, like the soon-to-be-unemployed-workers in Australia’s doomed car manufacturing industry, you may suffer the consequences of that failure to take action when action is required.

 COMPENSATION – On June 29th 2015, Joe Hockey scored a $200,000 payout for a “Treasurer for sale” tweet. Victims of the New year’s day Waivergate scam have 3 options:

  1. Like Joe Hockey, they can sue for damages. This is best done as a class legal action. (Hockey v Fairfax [FCA 652] 2015) See http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s4268652.htm for more details.
  2. You can file a criminal abuse of power complaint under s 142 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act against Centrelink with you state or territory police.
  3. I do do not recommend doing so with the Federal Police who, like their former counter-parts in South Africa, appear to believe that their job is protect politicians and bureaucrats who may have violated the civil rights of a targeted minority, i.e. welfare recipients.
  4. Again, this is best done as a class action involving a group of several people rather than on an individual basis.
  5. Write to Alice Linacre and demand an out-of-court compensation payment.
  6. In 2012, the Gillard government paid $50,000 to James Ashby for emotional stress allegedly caused by a sexual advance by the former speaker, Peter Slipper. ( Ashby v Commonwealth (No 4) [2012] (1411) )

When it comes to compensation for having been the victim of Centrelink’s unconstitutional “Account payable” swindle, the bottom line is that if you do nothing, you will get nothing.

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

 

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

Part 16: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity – How Centrelink letters violate Australian criminal laws

Given that over a period of several decades the civil rights of  somewhere between 3 to 5 million people on welfare have been violated by the Australian Federal Parliament, an unreported, “irrelevant”,  classified death toll of between 15,000 – 60,000 is relatively modest. This is especially so given that 1 in 5 Australians will suffer a mental health problem at some time in their lives and the highest percentage of people in this risk category are Centrelink clients. It is therefore very obvious that these people are very vulnerable to criminally reckless abuses of power by insensitive or  indifferent bureaucrats, or power-mad bureaucrats who are just plain ruthless in wielding their perceived powers.

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

At first glance the letter below seems to a routine, harmless letter from Centrelink but it is in fact both extremely dangerous and a breach of South Australia’s criminal laws.

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

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

 

Notice the last line, i.e. “If you do not contact us by 15 January 2016 your payments may be stopped.” Such threats to turn off welfare payments are stock standard on just about every letter that Centrelink sends to welfare recipients and yet these statements are violations of criminal laws for several reasons, one of which is s 172 of South Australia’s Criminal Law Consolidation Act (1935) which is shown below:

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.

As it clearly states in s 172 (2) above, The object of the demand is irrelevant.
THERFORE TAKE NOTE OF THIS
“The person who makes the demand may be seeking to influence the performance of a public duty.”

  1. “I was only doing my job” is not a valid defence in law for committing a crime, and in the case of the Centrelink letter above, the crime is BLACKMAIL .
  2. The purpose of the letter in this particular instance was to coerce the recipient of this letter into doing something that was “totally unnecessary.”
  3. In this instance, a person who was the partner of a welfare recipient who had filed a tax declaration form with an employer who had decided to employ them as a casual worker in the run up to Christmas and 3 months later Centrelink finally noticed that this person might be working.
  4. Upon phoning and getting the warning “For security, this call will be recorded”, the recipient of the letter finally got through to a real person who claimed that the letter was a “courtesy call” to remind the welfare recipient of their need to ensure that their partner reported income earnt.
  5. The Compliance Officer then launched into a spiel about how to report income which was interrupted by the recipient of the letter pointing out that the reporting of income earned had been going on for some time!
  6. Clearly, there had been no cross-checking to see if the reporting of income was taking place and this threatening, coercive letter was sent to both the employed welfare recipient and that person’s partner.
  7. The totality of the situation was that as a consequence of one welfare recipient obtaining a Christmas casual job, both that person and their partner were threatened with having their welfare payments cut off unless they did as they were told!

That was a totally unreal, criminal abuse of power by Centrelink!

It is possible that the real reason for the call was so that if a welfare recipient under-reported their income, then Centrelink’s recording of this call could provide the evidence needed to sustain a criminal prosecution.

  1. However, since the letter itself was in violation of the above law, any subsequent recording by Centrelink is “poisoned fruit”, i.e. “Evidence that has been improperly obtained” and it cannot be used in a criminal prosecution because s 138 of the Commonwealth Evidence Act states:
  2. 138 Discretion to exclude improperly or illegally obtained evidence             (1)  Evidence that was obtained:                     (a)  improperly or in contravention of an Australian law; or                     (b)  in consequence of an impropriety or of a contravention of an Australian law;is not to be admitted unless the desirability of admitting the evidence outweighs the undesirability of admitting evidence that has been obtained in the way in which the evidence was obtained.
  3. Any half-way competent lawyer who is made aware of the unlawful content of the letter that forced a welfare recipient to make the call in the first place, could seek to have the phone call recording stuck out as “poisoned fruit” evidence.

S 171 of the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act is about defining what is “Blackmail” and within these definitions are points of law that every welfare recipient in South Australia (and every Centrelink staff member) needs to know. Pay particular attention to the points that I have underlined as they are points of law that underline just how Centrelink is blackmailing vulnerable people with its “Do as we say or we’ll cut of the dole” threat. To a rich person, being deprived of the dole is not a threat, but to a person who relies upon the dole for subsistence payments, i.e. to survive, any threat to cut of the dole is a real and tangible threat that has to be taken seriously because, despite the known, classified, death toll, Centrelink does this many thousands of times each year:

Part 6B—Blackmail 171—Interpretation

(1)    In this Part—

demand includes an implied demand;

harm means

     (a)    physical or mental harm (including humiliation or serious embarrassment); or

    (b)    harm to a person’s property (including economic harm);

menacea person who makes a threat menaces the person to whom the threat is addressed (the victim) if—

     (a)    the threat is a threat of harm to the victim or a third person (to be inflicted by the person making the threat or someone else); and

    (b)    the threat is unwarranted; and

     (c)     either—

     (i)     the threat would be taken seriously by a reasonable person of normal stability and courage; or

    (ii)     the victim in fact takes the threat seriously because of a particular vulnerability known to the person making the threat;

serious offence means an offence punishable by imprisonment;

threat includes an implied threat but, unless the threat is a threat of violence, does not include a threat made in the course of, or incidentally to—

     (a)    collective bargaining; or

    (b)    negotiations to secure a political or industrial advantage;

unwarranted—a threat is unwarranted if—

     (a)    the carrying out of the threat would (if it were carried out in the State) constitute a serious offence; or

    (b)    the making of the threat is, in the circumstances in which it is made—

     (i)     improper according to the standards of ordinary people; and

    (ii)     known by the person making the threat to be improper according to the standards of ordinary people.

    (2)    The question whether a defendant’s conduct was improper according to the standards of ordinary people is a question of fact to be decided according to the jury’s own knowledge and experience and not on the basis of evidence of those standards.

NOTE (2) above about a jury deciding if the threat was “improper” by their standards”. Part of the problem is that with Centrelink not reporting the death toll caused by breaching and unconstitutional debt recovery actions, most people do not realize that is a practice that violates legal and civil rights and in doing so, kills people.

If you are a welfare recipient, part of your “defence system” is to promote your rights and in order to do that, you have to know them, so here are some of the important rights that you need to know in order to survive in a toxic society that does not approve of “dole bludgers”.

CENTRELINK VIOLATIONS OF YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS

The statement “…your payments may be stopped” is a serious violation of a number of your civil rights under:

  1. Paragraph 51 (xxiii)(A) of the constitution which requires the federal parliament to make laws “For the provision” of a welfare benefit to a range of needy people.
  2. Article 1.2 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR) which is contained in Schedule 2 of the (Australia) Human Rights Act (1986), i.e. the prohibits depriving people of what may be their only means of subsistence.
  3. Since the purpose of welfare payments is to allow impoverished (unemployed) people  to subsist, clearly depriving a needy person of this subsistence allowance is an act of criminal negligence that endangers life.
  4. Endangering life, or depriving people of life by deliberately withholding a subsistence payment, is totally inconsistent with Article 6 (1)  which states “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”
  5. Article 9 of the International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the ICESCR) which requires signatory parties, e.g. the Commonwealth of Australia, to provide social security to needy people.
  6. Article 11 of the ICESCR which states: Article 11 (1). “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.
  7. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.”
  8. “(2) The States Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed:”

THE MINDSET OF MURDER.

When it comes to crimes that deal with what the Courts call “The mindset of Murder”, the simplest explanation of this was provided by an English Royal Commission in 1839, i.e. “It is the placing of life in peril that constitutes the crime.”

  1. Australian courts, including the High Court, use this definition when determining whether a murder was a willful intent murder or a murder caused by reckless indifference to the consequences of a dangerous act.
  2. In R v Faure, [1999] VSCA 166 (24 September 1999), an appeal before the Victorian Supreme Court, Justice Brooking stated that:

“His Honour distinguished wilful murder from reckless murder – understandably, those expressions were not used – by telling the jury, by way of modification of what might be called the usual definition of murder given to juries, that there were two different intents, either of which would, in conjunction with the other elements of the crime, constitute the crime of murder. The first was the intent either to kill or to do really serious injury and the second was the knowledge that it was probable that death or really serious injury would result from the act done.”

The power  within Centrelink’s “cut of your payments” threat is that the target of the threat faces being left totally destitute with no means to survive! That is a very dangerous threat and, given the number of times it has been carried and the serious economic “injury” or economic “harm” caused, it is a dangerous threat that is totally at odds with the Commonwealth’s international human rights obligations.

Anyone care to explain that?

It is also a very dangerous threat because Centrelink does not monitor the harm caused by the implementation of this threat, as the 2 following examples reveal:

EXAMPLE #1 – Essential Services shut down

The following text comes from page 38 of the Hansard Minutes for the Community Affairs Legislation Committee (the CALC) on 26th February 2015:

Senator SIEWERT: That would be much appreciated. I have one last area of questions. Do you keep any records on the number of people on Newstart or DSP, the various allowances, who are disconnected from essential services like energy? Do you keep any records, or is there any way of knowing the number of people who are disconnected? Anecdotally I am getting a lot of reports of people having their energy disconnected.

Ms Campbell: We do not capture that information.

  1. “We do not capture that information” sums up Centrelink’s attitude to cutting of the Dole, i.e. they do not care about the harmful consequences of their actions.
  2. In law, this is known as a “Reckless indifference” to the harm caused by unlawful or dangerous actions.
  3. The following extract comes from page 2 of The Sunday Mail (20th December 2015)

20-12-15 Sunday Mail no electricity

  1. This is an unusual example but it illustrates how a lack of power can easily kill someone. However, willfully cutting off power is exceedingly dangerous as these extracts from an on-line new article reveal:
  2. MORE than 10,000 households had their power disconnected after failing to pay their bills – the highest cut-off rate in almost a decade. [12,000 in 2003]Figures released by the industry regulator yesterday showed that 10,100 homes lost power in the 12 months to July, compared to 7300 the previous financial year.

    Soaring power prices are being blamed for this 38 per cent spike in disconnections, with welfare groups reporting those on fixed incomes suffering the most – including one man who had to resort to cooking his meals over a  wood fire in his back-yard  for six months after being disconnected. Welfare agency Anglicare said it had reports of disconnected households commonly using candles for lighting, heating rooms with  barbecues – and keeping perishables such as milk and butter in Eskies.

    Welfare agency financial counsellor Ian Small said the rise in electricity prices – which jumped $319 on average last financial year – was to blame for the increasing number of people “we see who are suffering stress with  their power bills” …”It is a really deep social concern that so many people are being cut off and having to live without electricity because it’s a health hazard,” Mr Small said.

  3. The reason why “Essential Services” are essential services is very simple; as Ian Small stated above, “…having to live without electricity is a health hazard.”
  4. What we have is a serious case of FORWARD TO THE DARK AGES, A  THIRD WORLD MINDSET when bureaucrats and politicians on $200K a year salaries deliberately leave impoverished people without life preserving essential services.
  5. Such shoddy administration actively violates the right of all people, especially the poor,  “to participate in society”- so much for human rights compliance by the Commonwealth of Australia!

From the real-world human impact end of these unconstitutional, human rights violating welfare penalties is a “Willful Intent” to violate the rights of welfare recipients with an very obvious “We don’t don’t care two hoots about our obligations and the consequences of our actions” attitude that is probably a violation of the Mindset of Murder “reckless indifference” principle, a fact made even more obvious by the letter below:

EXAMPLE NUMBER 2 – The infamous “Centrelink does not collect…” letter.

Neil Skill 300dpi copy

 

 

 

This letter, written just 3 months after the last of the 4 Home Improvement program fatalities, is indisputible, irrefutable  documentary evidence that  Centrelink does not care whether impoverished welfare recipients live or die when they are unconstitutionally deprived of what may be their only means of surviving and so I repeat what stated in example #1:

  • In law, this callous disregard for the lethal consequences of knowingly placing life in peril is known as a “Reckless indifference” to the KNOWN HARM caused by unlawful, unconstitutional welfare penalties.
  • What you definitely have is a “Willful Intent” to violate the rights of welfare recipients with a “We don’t don’t care two hoots about the consequences of our actions” attitude that is probably a violation of the “reckless indifference” principle, even if fatalities did not occur.
  • If people die when the dole is turned off, that saves taxpayers money, and for some politicians, e.g. saving taxpayers money is more important that protecting the lives of vulnerable people.
  • Consider the above comment in a real-world context: After the senate’s Joint Party Committee on Human Rights rejected legislation that was intended to deprive young people of a welfare allowance for 6 months, Tony Abbott reportedly ‘spat-the-dummy’ with the comment I am all in favour of rights. I am also in favour of the rights of taxpayers not to have their money abused”. 
  • Source: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/governments-learn-or-earn-policy-may-breach-human-rights-warns-parliamentary-committee-20140929-10nus9.html

A FACT OF LAW: ANY CENTRELINK LETTER THAT THREATENS TO CUT OF WELFARE PAYMENTS IS VIOLATING BOTH CRIMINAL LAWS AND YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS.

In case you did not quite get that point, here it is again in smaller chunks:

  1. ANY CENTRELINK LETTER
  2. THAT THREATENS TO CUT OF WELFARE PAYMENTS
  3. IS VIOLATING BOTH CRIMINAL LAWS
  4. AND YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS.

When dealing with Centrelink bureaucrats who may believe that if Centrelink does it, then it must be OKAY, you need to read the last posting.

How do you deal with such pig-headed stubbornness? Do as I do, file a complaint and demand that Centrelink respect your rights.

If you live in another state or territory, GOOGLE your state’s crimes act and download it. Look for words such as:

  1. blackmail;
  2. menace;
  3. threaten;
  4. coerce;
  5. intimidate;
  6. harm;
  7. injury,
  8. economic harm;
  9. economic injury,
  10. abuse;
  11. abuse of public office.

Know your rights and when Centrelink or a job search assistance ‘case manager’ violates those rights, demand an explanation and if you are not happy, file a complaint, although you need to be aware that this can also be an exercise in futility as my next posting will reveal.

Think about this statement which was made by Francis Neale, co-chair of the International Bar Association’s Rule of Law Action Group  in July 2009

 “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.”

Apartheid in South Africa and Breaching  in Australia are 2 sides of the same coin, i.e. they are both Crimes against Humanity. The only difference is whilst apartheid has been (offically)  abolished in South Africa, its conjoined twin, Breaching, is flourishing in Australia.

Ronald Medlicott – A Christian advocate for  Justice in Australia.

 

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

Part 15: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. The Mindset of Murder – real-world insight into the bureaucratic mindset of Centrelink staff.

Why is the classified death toll from Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against Humanity so high? Given that one breaching or debt recovery triggered death is one too many, how is it possible that these supposedly “irrelevant” deaths may be cumulatively numbered in the thousands over the last 40 years? Perhaps the real-world example below from my diary notes about dealing with Centrelink staff yesterday can provide insight into what the legal profession and the Courts call the “Mindset of Murder.”

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

What you are about to read are my actual (electronic) diary notes and it is my recommendation that if you must you deal with Centrelink, that you keep accurate records, including your own diary notes which a Court may allow as either evidence or as a memory prompt during a trial.  Please note that I have <redacted> people’s names so as to protect the privacy of the welfare recipient who I was assisting. In addition, I have underlined some text below to draw attention to key issues or significant points of law.

POST-REPORTING COMMENTS

 At approximately 10.15 AM on 21st December 2015, I was interviewed by a Centrelink Customer service Assistant named <Redacted>.

 The documents on pages 1 to 4 of this document were provided to <Redacted> along with a letter of authority to act on <Redacted>’s behalf and copies of <Redacted>’s  pay slips that had been downloaded from the employer’s payroll office.

  1. Relevant details on the three pay slips, i.e. pay period and gross pay, were highlighted with a yellow highlighting pen.
  2. The Centrelink Customer service Assistant, <Redacted>, processed the information and apparently amended <Redacted>’s record and informed me that payments would be adjusted accordingly.
  3. The Centrelink Customer service Assistant unstapled and (digitally) copied some of the information provided, i.e. pay slips and pages 1 and 2 of ’s letter.
  4. I requested that a receipt be provided and also asked that the 4th page of the welfare recipient’s letter be stamped with the Centrelink stamp to certify the information provided.Centrelink stamp

 The Centrelink Customer Service Assistant, <Redacted>, declined to do and sought advice from his supervisor, <Redacted>.

  1. The supervisor,<Redacted>, also declined to stamp the document stating that it was “only for use on internal documents that Centrelink keeps.”

 I pointed out that I was involved in an appeals case that involved Centrelink failing to provide a phone call recording  in an Appeals case .

  1. That statement implied that Centrelink was involved in the commission of a crime for the purpose of obtaining a financial benefit that was not entitled to be received. It was therefore to all intents and purposes a fraud report made to a Centrelink supervisor in the presence of a subordinate Centrelink employee, i.e. the Centrelink Customer Service Assistant, <Redacted>.
  2. The supervisor, <Redacted> repeated refused to hear details of this alleged criminal misconduct, stating of several cases that it was a legal matter for me and she did not need to know about it.
  3. Any reasonable person who was privy to that conversation would have been aware that <Redacted> was perceiving the issue of my request from Centrelink’s administrative perspective and was being most adamant in not wanting to know about systemic issues within Centrelink that reflected badly upon that organization.
  4. Whilst such corporate loyalty is commendable, paragraph 5 of the constitution clearly states that “the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding upon the Courts, judges, and the people” of Australia.
  5. That constitutional imperative means that the moment that I raised the issue of Centrelink withholding evidence in a tort dispute, i.e. the withholding of a phone call recording, <Redacted> was in violation of the constitution because s 142 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995) and s149 are serious crimes and <Redacted>’s ‘Don’t tell me, I don’t want to know’ approach to dealing with the serious allegation raised may in itself constitute a matter for a court to consider.
  • Abuse of Power’ – s142 (1)(b)(i) & (ii) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act.

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

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

Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years

 Division 149 Obstruction of Commonwealth Public Officials

149.1 – Obstruction of Commonwealth Public Officials

 A person is guilty of an offence if:

  • The person knows that another person is a public official; and
  • The fist mentioned person obstructs, hinders, intimidates or resists the official in the performance of the official’s functions; and
  • The official is a Commonwealth public official; and
  • The functions are functions as a Commonwealth public official.

 Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

  1. As the above statutes make very clear, these are very serious crimes and as a Commonwealth public official, once I made the statement that Centrelink was withholding evidence, i.e. a phone call recording, in a tort action, at the very least, <Redacted> should have moved the conversation to an office for privacy as another welfare recipient at the desk alongside <Redacted>’s workstation was well within hearing distance of this conversation, a fact that caused me some significant concern.

Since the allegations involve Centrelink officials, I consider that <Redacted>’s actions were consistent with those of a Centrelink staff member acting to protect the reputation of her employer rather than that of public servant acting impartially and her actions call to mind Justice Jarvis’s speech to the Law Society of South Australia 16 March 2007 in which he stated:

 However, in a number of recent appeals from decisions of the Tribunal where the issue of apprehended bias has been raised, the Federal Court has applied the same test that is used where the issue arises in a court,[1] that is, whether the relevant circumstances are such that a fair-minded and informed person might reasonably apprehend that the decision-maker might not bring or have brought an impartial mind to bear on the decision.[2]

  1. The purpose of the Australian Public Service is to serve the public and it is totally inappropriate that any public servants abuse that power to protect their organization, or members of that organization, for the purpose of concealing unlawful activity.
  2. Surely, that is why statutes such as s142 and s 149 exist?
  3. It is my considered opinion that <Redacted>’s actions were inappropriate, both in terms of service to a member of the public, and also in the possibly that her conduct was inconsistent with her constitutional and statutory obligations.
  4. The possibility that <Redacted>’s conduct was unlawfully inappropriate is in itself totally consistent with the conduct of Centrelink in its tortuous conduct against welfare recipients because Centrelink has no jurisdiction to determine the primary facts of matter in all tortuous conduct actions against welfare recipients, a matter of fact made quite clear in paragraphs 141 and 143 of the High Court’s Hellicar decision and the high Court’s Bhardwaj decision at paragraph 53.
  1. In 2002 the Australian High Court ruled at 53 in Minister for Immigration & Cultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] 209 CLR 597, that,

 “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.”

 In 2012 the High Court ruled in ASIC v Hellicar at paragraph 141 the Court ruled,

“…that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred.”

 At 143 in this case the Court also ruled,

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

 Centrelink has no jurisdiction to determine the primary facts of the matter in either a breach action or a claim for the recovery of overpayments. As these two High Court decisions make very clear, it is a matter for the courts to determine the primary facts of the matter in these disputes and lacking jurisdiction to make such decisions, there is no decision, a fact of law that applies to EVERY BREACH AND EVERY OVERPAYMENT RECOVERY ACTION EVER MADE BY THE DSS OR CENTRELINK EVER SINCE THE VERY 1ST SUCH ACTION TOOK PLACE.

  1. These two decisions are similar in nature to the High Court’s Keating decision in May 2013, a decision that invalidated some 15,000 prosecutions made on behalf of Centrelink by the DPP.
  2. Bhardwaj and Hellicar pull the plug on literally millions of decisions involving tens of billions of dollars and, sadly, the possibility of literally thousands of officially “irrelevant” breaching and debt recovery actions triggered fatalities that are currently the subject of a secret Senate “confidential” classification.
  3. (And quite possibly, one or more secret national Security Directive notices that are intended to conceal from the world, especially the United Nations Human Rights Commission, a politically motivated and driven humanitarian disaster of holocaust proportions.)

FOOTNOTES to Justice Jarvis “Apprehended Bias” comments:

These footnotes were in Justice Jarvis’s written copy of his speech to the South Australian Law Society on March 16th 2007 comments. They are case law precedents for the legal issue of “Apprehended Bias”, a procedural fairness issue considered so important that even though Dr. Jayant Patel reported killed 87 of his patients and seriously harmed another 106, today he is a free man. The point that I am making here is that even someone who may have caused many deaths can go free if the dreaded “Apprehended Bias” occurs in the judicial process.

  1. With the Federal Police refusing to investigate hundreds of federal politicians who may have rorted literally millions of dollars, any welfare recipient charged with ripping off Centrelink can mount an “Apprehended Bias” defence and seek to have the case thrown out of court.
  2. This not only applies to welfare recipients; in Queensland there is outrage that Gerard Baden-Clay has had his conviction down-graded from murder to manslaughter, but if he uses the information that I have been posting on this website since 1st July 2012, he may even be able to have that conviction over-turned on the grounds of apprehended bias or manifest ostensible bias.
  3. Is that true or Ronald’s space hog-wash?
  4. Check out the 1st September 2005 findings in Leck v Morris & Ors; Keating v Morris & Ors, {2005] QSC 243.
  5. You can download the Queensland Supreme Court findings at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/qld/QSC/2005/243.html
  6. My advice to people in Queensland who are calling for the State Attorney-General to appeal the recent Baden-Clay decision in the High Court is to think about both Dr. Patel’s successful High Court challenge and to then think about all of the information that I have posted on this website, (and in my Yadnarie12 YouTube postings) before pushing for a High Court appeal.
  7. they should keep in mind that in an AAT “trial” last year I really did say that “In the 10-year period from 1st January 1997 until the 31st December 2006, there were 20,914 suicides; a significant percentage of which were unemployed people.It is not possible to state precisely how many were post breaching fatalities because Centrelink does not collect the data, the Federal Parliament has secretly classified the death toll as “confidential” and “irrelevant”… the Australian Federal Police has refused to investigate [these deaths] because of the “gravity/sensitivity”.
  8. JUDGE JARVIS’ FOOTNOTES:

[1]         See for example, Wade v Comcare (2002) 69 ALD 602; Le v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1530; Young v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services (2003) 76 ALD 118; NADH of 2001 & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 214 ALR 264; and Peters v Administrative Appeals Tribunal (2005) 144 FCR 417.

[2]         Webb v R (1994) 181 CLR 41 at 70-1 and Laws v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 170 CLR 70 at 91-2. In an article by Hayley Katzen, ‘Procedural Fairness and Specialist Members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal’ (1995) 2 Australian Journal of Administrative Law 169, the author refers to an “unacknowledged distinction” in the formulation of the test used in these two High Court cases, but I have been unable to find a case involving the Tribunal since that article was published where any such distinction has been recognised. That is not to say that the application of the test in a particular case should not take into account that the proceedings are being conducted by the Tribunal and not by a Court: see eg Wade v Comcare (2002) 69 ALD 602 at [40] and [41], in the context of apprehended bias arising from dialogue between a deputy president and an unrepresented party.

END POINTS:

The mindset of murder is set out in cases such as R v Faure and R v Boughey. (R is code for “The Queen” who is the titular head of state in Australia and is therefore the figurehead of Crown Law.) Breaching is the targeted removal of what may be the only means by which a welfare recipient can survive. In paragraphs 28 & 29 of the Faure case decision,

  1. Justice Brooking pointed out that in murder, it is the placing of life in peril. breaching, is about depriving people of their ability to to meet the basic cost of living.
  2. Logically, if a person cannot do this, they could easily die.
  3. In the Boughey case, which involved a doctor allegedly strangling a woman to death during sexual intercourse, the Court was of the view that because of his expertise, Dr. Boughey should have known that strangling someone could cause their death.
  4. In 2013, Justice Kerr, the President of the AAT gave a speech to the Australian Institute of Administrative Lawyers in which he described lawyers as people who have “privileged expertise.”
  5. By applying the “privileged expertise” logic used by Justice Gibbs in the Boughey case, it is not unreasonable to consider that the many lawyers in the federal parliament who created the potentially lethal, unconstitutional and human rights violating breaching laws, KNEW precisely what they were doing,
  6. Knowing that breaching was both unconstitutional and downright dangerous, they still passed these laws!
  7. When welfare recipients died and people like myself drew the attention of politicians to these fatalities, they responded by either secretly classifying these fatalities as :”confidential, or worst still, as “irrelevant”.
  8. I repeat my warning to people in Queensland who, outraged at the murder of Allison Baden-Clay, want the recent Baden-Clay decision challenged in the High Court, DON’T DO IT UNLESS YOU WANT GERARD BADEN-CLAY TO GET OUT OF JAIL!
  9. I also advise people in Queensland who, outraged at the murder of Daniel Morcombe, want the recent Baden-Clay decision challenged in the High Court, DON’T DO IT IF YOU WANT BRETT COWAN TO GET OUT OF JAIL!
  10. Read this and then put it in the context of a classified death toll that may be in the range of 15,000 – 60,000 fatalities over the last 40 years:
  11. After the Auditor-Generalworked out that 144 federal MPs had ripped off the "Entitlements Fund" to the tune of $4.64 MILLION, the Federal Police again refused to investigate citing almost the same legally invalid reasons as in 2004.

    After the Auditor-General worked out that 144 federal MPs had ripped off the “Entitlements Fund” to the tune of $4.64 MILLION, the Federal Police again refused to investigate citing almost the same legally invalid reasons as in 2004.

    July 04 denley letter page 1

The attitude of the Federal Police in the above communications is essentially, “To hell with the constitution and the law!”

  1. The above documents reveal that when it comes to paragraph 5 of the constitution, i.e. “…the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, judges and the people”, the AFP believe that this only applies to others, not to themselves ort to privileged people under their ‘protection.
  2. It appears that as far as the AFP is concerned, welfare recipients are ‘dole bludgers’ and that makes them ‘life unworthy of life’ and if Centrelink is knocking them off by the thousands by cutting off their dole, then that is okay with the AFP.
  3. As for politicians ripping off millions of dollars in taxpayers money, it appears to be a case of “Who cares what they do” as far as the AFP is concerned?

Will all readers of this posting please note, I care.

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

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

Part 14: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity. How many Australia’s will die because of John Howard false “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” claim?

17-12-15 ISIS CartoonHow many Australia’s will ultimately die because of John Howard’s false claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction? The 1st anniversary of the Lindt Cafe attack is a sobering reminder of just how dangerously irresponsible was the illegal invasion of Iraq. Sadly, the more recent murder of Victor Chang is yet another salient reminder of the lethal idiocy that underpinned Gulf War 2.

[ NOTE: the short link URL for this posting is:   http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-rh   ]

The Islamic State ‘Death’ above cartoon was on page 13 of the Adelaide newspaper, The Advertiser, on December 17th 2015. It graphically  underscores just how ill-considered was the illegal “Shock and Awe” invasion of Iraq in March 2013. The foreseeable  ‘big-picture‘ long term consequences  of this illegal military action were clearly not on the agenda for John Howard when he made the following statement at the  National Press Club in Canberra on March 13th 2013.

John Howard told his attentive mass media audience:

“In our view if the world fails to deal once and for all with the problem of Iraq and its possession of weapons of mass destruction it will have given a green light to the further proliferation of these weapons and it will undo 30 years of hard international work, including by Australia, which has been designed to enforce not only conventions on chemical weapons but also the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

Source: http://australianpolitics.com/2003/03/13/john-howard-iraq-speech-npc.html

The fatally lethal flaw in John Howard’s politically motivated view of issues was that whilst he may have believed his own hype that “Iraq had weapons of mass destruction”, the reality was that the people who were telling him that they no longer existed were in fact quite correct! Because he believed what he wanted to believe instead of believing the impartial truth, he helped to “father” the rise and rise of the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization, i.e. Islamic State, an organization that is prepared to kill anyone, anywhere in the world, in order to establish an internationally recognized Islamic State!

As a nation, we Australians went along with that false perception and failed to ensure that the claims of John Howard, a politician who had fooled the national electorate with “non-core promises’ and the deceitful “Children overboard” scam, should not have been placed ahead of the counter-claims by independent United Nations weapons inspectors and the assessments of both the Federal Police and a senior military analyst, Lieutenant-Colonel Andrew Wilkie. Both Commissioner Mick Keelty and Colonel Wilkie had refuted John Howard’s claim about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.

In 2003, the popularity of John Howard was not exactly high and so he needed to come up with something that would persuade Australian voters  to support his government. In Great Britain, Maggie Thatcher had been ‘on-the-nose’ with British voters until Argentine invaded the Falkland Islands. Winning the Falkland Islands war with Argentina made Mrs Thatcher immensely popular for a while and the temptation for George Bush 2nd, Tony Blair, and John Howard for a repeat performance must have been enormous at the time. The only problem was that there was no legitimate reason to gang up and invade Iraq. The solution was simple; create a reason by convincing the gullible public that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

That ploy worked in the short-term but in the longer term it was an absolute disaster. Check out CNN’s “Shock and Awe” video footage of the bombing of Iraq.

Whilst many people who saw that footage on TV or watched it on YouTube cheered as each massive explosion ripped apart buildings, few gave any thought to the innocent civilians, i.e. men, women and children, who were blasted to pieces in those massive explosions.

Who cared about what was happening?

I put it to you that around the world, the families and friends of those being slaughtered in this illegal invasion of Iraq cared. Many others who cared, perhaps a third of the world’s population, were  people of Muslim faith who watched on in absolute horror as Iraqi civilians were literally vaporized in the high-tech bombardment of Iraq’s major cities.

In a very real sense, “Shock and Awe” worked, but not in the way that the military planners and politicians had planned. Yes, there most certainly was ‘shock and awe’, but there was also world-wide anger at the brutal slaughter that was occurring and this was a major factor that had not been given adequate consideration. Ever since the 7th century, Christians and Muslim have waged war against each other and all the March 2003 invasion did was to re-ignite this war.

The Bible warns Christians to “Test everything and only keep what is good”. (1st Thessalonians 5:21) Unfortunately, perhaps because Australia’s Christian community kept quiet, other Australians also kept quiet and so the seeds of destruction were sown by politicians and gunge-ho soldiers who were all to keen to push their own agendas with little or no thought for the long term consequences of their actions.

How many people have died because of the false claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?  Truth is the first casualty of war; if you check out various website the estimates vary from 151,000 to over 1 million, e.g. Wiki website https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Iraq_Body_Count_project

Perhaps for Australians the most relevant question now is not how many have died, but rather, how many more WILL DIE IN THE FUTURE?

On Saturday night I was appalled to hear an ABC news broadcast in which the Australian Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, make the statement that although President Assad of Syria had committed atrocities, the bigger issues was ensuring peace.

Ironically, Sunday’s Daily Bread devotional reading started with the statement “PAX ROMANA”: “No one can afford the price of war…We want peace, but not at the expense of justice.”

Peace at any cost is not peace, it is merely delaying the inevitable.

The really alarming thing about the Islamic State cartoon at the start of this posting is that John Howard claimed that invading Iraq was essential for long-term peace and stability. However, by failing to look at the much bigger picture, the fact that one-third of the world is Muslim and the have within this multitude unnumbered people of faith who are prepared to die for their faith. The illegal invasion of Iraq was the “green light” for igniting the righteous passion of those who see Christians as being worthy of only having their heads cut off!  Instead of creating peace, the invasion of Iraq “green-lighted” the proliferation of total anarchy, something that Islamic State has repeatedly demonstrated unparalleled levels of competency in achieving.

Instead of lasting peace, thanks to yet another power-seeking gang of self-serving politicians, we have kick started  a 1,500-year-old war, a war without end, that is being fought in cafes, theatres, workplaces, shops, hotels and  streets around the world! Through the medium of Internet radicalization, it is even being fought in our homes because in 2011, the Gillard government puts the risks posed to children by the Internet in the ‘too-hard’ basket when it set up the Media Convergence Review. In retrospect, that decision seems unbelievable, but that is precisely what happened.

A serious question for the inquest into the death of Curtis Chang is the role played by the Internet in causing his death. The Internet is the most powerful influence upon young people today and the failure to think of the dangers posed by the Internet was a monumental political  blunder.

2016 is an election year in Australia, a fact that voters should not forget the next time they see or hear of yet another Islamic State terrorist attack. We need to do this because the deaths of Tori Johnson, Katrina Dawson and  Curtis Chang may well be insignificant compared to the death toll from shooting down a Qantas A380 Airbus over Sydney or Melbourne or a Paris style slaughter in the Sydney opera house or at an AFL football match.

The moral of this posting is simple, even if you do not care about your own life, please make an effort consider others when you vote in the 2016 federal election. You need to open your eyes to the reality of ‘non-core’ promises and the horrific legacy of “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.”

In the very dangerous times that lie ahead of our nation, we need something that is in very short supply amongst Australia’s politicians;

GENUINE INTEGRITY. What we most definitely do not need is politicians who believe that sacrificing justice for peace is okay.  It is not!

The very painful, lethal lesson to be learnt from the falsity of John Howard’s “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” speech is that when we sacrifice freedom for security,we wind up getting neither and are far worse off than in the beginning.

Ultimately, we are responsible for the illegal invasion of Iraq because, as a nation,  we chose to believe lies of a politician with a deeply rutted track record for not telling the truth. We were idiots to do so, and now we are paying a terrible price! What really frightens me is that this toxic attitude of complacency has the potential to only make things worse. Having a “last-mile-copper-wire” national broadband network that is 20 years behind modern countries like Japan with its Petabit/sec broadband-backbone network is one thing; having politicians who believe their own lies and as a direct result, Australians wind up being killed on a random basis; THAT IS A WHOLE NEW BALLGAME!

We need far better politicians that we are currently paying for so in the next election, forget the deceitful political hype, look at the real-world track record of our nation’s major political parties on issues such as personal safety, job security, health and welfare.

Once you have done that, to plagiarize an old Indiana Jones movie,

“CHOSE WISELY.”

Ronald Medlicott – Lay Christian advocate for justice in Australia.

FOOTNOTE.

  • The following advice comes from paragraph 14.1.1 of the Commissioner Ian Hanger’s report into the Home Improvement program disaster. It is advice that every voter in Australia should give serious consideration too.
  • “14.1.1 The APS ought to brief Ministers on the risks inherent in a recommended approach or advise on how the proposed approach might contain faults in the design or otherwise fail to work.
  • Such a concerted focus on assessing the negatives associated with a proposal is a core component of the modes of thinking promoted by Edward De Bono—he refers to this manner of thinking as ‘black hat’ thinking, and asserts that it should never be seen as an attempt to be obstructionist or argumentative, but instead should be seen as an opportunity to consider negative elements alongside the positives, and to make a decision informed by the balance of each.
  • As a practical measure, there should be a requirement to provide advice of this nature to Ministers at the same time as presenting a brief or proposal for a Minister’s consideration.
  • This could be done by including a section in the briefing template which requires the author to air risks relevant to the proposal (a ‘devil’s advocate’ section)—this would provide Ministers with an opportunity to make decisions fully informed about the implications and consequences thereof.
  • Officers must be supported to engage with personal risk when giving advice, rather than to remain complicit with a particular approach thought to be favoured by the Minister or a political adviser.
  • Senior officials must likewise satisfy themselves that advice concerning risks is accurate, independent, and comprehensive.
  • Additionally, advice on risk, whether delivered in a written submission or verbally, should not be pitched at such a high level that it is impossible for the Minister to discern real tangible risks ther Ministers and their advisers must not, by subtle suggestion or otherwise, dictate what advice they receive.

 In 14.1.1 Commissioner Hanger was stressing a clearly identified aspect of public service duty, i.e. “Senior officials must likewise satisfy themselves that advice concerning risks is accurate, independent, and comprehensive”. At this level, advice must be impartial and provide real risk assessments so that a Minister is in a position to make informed judgements.

This did not happen in 2003 when military leaders told the Howard Government what it wanted to hear rather than what it needed to hear. Sadly, public servants are unlikely to heed Commissioner Hanger’s advice until we have the sense to elect politicians who really do want to hear the truth.

(Did I just see a squadron of pigs fly overhead?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Part 13: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against humanity:- Bastardizing the Briginshaw Principle

The Australia Parliament and several federal agencies, including the Federal Police and Centrelink, have been bastardizing the Briginshaw Principle for years.This principle based is upon: Briginshaw  v  Briginshaw  [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 (30 June 1938). The principle is based upon the legal concept that if there could be serious consequences for a person accused of a wrongful act, then EXTREME CAUTION should be applied and no decision made unless there was absolutely no doubt, i.e. ZERO DOUBT, that the right decision is being made.

[Note: the short link for this URL is: http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-r4   ]

When it comes to unconstitutional actions like breaching and automatically deciding that if welfare recipients have been over-paid, then it is definitely THEIR FAULT because they must have done something wrong in order to get these over-payments. The idea that the system itself is extremely dysfunctional is simply not on their radar, because that would mean admitted having made a $5 Billion blunder and there is huge shortage of politicians and bureaucrats who would be prepared to do that.

  1. This sought of justice is a joke because it is a gross, unconstitutional injustice, but it is also much more than that:
  2. It violates the Briginshaw Principle by placing lives in danger.
  3. What really sucks is that the Centrelink bureaucrats know this!
  4. In 1998, the National Health Priority Areas report – Mental Health, revealed that more people die a violent death from suicice than from all other forms of violent death, e.g. car accident, murder, drowning, eaten by a shark, et cetera.
  5. This report identified in very clear terms the potentially lethal dangers posed by unconstitutional over-payment recovery actions by Centrelink  against welfare recipients with mental health problems.
  6. Here are some points from the 1998 report which used suicide statistics data dating back to 1990 and earlier.:

Suicide (page 23)

Suicide is a leading cause of death in Australia, resulting in a total of 2,393 deaths (1,931 males, 462 females) in 1996. Since 1990, suicides have exceeded road injury deaths and have been the leading cause of death due to injury in Australia (DHFS& AIHW 1998a).

 Several known factors can, under certain circumstances, contribute to a person attempting suicide. Mental disorder, and specifically Depression, consistently emerges as the largest single risk factor for suicide and suicidal behaviour (Patton et al 1997). It is estimated that about 88 per cent of people who died from suicide suffered from a diagnosable mental disorder at the time of their death (Henriksson et al 1993). People with a history of mental disorder are 10 times more at risk of dying from suicide compared to the general population (Gunnel & Frankel 1994).

The following data from the report described the symptoms of Depression. People suffering from this disease can easily be mistake for “dole bludgers”, a bigoted viewpoint that can be harmful or even lethal to a person with Depression.

Box 2.1: DSM-IV major depressive symptoms (Chapter 2, page 38)

  1. Depressed mood most of the day.
  2. Loss of interest or pleasure (in all or most activities, most of the day).
  3. Large increases or decreases in appetite (significant weight loss or gain).
  4. Insomnia or excessive sleeping (hypersomnia).
  5. Restlessness as evident by hand wringing and similar other activities (psychomotor agitation) or slowness of movement (psychomotor retardation).
  6. Fatigue or loss of energy.
  7. Feelings of worthlessness, or excessive or inappropriate guilt.
  8. Diminished ability to concentrate or indecisiveness.
  9. Recurrent thoughts of death or suicide.

On page 40 of this national health priority report the following information is provided:

 Box 2.2: Summary of risk and protective factors associated with depression (Chapter 2, page 40)

 Risk factors: Environmental and social

 Social disadvantage (e.g. poverty, unemployment)                                                                                                                        

Protective factors: Environmental and social

  1. Good interpersonal relationships (e.g. supportive relationship with at least one person/parent, perceived social support)
  2.  So how does either “breaching” someone and leaving them totally destitute constitute “a supportive relationship”?
  3. How also does running someone through the administrative appeals machine after hitting them for thousands of dollars for a mistake that was in probability a Centrelink error and therefore does not have to be repaid?
  4. What is happening with both “Breaching” and Centrelink’s attempts to recover some $5 BILLION (see my last posting) is that the health and safety of people who have been over-paid is not considered a ‘relevant’ issue, which explains why those responsible for these homicides consider them to be “irrelevant”.
  5. Social disadvantage is the primary factor in suicides, a fact known since 1990, and ignored every time an impoverished person is breached or subjected to a tort claim by Centrelink.

THE MINDSET OF MURDER

As Justice Brooking stated in R v Faure [1999] VSCA 166 (24 September 1999) at 29: The second additional point worth mentioning concerns the case of reckless murder. The crime requires knowledge that it is probable that death or grievous bodily harm will result from the act. The requisite state of mind is predicated upon an objective fact – a probability. It is reasonably foreseeable that tortious conduct by the Federal Government, for any reason, can kill. These torts effectively bastardize the Briginshaw principle by wilfully and recklessly placing vulnerable people in extreme danger.

This brief news item underscores the willingness of federal governments to ignore not mere the Briginshaw principle, but also human rights obligations that are protected by the constitution, statute law and international treaties, i.e. the Right to Life.

Tiser pg5_1-5-2015           (Source: The Advertiser. Page 5. 1st May 2015)

Paragraph 5 of the constitution states the laws of the Commonwealth shall be binding on the Courts, judges, and the people. The right to life is enshrined in Schedule 2 of the Human Rights Act and no government or politicians had the jurisdiction or right to suspend this most fundamental of rights. However, as the above news article makes quite clear, “The guidelines, which instruct police officers to consider the possibility of the death penalty before giving information to foreign police have been reinstated.”

There was never any jurisdiction right or authority for any government, or for any politician, to suspend the “guidelines”, which were in fact statute laws under Schedule 2 of the Human Rights Act and s 115 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act. The unconstitutional, unlawful act of “suspending” these laws also bastardized the Briginshaw Principle and as a direct consequence of these violations of the constitution, statute laws and natural justice principles, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran were executed on April 29th 2015.

  1. The legal situation in regard to their deaths is that in 2005, the Australian Federal Police broke the law and as a result, 2 people died.
  2. Although the Bali 9 may have been smuggling drugs, that is not a death penalty sentence in Australia, and the Federal Police officers broke the law when the blew the whistle on the Bali 9 knowing that all 9 could possibly be executed.
  3. What the Federal Police did not expect was that the arrest of the Bali 9 would turn into a 10-year long international media event of disastrous proportions.
  4. The Abbott Government tried, post-crime, to “legitimize” this criminal misconduct which was quite probably a violation of s 115 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, with the unconstitutional “guidelines” that had nothing to do with upholding the law or the constitution.
  5. Do not kid yourselves; you cannot uphold the law by breaking the law – is like being a prostitute to preserve your virginity – it just does not work when you do that!

If those who govern our nation are prepared to violate the constitution, statute laws and international human rights treaties, it is not a great leap of logic to conclude that some senior public servants who work under the leadership of these politicians may have the same mindset.

The possibility that the Secretary of the Department of Social Services withheld evidence in order win  tort actions against welfare recipients is a frightening spectre that must be given very serious consideration.

If I am correct in my assessment of suicide statistics, the unreported, secretly classified death toll from “Breaching” and Centrelink’s “Waivergate” rip-off is probably somewhere in the range of 15,000 – 60,000 death s from all causes.

The question for all readers who receive a welfare payment, or have ever received a welfare payment, is the frightening question, who’s next. Please, read the following news article that I posted a couple of days ago and ask yourself this question, are they calling you a “cheater, i.e. are you one of the 1,100,00 people being “hunted”?

26-11-15 welfare cheaters page 9

 

11-05-10 ACC refusal

“federally relevant serious organized criminal activity” Both “Breaching” and the “Waivergate” rip-off fit in this category. The only problem is that these crimes are “governemt approved” and so the cops, and everyone who should stop this criminal activity think that it is okay.

It is not! Breaching is an act of Persecution under Article 7 (2) of the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court of Justice whilst the deaths are MURDER under article 7 (1)

NEXT POSTING: The role of the Office of the Ombudsman in NOT HELPING to stop this holocaust.

Ron Medlicott – Christian lay advocate for justice in Australia.

 

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

Part 12: Australia’s “irrelevant” crimes against humanity. How HELLICAR could protect 1.1 million welfare recipients from becoming victims of the Waivergate scam.

26-11-15 welfare cheaters page 9

 

“Waivergate” is my name for Centrelink ripping off vulnerable, ill-informed welfare recipients who do not know their rights and are therefore “fair game.” As the news article “Top cops hunt welfare cheaters” reveals, Centrelink and federal police have 1.1 million people in their sights because they have been overpaid almost $5 BILLION.

  1. To believe that all of those people were in the wrong and that Centrelink with its poorly trained, overworked staff and a clapped out 30-year old computer system never made a single mistake is bunkum.
  2. Most of the over-payments were caused by Centrelink errors and do not have to be repaid.
  3. However, the top bureaucrats who run Centrelink are not keen to own up to the problems within their system. It is a case of no-one  wants to own up to problems that have resulted in over-paying Australia’s poorest people an extra $5 BILLION?
  4. The solution to the over-payments problem? Dead simple, just tell everyone that all of these  welfare recipients ripped you off, (this is called Deflection, also known as blame-the-victim), and then rip-off the welfare recipients to get it back by violating their civil rights, e.g. the presumption of innocence!
  5. Is that legal? No way; but they have been getting away with this for years simply because, unlike 8-year kids in the USA, as a school teacher I am ashamed to admit that most people in Australia DO NOT KNOW THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS because we do not teach these rights as they do in the USA.

[NOTE: The URL for this web page is   http://wp.me/p1n8TZ-qW  ]

In order to get that $5 Billion back, Centrelink arbitrarily decides that it is the fault of all of these “rorter” and then demands the money back. However, a couple of High Court decisions have the potential to ‘bung a spanner in the works’ for people who read this posting and thus know their civil rights. These 2 crucial  High Court decisions are:

  1. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA17  which was handed down on May 3rd 2012. The High Court ruled that:

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

 Minister for Immigration & Cultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] 209 CLR 597, where 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.”

BHARDWAJ: (Check out paragraph 53 above) Download from here:

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

Centrelink personnel may find that you have been overpaid but it is for a

WHAT DO THESE DECISIONS MEAN? Basically, they mean good news for welfare recipients and bad news for the government.

HELLICAR DECISION: (Check out paragraphs 141 and 143) Download from: http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/HCA/2002/11.html

It is for a court, not Centrelink, to work out WHY you were overpaid. Despite what legislation the Federal parliament may have set in place, Centrelink staff have no constitutional jurisdiction to decide that you, very conveniently, are at fault.

Since Centrelink have no jurisdiction to decide the facts of matter that apply in an individual’s case, e.g. YOU, there can be no decision. If you get an “Account payable” letter without a court having decided the facts of the matter, you are being defrauded and should file a police complaint citing these 2 laws:

‘Abuse of Power’ – s142 (1)(b)(i) & (ii) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act (1995).

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

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

(Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years)

 

Division 149—Obstruction of Commonwealth public officials

149.1 Obstruction of Commonwealth public officials

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

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

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

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

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

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

 So, if you get a phone call telling you that you have been overpaid and need to pay it back, or receive a letter like the one below, the solution is to ask “which court made the decision that it was my fault?”

Carolyn

 

This is an excellent example of the s 142, “Abuse of power” law. Remember, this is 

  • “A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if
  • (b) the official does so with the intention of
  • (i) dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; (The Federal Government), or:
  • (ii) dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.(Ripping you off.)
  • It carries a penalty of imprisonment for 5 years for Centrelink staff who try this one on.

HOW CAN I REMEMBER ALL OF THIS STUFF RON?

EASY:

  1. Right click on your mouse and save this webpage to your desktop screen where you find it easily.
  2. Copy and page this web posting into a Word or Wordpad file and save it to your desktop.

Note: if you live in Adelaide and have been so foolish as to appeal, phone me on 04386 26811 and I may be able to provide you with practice help in  persuading Centrelink to stop trying to trying abuse your civil rights and rip you off.

Ron Medlicott – Christian lay advocate for justice in Australia.

 

 

 

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

Part 11: Australia’s “irrelevant” Crimes against Humanity:- “…“…the matter should proceed to trial on that date”.

“…the matter should proceed to trial on that date” said the Crown Law lawyer representing the Department of Social Security.

“Thank you” said the presiding Administrative Appeals Tribunal Member who then moved on to discuss whether or not another conference on the matter was merited so that I could be “brought up to speed” on the case.

So, what’s the big deal about that those comments? The answer to that question is provided by the statement below. This was made by a judge who was giving a speech to lawyers about the powers of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

“Keeping the AAT from Becoming a Court:” The Hon. Justice Duncan Kerr Chev LH

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

AIAL (NSW) Seminar, Sydney 27 August 2013

A year after the above statement about the “separation of powers”, we have a Crown Law lawyer saying at an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Directions hearing that “…the matter should proceed to trial”.

My message to The Hon. Justice Duncan Kerr Chev LH and the lawyers who attended that seminar, is tough luck judge, regardless of what the constitution, the law, the courts and judges like yourself may say, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is being run as a court system and has been doing so for yonks!

How could this have happened?

Here are a couple of clues:

CLUE #1: The statement below statement was made by D G Jarvis LL.B.(Hons) FAICD; Deputy President, Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Administrative Law Seminar conducted by the Law Society of South Australia on 16 March 2007.

“The structure of the Tribunal is based on the judicial model, in that it has power to summons witnesses and documents,[1] to receive evidence on oath or affirmation,[2] to direct parties to attend a conference,[3] and to require documents to be lodged.[4] Further, the parties are entitled to be represented,[5] and the Tribunal is required to give reasons for its decision.”[6]

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

[MY  TRANSLATION OF THAT:] The Federal Parliament set up the AAT “like a court” but without the constitutional powers of a court because the constitution does not allow administrative and legal decision making to mix. Like most things devised by politicians, in theory it sounds good, but in practice it not so good, i.e. it is a stuff-up!

CLUE #2: The next statement below comes from “Appearing Before the AAT : a Non-adversarial Approach.” The Hon. Justice Deirdre O’Connor. New South Wales Bar Association Seminar, Monday 10 May 1999.

Sir Gerard Brennan, when marking the 20th anniversary of the AAT, remarked that the AAT has always been in a curious position straddling the divide between executive power and the exercise of judicial power. He noted that this allowed two possible paths of development for the AAT – the administrative model or the judicial model. He readily acknowledges that under his Presidency the AAT followed a judicial model.”

http://www.aat.gov.au/about-the-aat/engagement/speeches-and-papers/the-honourable-justice-deirdre-oconnor-former-pr/appearing-before-the-aat-a-non-adversarial-appro

[MY COMMENT:] There is an old saying that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

When he was the President of the Administrative Appeals tribunal, Judge Brennan apparently decided that since he was the proverbial King of the castle, that he would do things his way. Being a highly respected judge with a long and distinguished career in the legal professional, it was only natural that Judge Brennan would mold the newly established tribunal into something consistent with his vast professional experience and his personal values, i.e. a quasi-court system.

Here is what the Administrative Appeals tribunal Act actually says:

2A  Tribunal’s objective

                   In carrying out its functions, the Tribunal must pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that:

                     (a)  is accessible; and

                     (b)  is fair, just, economical, informal and quick; and

                     (c)  is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matter; and

                     (d)  promotes public trust and confidence in the decision‑making of the Tribunal.

 Note part (b) that the Tribunal must be “fair”, “just” and “informal”. So where in this criteria is there  any leeway to set up a quasi-court system that is “accessible” to people on the dole who cannot afford lawyers.

When it comes to “quick”, it is a case of “To whom the benefit”? It is most certainly a “quick” system for the federal Government when trying to claw back Commonwealth error over-payments that the government has no legal right to reclaim because of the Waiver of debt due Commonwealth error law in paragraph 1,237(A) of the Social Security Act.

  1. As the example detailed in pages 25 -29 of the 26th February 2015 Hansard Minutes of the Australian senate’s Community Affairs Legislation Committee reveal, the Secretary of the Department of Human Services (Ms Kathryn Campbell) has spent $565,000 trying to recover the sum of about $5,700 from a welfare recipient!
  2. Just how ell does that fit in with  the statutory obligation to be “economical”?
  3. “Quick”? Certainly for a team of Crown Law lawyers who club together and pool their knowledge, and then with the taxpayers funded administrative support of legal secretaries, photo-copiers, et cetera then whip a massive “Statement of facts and Issues ” that is about 300 -400 pages in length!
  4. Where is the “fairness” in having spent, on average according to Ms Campbell, some $25,000 of taxpayers money on preparing this case with its massive Statement of Facts and Issues, it is dumped upon a poverty stricken welfare recipient who has to survive on $37.20 a day?
  5. There is no fairness or justice in this unconstitutional work-around to a fair trial as is required by Article 14 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights which specifies that people are entitled to a fair trial.

The ultimate abuse in this system, apart from the withholding of evidence such as telephone recordings of who said what when people report their income to Centrelink, is the injustice that i highlighted in my previous posting, i.e. the High Court’s Hellicar Decision on May 3rd 2012:- Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17 at  Paragraph 143

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

  1. Do you get the implication in the last line?
  2. Deciding the facts of a case is a court’s task, not a task for a regulatory authority.”
  3. Centrelink may decide that a welfare recipient has been overpaid, but it is a matter for the courts to determine who was responsible for the cause of those over-payments.
  4. In paragraph 141, the High Court also determined“…that the public interest can only be served if the case advanced on behalf of [a] regulatory agency does in fact represent the truth in the sense that the facts relied upon as primary facts actually occurred.”
  5. Centrelink cannot withhold evidence as is call too commonly the case. In fact, the AAT Act actually requires that all relevant evidence be tabled for consideration, even the stuff that blows Centrelink’s case out of the water:
  6. 37  Lodging of material documents with Tribunal – Scope    (1AAA)  This section does not apply to a proceeding in the Security Division to which section 39A applies.Decision‑maker must lodge statement of reasons and relevant documentsDecision‑maker must lodge material documents

                 (1)  Subject to this section, a person who has made a decision that is the subject of an application for review (other than second review) by the Tribunal must, within 28 days after receiving notice of the application (or within such further period as the Tribunal allows), lodge with the Tribunal a copy of:

                         (a)  a statement setting out the findings on material questions of fact, referring to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based and giving the reasons for the decision; and

                         (b)  subject to any directions given under section 18B, every other document that is in the person’s possession or under the person’s control and is relevant to the review of the decision by the Tribunal.

The law, as set out above, requires that “documents’ which can include audio or video recordings, MUST, with 28 days after receiving notice of the application” lodge a copy withe tribunal. under the Evidence Act rules, this must then be provided to the applicant, e.g. the welfare recipient who lodged the appeal.

  1. In the case that am involved in, all efforts to obtain the audio recording of the conversation at the centre of the dispute have proved futile. Despite my hammering home the point to the Tribunal that there was “no factual certainty” in the case, the AAT Member running the case allowed it to go to “trial” without the recording just 28 days later.
  2. What sort of justice is it when Centrelink can be allowed to violate the law and withhold evidence? This is a very serious crime under 142.2 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act, i.e. it is literally an  Abuse of public office

         (1)  A Commonwealth public official is guilty of an offence if:

                 (a)  the official:

                        (i)  exercises any influence that the official has in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; or

                       (ii)  engages in any conduct in the exercise of the official’s duties as a Commonwealth public official; or

                      (iii)  uses any information that the official has obtained in the official’s capacity as a Commonwealth public official; and

                (b)  the official does so with the intention of:

                        (i)  dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself or herself or for another person; or

                       (ii)  dishonestly causing a detriment to another person.

Penalty:           Imprisonment for 5 years.

Paragraph 2 (d) of the AAT Act requires that “the proceedings of the  promotes public trust and confidence in the decision‑making of the Tribunal.”

Ask yourself this, what sort of justice is it that upholds Centrelink decisions when:

  1. Centrelink has no constitutional authority to make judgements that are literally the constitutional jurisdiction of the courts;
  2. Withhold evidence in violation of federal laws?
  3. Swears in welfare recipients, but the Secretary of Centrelink who is responsible for the original claim is no-where in sight!
  4. Ignores human rights that are protected by statute law, e.g. Schedule 2 of the Human Rights Act?
  5. Only questions welfare recipients but does not ask questions about counter-claims by welfare recipients, e.g. my statement that“In the 10-year period from 1st January 1997 until the 31st December 2006, there were 20,914 suicides[1]; a significant percentage of which were unemployed people. It is not possible to state precisely how many were post breaching fatalities because Centrelink does not collect the data, the Federal Parliament has secretly classified the death toll as “confidential” and “irrelevant”… the Australian Federal Police has refused to investigate [these deaths] because of the “gravity/sensitivity”.[1] Due to a calculation error, this statement incorrectly under-stated the true death toll which was 23,254.    Approximately 1 in 3 suicides, i.e. about 7,700 of these people were unemployed at the time. –Do not kid yourself, I was accusing the Howard Government of mass murder and the tribunal Member had the power to order centrelink to hand over the statistical data that would confirm or refute that statement. Instead the Tribunal Member ignored these statements!
  6. Why was this so? Could it have been because the death toll was already known to the Member, and since they are crimes against humanity, the Member was not going to reveal these fatalities in a federal “trial” because of the massive national and international ramifications that the Victorian Coroner, Judge Ian L Gray, referred to in his letter to me dated 28 October 2014:Judge Gray

Based upon my experience over the last year, it be most unwise, indeed, extremely foolish to presume that the AAT’s unconstitutional ‘quasi-court’ system of justice will deliver fair and impartial justice. If what the welfare recipient that I was trying to help and myself experienced is the normal “thing” with the AAT, the best advice that I can give is that if Centrelink ever overpays you and demands the money back, simply say:

“It was probably your fault and you’ll have to take me to court and prove it there. In the meantime, send me everything that you have including the recordings of my phone calls to Centrelink. It is my constitutional right and lawful right to ask for these things, so respect them.”

REMEMBER: YOU HAVE THE  LEGAL RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, SO ONLY STICK TO THE SCRIPT ABOVE. IF YOU CAN’T REMEMBER IT, SAY NOTHING AT ALL.

Ronald Medlicott – Christian lay advocate for justice in Australia.

P.S. – if a member of your family died after being breached or hit with one of Centrelink’s fraudulent “Account payable” letters, you should consider legal action against Centrelink. In 2010, the WA Government paid $3.2 Million for the unintended but negligent death of Ian Ward. How much an “irrelevant” post breaching or tort triggered death is worth is beyond my judgement but I suspect it would be far more that Ian Ward’s family received. With a possible death toll in the range of 15,000 – 60,000, that is one heck of a massive taxpayer funded compo’ bill. [Lawyers take note!]

 

 

[1]         s 40(1A).

[2]         s 40(2).

[3]         s 34.

[4]         ss 37(2) and 38.

[5]         s 32.

[6]         s 43.

 

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